Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Georgetown and Salado Salamanders, 57578-57613 [2020-17921]

Download as PDF 57578 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201] RIN 1018–BE78 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Georgetown and Salado Salamanders Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; revisions and reopening of comment period. AGENCY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are revising our proposed designation of critical habitat for the Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia) and Salado salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis) in Bell and Williamson Counties, Texas. Based on published genetic analyses, we are revising the distribution of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders and are adjusting previously proposed critical habitat units accordingly. We also propose changes to our description of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. We propose a total of approximately 1,519 acres (ac) (622 hectares (ha)) of critical habitat for the species in Bell and Williamson Counties, Texas. The total amount of critical habitat we are proposing for both salamanders has increased by approximately 116 ac (47 ha). The reasons for this increase are the addition of a new occupied site for the Salado salamander and refined mapping of previously proposed critical habitat units based on more precise spring locations. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the revised proposed designation of critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before November 16, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by October 30, 2020. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods: (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS–R2–ES–2020– 0048, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 3803. We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on https:// www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Information Requested, below, for more information). Availability of supporting materials: For the critical habitat designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated are included in the administrative record and are available at https:// www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ AustinTexas/ESA_Sp_ Salamanders.html and at https:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048. Any additional tools or supporting information that we may develop for the critical habitat designation will also be available at the Service website set out above, and may also be included in the preamble of this document and/or at https://www.regulations.gov. 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. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ADDRESSES: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Executive Summary Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we must designate critical habitat for any species that we determine to be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species and designation of PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule. What this document does. We are revising and reopening the comment period for our proposed designation of critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. We have determined that designating critical habitat, both subsurface and surface, is both prudent and determinable for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. In this document, we propose a total of approximately 1,519 acres (ac) (622 hectares (ha)) of subsurface and surface critical habitat for the species in Bell and Williamson Counties, Texas. The basis for our action. Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We prepared an economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we have prepared an economic analysis for the revised proposed critical habitat designation. We hereby announce the availability of the economic analysis and seek public review and comment. We will seek peer review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we are seeking the expert opinions of independent specialists to ensure that our critical habitat proposal is based on scientifically sound data and analyses. We invite these peer reviewers to comment on our specific assumptions and conclusions in this revised proposal to designate critical habitat. Because we will consider all comments and E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules information we receive during the comment period, our final designation may differ from this proposal. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Information Requested We intend that any final action resulting from this revised proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties during this reopened comment period on our proposed designation of critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders that was published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50768), revisions to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5385), and this revised proposed rule. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. We request that you provide comments specifically on the critical habitat determination and related economic analysis under Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048. We particularly seek comments concerning: (1) The species’ biology, range, and population trends, including: (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering; (b) Genetics and taxonomy; (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns; (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both. (2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors. (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats. (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, including the locations of any additional populations of this species. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 (5) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may be not prudent: (a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species; (b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species’ habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or threats to the species’ habitat stem solely from causes that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act; (c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or (d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat. (6) Specific information on: (a) The amount and distribution of Georgetown and Salado salamander habitat, (b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and why, (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change, and (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments: (i) Regarding whether occupied areas are inadequate for the conservation of the species; and (ii) Providing specific information regarding whether or not unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. (7) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat. (8) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding specific areas. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 57579 (9) Information on the extent to which the description of probable economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts. (10) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. (11) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments. Because we will consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period, our final designation may differ from this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on that new information), our final designation may not include all areas proposed, may include some additional areas, and may exclude some areas if we find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. Such final decisions would be a logical outgrowth of this proposal, as long as: (1) We base the decisions on the best scientific and commercial data available and take into consideration the relevant impacts; (2) we articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions made, including why we changed our conclusion; and (3) we base removal of any areas on a determination either that the area does not meet the definition of ‘‘critical habitat’’ or that the benefits of excluding the area will outweigh the benefits of including it in the designation. You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.’’ E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 57580 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 If you submitted comments or information on the August 22, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50768) or during any other comment period, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we received during previous comment periods as well as the comment period that opened when this proposed rule published. You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via https:// www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov. Public Hearing Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service’s website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual public hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). Previous Federal Actions It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders in this document. For more information on VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 the Georgetown and Salado salamanders, their habitat, or previous Federal actions, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10236), which is available online at https:// www.regulations.gov (at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035). On August 22, 2012, we proposed to list the Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia), Salado salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis), Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae), and Austin blind salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) as endangered species and to designate critical habitat for these species under the Act (77 FR 50768). We proposed to designate approximately 1,031 acres (ac) (423 hectares (ha)) in 14 units located in Williamson County, Texas, as critical habitat for the Georgetown salamander, and approximately 372 ac (152 ha) in 4 units located in Bell County, Texas, as critical habitat for the Salado salamander. That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending October 22, 2012. We held a public meeting and hearing in Round Rock, Texas, on September 5, 2012, and a second public meeting and hearing in Austin, Texas, on September 6, 2012. On January 25, 2013, we revised the locations of proposed critical habitat units 2, 3, 5, 8, and 12 for the Georgetown salamander based on new information (78 FR 5385). We reopened the public comment period for 45 days to allow comments on the revisions to the proposed critical habitat and the draft economic analysis. On August 20, 2013, we extended the deadline for our final listing and critical habitat determination for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders for 6 months due to scientific disagreements regarding conservation status of these species and reopened the comment periods on our August 22, 2012 and January 25, 2013 proposals for 30 days (78 FR 51129). In addition, we announced the availability of new information and reopened those comment periods for an additional 30 days on January 7, 2014 (79 FR 800). On February 24, 2014, we (1) finalized the listing of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders as threatened species under the Act (79 FR 10236); and (2) proposed a rule under section 4(d) of the Act (a proposed ‘‘4(d) rule’’) containing regulations necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander, with a 60-day public comment period, ending April 25, 2014 (79 FR 10077). On April 9, 2015, we revised the proposed 4(d) rule for the Georgetown salamander and reopened the public PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 comment period for 30 days, ending May 11, 2015 (80 FR 19050). We finalized the 4(d) rule for the Georgetown salamander on August 7, 2015 (80 FR 47418). Peer Review In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions regarding our proposed listing and critical habitat rule (77 FR 50768; August 22, 2012) from 22 knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise concerning the hydrology, taxonomy, and ecology that is important to these salamander species. We requested expert opinions from taxonomists specifically to review the proposed rule in light of an unpublished report by Forstner (2012, entire) that questioned the taxonomic validity of the four central Texas salamanders as separate species. We received responses from 13 of the peer reviewers. During the first comment period, we received some contradictory public comments, and we also found new information relative to the listing determination. For these reasons, we conducted a second peer review on: (1) Salamander demographics, and (2) urban development and stream habitat. During this second peer review, we solicited expert opinions from 20 knowledgeable individuals with expertise in the two areas identified above. We received responses from eight peer reviewers during this second review. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final listing and critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments were addressed and incorporated into the final listing rule as appropriate. Finally, we are seeking peer review for a third time from independent specialists on this revised proposed rule during the open comment period (see DATES, above). Critical Habitat Background Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules (b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated around species’ occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part of the species’ life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals). Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking. Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Designation also does not allow the government or public to access private lands, nor does designation require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they must implement ‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Under the first prong of the Act’s definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas, we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. Under the second prong of the Act’s definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition, for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 57581 Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process for the species and summarized in the listing rule. Additional information sources may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or experts’ opinions or personal knowledge. Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species. E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 57582 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome. Prudency Determination Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be prudent in the following circumstances: (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species; (ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species’ habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or threats to the species’ habitat stem solely from causes that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act; (iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; (iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or (v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data available. As discussed in the final listing rule for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders (79 FR 10236; February 24, 2014), there is currently no imminent threat of collection or vandalism identified under Factor B for these species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such threat. In our final listing rule, we determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a threat to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders and that those threats in some way can be addressed by section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. These species occur wholly in the jurisdiction of the United States, and we are able to identify areas that meet the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 definition of critical habitat. Therefore, because none of the circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have been met and because there are no other circumstances the Secretary has identified for which this designation of critical habitat would be not prudent, we have determined that the designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. Critical Habitat Determinability Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist: (i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to identify any area that meets the definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological needs of the species and habitat characteristics where these species are located. This and other information represent the best scientific data available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical habitat is determinable for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. Changes From Previously Proposed Critical Habitat In this revised proposal, we are notifying the public of changes to the proposed critical habitat designation for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. Based on additional information we received during the comment period on our January 25, 2013, revised proposed critical habitat rule (78 FR 5383) and on research published since 2013, we propose to reassign some critical habitat units previously proposed for the Georgetown salamander to the Salado salamander, expand critical habitat, and refine mapped locations of specific spring sites. In addition, based on public comment, we separated the summary of essential physical or biological features (formerly primary constituent elements) for both salamander species into surface and subsurface habitat categories and added additional details in order to clarify habitat needs of both species. We also propose changes to our description PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Research conducted since our initial proposed critical habitat designation (77 FR 50768; August 22, 2012) assessed population structure, phylogeny, and distribution of multiple Eurycea species across the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer of west-central Texas through analyses of genome-wide DNA (Devitt et al. 2019a, entire). The results of this work have significant implications for the distribution of the many central Texas Eurycea species, including the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. Salado salamanders from the Salado Creek watershed retained their genetic distinctiveness as a species. Salamanders from the Berry Creek watershed, formerly considered as the Georgetown salamander, were more genetically similar to the Salado salamander and assigned to that species (Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,629). This reassignment of populations expands the range of the Salado salamander and reduces the range of the Georgetown salamander to those spring sites south and east of Lake Georgetown in the North and Middle Forks of the San Gabriel River watershed (Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,629). A single salamander collected from Georgetown Springs, long considered as the Georgetown salamander, was more genetically similar to the Jollyville Plateau salamander and assigned to that species (Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,629). This Jollyville Plateau salamander population may no longer be extant, as salamanders have not been observed at Georgetown Springs since 1991 (Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,629). In summation, this information changed our understanding of current ranges of both species, with the current range of the Georgetown salamander considered as south and east of Lake Georgetown in the North and Middle Forks of the San Gabriel River watershed, and the Salado salamander occurring north of Lake Georgetown to the Salado Creek watershed (Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,629). Based on analyses from Devitt et al. (2019a, p. 2,629), Units 1, 2, 3, and 5 of previously proposed critical habitat for the Georgetown salamander are now assigned to the Salado salamander. Researchers, including Devitt et al. (2019b, pp. 4, 13), have not genetically assessed salamanders from previously proposed critical habitat Unit 4, Walnut Spring for the Georgetown salamander. Walnut Spring is located north of Lake Georgetown and west of Twin Springs, a site sampled by Devitt et al. (2019b, pp. 13–14) and assigned to the Salado salamander rather than the Georgetown E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules salamander. Given Walnut Spring’s location north of Lake Georgetown, we consider that spring as a site inhabited by the Salado salamander. We propose to treat Walnut Spring as a critical habitat unit for the Salado salamander and not the Georgetown salamander, with no change in amount of critical habitat at Walnut Spring. Analyses by Devitt et al. (2019a, p. 2,629) further indicate that the Eurycea population at Georgetown Springs, previously assigned to the Georgetown salamander (Chippindale et al. 2000), should instead be assigned to the Jollyville Plateau salamander. This site would represent the northern-most record of the Jollyville Plateau salamander in Williamson County. We propose to remove Georgetown Springs, previously proposed as Unit 14 (San Gabriel Springs Unit) of critical habitat for the Georgetown salamander, from further consideration in this proposed rule given the site is now recognized as occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander (Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,629). Based on additional information we received during the comment period on our January 25, 2013, publication (78 FR 5383), we propose to expand the extent of surface critical habitat for both the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. In the August 22, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 50768), surface critical habitat was delineated by starting with the cave or spring point locations that are occupied by the salamanders and extending a line downstream 164 feet (ft) (50 meters (m)), as this was the farthest a salamander has been observed from a spring outlet. However, we are revising the proposed surface critical habitat to include 262 ft (80 m) of stream habitat upstream and downstream from known salamander sites. This revision is based on a study completed by Bendik et al. (2016, p. 9) that found Jollyville Plateau salamander movement occurring up to 262 ft (80 m) from a spring outlet in a single year and the presence of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in the unit. Due to their similar life histories, this knowledge was applied to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. Because the surface designation overlays, or is contained within, the subsurface critical habitat, this expansion did not increase the total acreage of critical habitat for either species. An additional observation from Bendik et al. (2016, p. 9) at Bull Creek in Travis County provided evidence that Jollyville Plateau salamanders can travel up to 1,640 ft (500 m) from a spring outlet over multiple years. However, the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 unique hydrology where that observation was made leads us to conclude that it should not be extrapolated to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. The area of Bull Creek where this particular observation was made is known for its alluvial deposits (COA 2012, p. 6), which discharge spring water through nonobvious seeps, instead of open springheads (SWCA 2012, p. 77). This type of hydrology seems to create suitable habitat for salamanders along long stretches of streams, rather than a short stretch of springwater-influenced habitat following an open spring outlet (Bendik 2013, pers. comm.). We have no information indicating that any Georgetown or Salado salamander sites function in the same manner as these Bull Creek alluvial resurgence areas. As currently known, Georgetown and Salado salamanders do not have access to the same extent or nature of aquatic surface habitat as the Jollyville Plateau salamander (Pierce at al. 2010, pp. 14– 15). Therefore, we conclude that the 1,640 ft (500 m) distance traveled by a Jollyville Plateau salamander is an observation unique to the hydrological setting and does not apply to the Georgetown or Salado salamander sites. New information we received during the comment period on our January 25, 2013, publication (78 FR 5383) identified new Georgetown salamander populations and provided additional data that allowed critical habitat units to be mapped more precisely. As critical habitat units were shifted from the Georgetown salamander to the Salado salamander, based on Devitt et al. (2019, entire), critical habitat units for both species were re-numbered. New locations for Salado salamander were also discovered through sampling efforts after January 25, 2013. Georgetown and Salado salamanders are restricted to subterranean spaces in aquifers and on the surface to springs and associated outflow where groundwater emerges from the underlying aquifer emerges. They are not capable of unaided, longdistance surface dispersal between isolated springs given their aquatic life history. Most springs in Bell and Williamson counties, and their underlying aquifer connections, are historical landscape features that predate European settlement of the North American continent (Brune 1981, pp. 65–69, 473–476). Given their limited mobility, and the long-term presence of springs across this landscape, both species certainly occupied these additional locations at the time of listing in 2014 (79 FR 10235). Springs within the Robertson Springs complex, PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 57583 occupied by the Salado salamander, were also mapped to a greater level of detail. We, therefore, propose the following additions and adjustments to specific critical habitat units for these salamander species. Revision of the Hogg Hollow Spring unit of critical habitat for the Georgetown salamander involves the addition of a new location 1,207 ft (368 m) southeast of Hogg Hollow Spring. As the subsurface habitat of these two locations overlapped, we merged them into one critical habitat unit. Formerly critical habitat Unit 6, the Hogg Hollow Spring unit is renumbered as critical habitat Unit 2 for the Georgetown salamander. We also added an additional Georgetown salamander location (Garey Ranch Spring) 3.4 miles (mi) (5.4 kilometers (km)) southwest of Shadow Canyon Spring. Revision of the IH–35 Unit (Unit 4) of critical habitat for the Salado salamander includes finer-scale mapping of spring openings within this unit and the addition of new locations for the species at Anderson Spring and Side Spring (Diaz and Montagne 2017, p. 6). A new location for the Salado salamander was also identified at King’s Garden Main Spring (Unit 5) by Cambrian (2018, pp. 5–6). Individuals from this site were not sampled by Devitt et al. (2019a, entire), but the site’s location north of Lake Georgetown places it within the current range of the Salado salamander defined by Devitt et al. (2019a, p. 2,629). We moved the boundaries of critical habitat at Bat Well Cave (formerly Georgetown salamander critical habitat Unit 3 and renumbered as Salado salamander critical habitat Unit 10) approximately 328 ft (100 m) to the northeast, based on information that stated this is where salamanders were found in the cave underground (Hunter and Russell 1993, p. 7–8). We also re-evaluated Cobbs Well and concluded that this location is part of the same population of Salado salamanders (formerly Georgetown salamanders) as Cobbs Springs rather than its own separate subsurface population, due to its proximity to Cobbs Springs (within the 984-ft (300m) subsurface habitat of Cobbs Springs). We, therefore, removed Cobbs Well as a separate occupied location from proposed Salado salamander critical habitat Unit 6 (formerly Georgetown salamander critical habitat Unit 1), reducing the subsurface critical habitat acreage for this unit from 83 ac (34 ha) to 68 ac (28 ha). Cobbs Well is still contained within Unit 6 for the Salado salamander. For the Georgetown salamander, these proposed revisions decrease the total E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 57584 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 proposed critical habitat designation by five units and approximately 300 ac (124 ha). The total number of proposed critical habitat units, landownership by type, and size of the proposed critical habitat units for the Georgetown salamander are presented in Table 1, below. For the Salado salamander, these proposed revisions increase the total proposed critical habitat designation by six units and approximately 415 ac (171 ha). The total number of proposed critical habitat units, landownership by type, and size of the proposed critical habitat units for the Salado salamander are presented in Table 2, below. The total amount of critical habitat we are proposing for both salamanders has increased by approximately 116 ac (47 ha). The reasons for this increase are the addition of a new occupied site for the Salado salamander and refined mapping of previously proposed critical habitat units based on more precise spring locations. Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the Species In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. The regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ‘‘physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species’’ as the features that occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, physical features essential to the conservation of the species might include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkali soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. Biological VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 features might include prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential to support the life history of the species. In considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance. Based on public comment, we separated the summary of essential physical or biological features (formerly primary constituent elements) for these salamander species into surface and subsurface habitat categories and added additional details in order to clarify habitat needs of both species. We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders from studies of the species’ habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50768), and in the information presented below. Additional information can be found in the final listing rule for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders (79 FR 10236; February 24, 2014). Observational and experimental studies on the habitat requirements of Georgetown and Salado salamanders are rare. In the field of aquatic ecotoxicology, it is common practice to apply the results of experiments on common species to other species that are of direct interest (Caro et al. 2005, p. 1,823). In addition, the field of conservation biology is increasingly relying on information about surrogate species to predict how related species will respond to stressors (for example, see Caro et al. 2005 pp. 1,821–1,826; Wenger 2008, p. 1,565). In instances where information was not available for the Georgetown and Salado salamander PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 specifically, we have provided references for studies conducted on similarly related species, such as the Jollyville Plateau salamander and Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum), which occur within the central Texas area, and other salamander species that occur in other parts of the United States. The similarities among these species may include: (1) A clear systematic (evolutionary) relationship (for example, members of the Family Plethodontidae); (2) shared life-history attributes (for example, the lack of metamorphosis into a terrestrial form); (3) similar morphology and physiology (for example, the lack of lungs for respiration and sensitivity to environmental conditions); (4) similar prey (for example, small invertebrate species); and (5) similar habitat and ecological requirements (for example, dependence on aquatic habitat in or near springs with a rocky or gravel substrate). Depending on the amount and variety of characteristics in which one salamander species can be analogous to another, we used these similarities as a basis to infer further parallels in what Georgetown and Salado salamanders require from their habitat. We have determined that the Georgetown and Salado salamanders require the physical or biological features described below. Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior Georgetown and Salado Salamanders The Georgetown salamander occurs in wetted caves and where water emerges from the ground as a spring-fed stream. The Salado salamander occurs where water emerges from the ground as a spring-fed stream. Within the spring ecosystem, salamanders’ proximity to the springhead is presumed important because of the appropriate stable water chemistry and temperature, substrate, and flow regime. Eurycea salamanders, which includes Georgetown and Salado salamanders, are rarely found more than 66 ft (20 m) from a spring source (TPWD 2011, p. 3). Georgetown salamanders have been found within 164 ft (50 m) of a spring opening (Pierce et al. 2011a, p. 4). However, they are most abundant within the first 16 ft (5 m) (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 294) of a spring opening. Pierce et al. (2013, p. 2) found little movement of Georgetown salamanders within two spring sites, but their study limited the search area to the first 92 ft (28 m) of the spring run. However, Jollyville Plateau salamanders, a closely related species, have been found up to 262 ft (80 m) both upstream and downstream E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules from a spring outlet (Bendik et al. 2016, p. 9). Bendik et al. (2016, p. 9) demonstrates that Eurycea salamanders, such as the Jollyville Plateau salamander, in central Texas can travel greater distances from a discrete spring opening than previously thought, including upstream areas, if suitable habitat is present. Georgetown and Salado salamanders likely use the subterranean aquifer for habitat throughout the year, similar to other Eurycea species (Bendik and Gluesenkamp 2012, pp. 4–5; Bendik et al. 2013, pp. 10–12, 15; Bendik 2017, p. 5,013; Diaz and Bronson-Warren 2018, p. 11; Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,625). Morphological forms of Georgetown salamander with cave adaptations have been found at two caves (TPWD 2011, p. 8), indicating that they spend all of their lives underground at these two locations. We assume that the Salado salamander also uses subsurface areas given recruitment of individuals to the surface from the underlying aquifer, with surface recruitment at one occupied spring opening in Bell County estimated at 0.03 salamanders per day (Diaz and Bronson-Warren 2019, p. 7). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify springs, associated streams, and underground spaces within the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer to be physical or biological features essential for individual and population growth and for normal behavior of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements Georgetown and Salado Salamanders No species-specific dietary study has been completed, but the diet of the Georgetown salamander is presumed to be similar to other Eurycea species, consisting of small aquatic invertebrates such as amphipods, copepods, isopods, and insect larvae (reviewed in COA 2001, pp. 5–6). Crustaceans from the Class Ostracoda were the most commonly observed prey item for Salado salamanders (Diaz and BronsonWarren 2018, pp. 8, 14). Other invertebrates consumed by the Salado salamander included amphipods, aquatic snails, and larvae of mayflies and caddisflies (Diaz and BronsonWarren 2018, p. 14). Flatworms were found to be the primary food source for the related Barton Springs salamander (Gillespie 2013, p. 5), suggesting that flatworms may also contribute to the diet of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders if present in the invertebrate community. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 Georgetown and Salado salamanders are strictly aquatic and spend their entire lives submersed in water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 296; Diaz and Bronson-Warren 2019, p. 7). These salamanders, and the prey that they feed on, require water sourced from the Edwards Aquifer at sufficient flows (quantity) to meet all of their physiological requirements (TPWD 2011, p. 8). This water should be flowing and unchanged in chemistry, temperature, and volume from natural conditions. Normal water temperature at two relatively undisturbed Georgetown salamander sites ranged from 64.1 to 73.1 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (17.9 to 22.9 degrees Celsius (°C)) throughout the year (Pierce 2012, pp. 7–8). Concentrations of contaminants should be below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders’ prey base). Edwards Aquifer Eurycea species are adapted to a lower ideal range of oxygen saturations compared to other salamanders (Turner 2009, p. 11). However, Eurycea salamanders need dissolved oxygen concentrations to be above a certain threshold, as the related Barton Springs salamander demonstrates declining abundance with declining dissolved oxygen levels (Turner 2009, p. 14). In addition, low dissolved oxygen concentrations (below 4.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L)) resulted in a number of physiological effects in the related San Marcos salamander including decreased metabolic rates and decreased juvenile growth rates (Woods et al. 2010, p. 544). Georgetown salamander sites are characterized by high levels of dissolved oxygen, typically 6 to 8 mg/L (Pierce and Wall 2011, p. 33). Therefore, we presume that the dissolved oxygen level of water is important to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders for respiratory function. The conductivity of water is also important to salamander physiology. Increased conductivity is associated with increased water contamination and decreased Eurycea abundance (Willson and Dorcas 2003, pp. 766–768; Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 117–118). The lower limit of observed conductivity in developed Jollyville Plateau salamander sites where salamander densities were lower than undeveloped sites was 800 micro Siemens per cm (mS/cm) (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). Salamanders were significantly more abundant at undeveloped sites where water conductivity averaged 600 mS/cm PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 57585 (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). Because of their similar physiology to the Jollyville Plateau salamander, we presume that the Georgetown and Salado salamanders will have a similar response to elevated water conductance. Normal water conductance at a relatively undisturbed Georgetown salamander site ranges from 604 to 721 mS/cm throughout the year (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 294). Although one laboratory study on the related San Marcos salamander demonstrated that conductivities up to 2,738 mS/cm had no measurable effect on adult activity (Woods and Poteet 2006, p. 5), it remains unclear how elevated water conductance might affect juveniles or the long-term health of salamanders in the wild. In the absence of better information on the sensitivity of salamanders to changes in conductivity (or other contaminants) in the wild, it is reasonable to presume that salamander survival, growth, and reproduction will be most successful when water quality is unaltered from natural aquifer conditions. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify aquatic invertebrates and water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, including adequate dissolved oxygen concentration of 6 to 8 mg/L, water conductance of 604 to 721 mS/cm, and water temperature of 64.1 to 73.1 °F (17.9 to 22.9 °C), to be physical or biological features essential for the nutritional and physiological requirements of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. Cover or Shelter Georgetown and Salado Salamanders Similar to other Eurycea salamanders in central Texas, Georgetown and Salado salamanders move an unknown depth into the interstitial spaces (empty voids between rocks) within the substrate, using these spaces for foraging habitat and cover from predators (Cole 1995, p. 24; Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. 16–17). These spaces should have minimal sediment, as sediment fills interstitial spaces, eliminating resting places and also reducing habitat of the prey base (small aquatic invertebrates) (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34). Georgetown and Salado salamanders have been observed under rocks, leaf litter, woody debris, and other cover objects (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 295; Gluesenkamp 2011a, TPWD, pers. comm.). Georgetown salamanders appear to prefer large rocks over other cover objects (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 295), which is consistent with other studies on Eurycea habitat (Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 114, 116). Although no study has E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 57586 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules demonstrated the substrate preference of the Salado salamander, we presume that this species prefers large rocks over other cover objects, similar to other closely related Eurycea salamanders. Larger rocks provide more suitable interstitial spaces for foraging and cover. If springs stop flowing and the surface habitat dries up, Jollyville Plateau salamanders recede with the water table and persist in groundwater refugia until surface flow returns (Bendik 2011a, p. 31). Access to refugia allows populations some resiliency against drought events. Due to the similar life history and habitats of the Georgetown, Salado, and Jollyville Plateau salamanders, we presume that access to subsurface refugia for shelter during drought is also important for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify rocky substrate, consisting of boulder, cobble, and gravel, with interstitial spaces that have minimal sediment, and access to the subsurface groundwater table to be physical or biological features essential for the cover and shelter for these species. Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of Offspring Georgetown and Salado Salamanders Little is known about the reproductive habits of these species in the wild. However, the Georgetown and Salado salamanders are fully aquatic, spending all of their life cycles in aquifer and spring waters. Eggs of central Texas Eurycea species are rarely seen on the surface, so it is widely assumed that eggs are laid underground (Gluesenkamp 2011a, TPWD, pers. comm.; Bendik 2011b, COA, pers. comm.). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify access to subsurface or subterranean, water-filled voids of varying sizes (e.g., caves, conduits, fractures, and interstitial spaces) to be a physical or biological feature essential for breeding and reproduction for this species. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features for the Georgetown and Salado Salamanders We derive the specific physical or biological features essential for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders from studies of these species’ habitat, ecology, and life history, as described above. We have determined that the following physical or biological features are essential to the conservation of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 Georgetown Salamander (1) For surface habitat: (A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater issuing to the surface from the underlying aquifer is similar to natural aquifer conditions as it discharges from natural spring outlets. Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants should be below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the Georgetown salamander’s prey base). The Service is unaware of any studies that specifically define the water quality constituents or contaminants that would have deleterious effects on these salamanders. Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present, with at least some surface flow during the year. The water chemistry of aquatic surface habitats is similar to natural aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 64.1 to 73.1 °F (17.9 to 22.8 °C), dissolved oxygen concentrations from 6 to 8 mg/ L, and specific water conductance from 604 to 721 mS/cm. (B) Rocky substrate with interstitial spaces. Rocks in the substrate of the salamander’s surface aquatic habitat are large enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. The substrate and interstitial spaces have minimal sedimentation. (C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The spring environment supports a diverse aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, and flatworms. (D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to the subsurface water table exists to provide shelter, protection, and space for reproduction. This access can occur in the form of large conduits that carry water to the spring outlet or porous voids between rocks in the streambed that extend down into the water table. (2) For subsurface habitat: (A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater quality is similar to natural aquifer conditions. Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants should be below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the Georgetown salamander’s prey base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present, with continuous flow. The water chemistry is similar to natural aquifer conditions, with temperatures PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 from 64.1 to 73.1 °F (17.9 to 22.8 °C), dissolved oxygen concentrations from 6 to 8 mg/L, and specific water conductance from 604 to 721 mS/cm. (B) Subsurface spaces. Voids between rocks underground are large enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. These spaces have minimal sedimentation. (C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The habitat supports an aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, or flatworms. Salado Salamander (1) For surface habitat: (A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater quality issuing to the surface from the underlying aquifer is similar to natural aquifer conditions as it discharges from natural spring outlets. Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants are below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the Salado salamander’s prey base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present, with at least some surface flow during the year. The water chemistry of aquatic surface habitats is similar to natural aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 64.1 to 73.1 °F (17.9 to 22.8 °C), dissolved oxygen concentrations from 6 to 8 mg/L, and specific water conductance from 604 to 721 mS/cm. (B) Rocky substrate with interstitial spaces. Rocks in the substrate of the salamander’s surface aquatic habitat are large enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. The substrate and interstitial spaces have minimal sedimentation. (C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The spring environment is capable of supporting a diverse aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, and flatworms. (D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to the subsurface water table exists to provide shelter, protection, and space for reproduction. This access can occur in the form of large conduits that carry water to the spring outlet or porous voids between rocks in the streambed that extend down into the water table. (2) For subsurface habitat: (A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater quality is similar to natural aquifer conditions. Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants are below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth, E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the Salado salamander’s prey base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present, with continuous flow. The water chemistry is similar to natural aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 64.1 to 73.1 °F (17.9 to 22.8 °C), dissolved oxygen concentrations from 6 to 8 mg/L, and specific water conductance from 604 to 721 mS/cm. (B) Subsurface spaces. Voids between rocks underground are large enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. These spaces have minimal sedimentation. (C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The habitat is capable of supporting an aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, or flatworms. Special Management Considerations or Protection When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The features essential to the conservation of this species may require special management considerations or protection to reduce the following threats: Water quality degradation from contaminants, alteration to natural flow regimes, and physical habitat modification. The areas proposed for critical habitat include both surface and subsurface critical habitat components. The surface critical habitat includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the high water line and 150 ft (80 m) of downstream habitat, but does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas); nor does it include upland habitat adjacent to streams. However, the subterranean aquifer may extend below such structures beneath the surface habitat. The subsurface critical habitat includes underground features in a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the springs. Most of our proposed critical habitat is a subsurface designation and only includes the physical area beneath any buildings on the surface. We detailed threats to surface and subsurface habitats in Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range of the final listing rule for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders (79 FR 10235). The VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 Georgetown and Salado salamanders are sensitive to modification of surface (i.e., spring openings and outflow) and subsurface habitats. Due to the connectivity between the surface and subsurface habitats, an impact to one will affect the other. Examples of surface habitat modifications may include (but are not limited to) damage to spring openings, sedimentation due to construction activities, and installation of impoundments. Examples of impacts to subsurface habitat may include (but are not limited to) pipeline construction, replacement, and maintenance, excavation for construction or quarrying, and groundwater depletion that can reduce spring flow. The depth of the subsurface habitat will vary from site to site. For these salamanders, special management considerations or protections may be needed to address identified threats. Management activities that could ameliorate threats to surface habitat include (but are not limited to): (1) Protecting the quality of cave and spring water by implementing comprehensive programs to control and reduce point sources and non-point sources of pollution throughout the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer; (2) minimizing the likelihood of pollution events or surface runoff from existing and future development that would affect groundwater quality; (3) protecting groundwater and spring flow quantity (for example, by implementing water conservation and drought contingency plans throughout the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer); (4) protecting water quality and quantity from present and future quarrying; (5) excluding cattle and feral hogs from spring openings and outflow through fencing to protect spring habitats from damage; and (6) fencing and signage to protect spring habitats from human vandalism. Some of the management activities listed above, such as those that protect spring flow and groundwater quality, protect both surface and subsurface habitats, as these are interconnected. Additional management activities that could ameliorate threats that are specific to subsurface habitat include (but are not limited to): (1) The development and implementation of void mitigation plans for construction projects to prevent impacts to salamanders in the event of severed aquifer conduits or interrupted groundwater flow paths; (2) site-specific plans developed by geotechnical engineers to prevent changes to subsurface water flow from construction activities; (3) the presence of environmental monitors during construction, excavation, and drilling PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 57587 activities to monitor spring flow; and (4) post-construction monitoring of spring flow. Because subsurface habitat differs with regard to groundwater flow paths, depth, and amount of water-bearing rocks with voids that can support salamanders, management and mitigation plans to ameliorate threats will need to be developed on a sitespecific basis. Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered for designation as critical habitat. During our preparation for designating critical habitat for the two salamander species, we reviewed: (1) Data for historical and current occurrence; (2) information pertaining to habitat features essential for the conservation of these species; and (3) scientific information on the biology and ecology of the two species. We have also reviewed a number of studies and surveys of the two salamander species that confirm historical and current occurrence of the two species including, but not limited to, Sweet (1978; 1982), Russell (1993), Warton (1997), COA (2001), Chippindale et al. (2000), Hillis et al. (2001), and Devitt et al. (2019). Finally, salamander site locations and observations were verified with the aid of salamander biologists, museum collection records, and site visits. We are not currently proposing to designate any additional areas outside the geographical area occupied by these species because we have determined that occupied areas are sufficient to conserve the Georgetown and Salado salamanders, although we acknowledge that other areas, such as the recharge zone of the aquifers supporting salamander locations, are very important to the conservation of the species. This critical habitat designation delineates the habitat that is physically occupied and used by the species rather than delineating all land or aquatic areas that influence the species. We also recognize that there may be additional occupied areas outside of the areas designated as critical habitat that we are not aware of at the time of this designation that may be necessary for E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 57588 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules the conservation of the species. For the purpose of designating critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders, we define an area as occupied based upon the reliable observation of a salamander species by a knowledgeable scientist. It is very difficult to determine whether a salamander population has been extirpated from a spring site due to these species’ ability to occupy the inaccessible subsurface habitat. We, therefore, consider any site that had a salamander observation occupied at the time of listing to be currently occupied, unless that spring or cave site had been destroyed. Based on our review, the critical habitat areas (described below) are within the geographical range occupied by at least one of the two salamander species and meet the definition of critical habitat. The true extent to which the subterranean populations of these species exist below ground away from outlets of the spring system is unknown because the hydrology of central Texas is very complex and information on the hydrology of specific spring sites is largely unknown. We will continue to seek information to increase our understanding of spring hydrology and salamander underground distribution to inform conservation efforts for these species. At the time of this proposed critical habitat rule, the best scientific evidence available suggests that a population of groundwater-dependent Eurycea salamanders can extend at least 984 ft (300 m) from the spring opening through underground conduits or voids between rocks. For example, the Austin blind salamander is believed to occur underground throughout the entire Barton Springs complex (Dries 2011, pers. comm.). The spring habitats used by salamanders of the Barton Springs complex are not connected on the surface, so the Austin blind salamander population extends at least 984 feet (ft) (300 meters (m)) underground, as this is the approximate distance between the farthest two outlets within the Barton Springs complex known to be occupied by the species. We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas that we have determined are occupied by one of the two salamanders and contain physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. We delineated both surface and subsurface critical habitat components. As previously stated, a Jollyville Plateau salamander was observed to have traveled up to 1,640 ft (500 m) after multiple years in Bull Creek (Bendik et al. 2016, p. 9). However, the surface critical habitat component was VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 delineated by starting with the spring point locations that are occupied by the salamanders and extending a line upstream and downstream 262 ft (80 m). This was the furthest distance a Eurycea salamander has been observed from a spring outlet in a single year (Bendik et al. 2016, p. 9) and is likely a more reasonable distance for salamander’s in common hydrological settings. We applied this maximum distance to account for the potential movement and surface habitat use of Georgetown and Salado salamanders upstream and downstream of spring openings. It is reasonable to consider the downstream and upstream habitat occupied based on the dispersal capabilities observed in individuals of very similar species. When determining surface critical habitat boundaries, we were not able to delineate specific stream segments on the map due to the small size of the streams. Therefore, we drew a circle with a 262-ft (80-m) radius representing the extent the surface population of the site is estimated to exist upstream and downstream. This circle does not include upland habitat adjacent to streams. The surface critical habitat includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the ordinary high water mark (the average amount of water present in nonflood conditions, as defined in 33 CFR 328.3(e)) and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat (to the extent that this habitat is ever present), including the dry stream channel during periods of no surface flow. We acknowledge that some spring sites occupied by one of the two salamanders are the start of the watercourse, and upstream habitat does not exist for these sites. The surface habitat we are designating as critical habitat does not include human made structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) within this circle, nor does it include upland habitat adjacent to streams. We delineated the subsurface critical habitat unit boundaries by starting with the cave or spring point locations that are occupied by the salamanders. Depth to subsurface habitat will vary from site to site based on local geology. From these cave or spring points, we delineated an area with a 984-ft (300-m) radius to create the polygons that capture the extent to which we believe the salamander populations exist through underground habitat. This radial distance comes from observations of the Austin blind salamander, which is believed to occur underground throughout the entire Barton Springs complex (Dries 2011, COA, pers. comm.). The Austin blind salamander is PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 a reasonable surrogate for Salado and Georgetown salamanders as it also inhabits subsurface, water-filled voids in the underlying Edwards Aquifer (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 23). The spring outlets used by salamanders of the Barton Springs complex are not connected on the surface, so the Austin blind salamander population extends a horizontal distance of at least 984 ft (300 m) underground, as this is the approximate distance between the farthest two outlets within the Barton Springs complex known to be occupied by the species. This distance was applied to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders given their reliance on subsurface aquifer habitats (Bendik and Gluesenkamp 2012, pp. 4–5; Bendik et al. 2013, pp. 10–12, 15; Bendik 2017, p. 5,013; Diaz and Bronson-Warren 2018, p. 11; Devitt et al. 2019, p. 2,625). Polygons that were within 98 ft (30 m) of each other were merged together as these areas have the potential to be connected underground (Devitt et al. 2019a, pp. 2,629–2,630). Each merged polygon was then revised by removing extraneous divots or protrusions that resulted from the merge process. Developed areas of surface habitat, such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures, lack physical or biological features for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat. We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently occupied) and that contain all of the physical or biological features that are essential to support life-history processes of the species. The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 57589 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public on https:// www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048, and on our internet site https://www.fws.gov/ southwest/es/AustinTexas/ESA_Sp_ Salamanders.html. Proposed Critical Habitat Designation In Tables 1 and 2 below, we present the revised proposed critical habitat units for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. All units are considered occupied by the relevant species at the time of listing. We also provide revised unit descriptions for all Georgetown and Salado salamander critical habitat units. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of subsurface and surface areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. During periods of drought or dewatering on the surface in and around spring sites, access to the subsurface water table must be provided for shelter and protection. Surface critical habitat includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of downstream habitat, but does not include terrestrial habitats or humanmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date of this rule or land adjacent to streams; however, the subterranean aquifer may extend below such structures. The subterranean critical habitat includes underground features in a circle with a radius 984 ft (300 m) around the springs. TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE GEORGETOWN SALAMANDER Critical habitat unit 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Land ownership by type Water Tank Cave Unit ............................................................................................. Hogg Hollow Spring Unit .......................................................................................... Cedar Hollow Spring Unit ........................................................................................ Lake Georgetown Unit ............................................................................................. Buford Hollow Spring Unit ........................................................................................ Swinbank Spring Unit ............................................................................................... Avant Spring Unit ..................................................................................................... Shadow Canyon Spring Unit .................................................................................... Garey Ranch Spring Unit ......................................................................................... Private ....................................................... Private, Federal ........................................ Private ....................................................... Federal, Private ........................................ Federal, Private ........................................ City, Private .............................................. Private ....................................................... City, Private .............................................. Private ....................................................... Total ...................................................................................................................... ................................................................... Size of unit in acres (hectares) 68 122 68 134 68 68 68 68 68 (28) (49) (28) (54) (28) (28) (28) (28) (28) 732 (299) Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. TABLE 2—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE SALADO SALAMANDER Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type 1. Hog Hollow Spring Unit ............................................................................................ 2. Solana Spring Unit ................................................................................................... 3. Cistern Spring Unit ................................................................................................... 4. IH–35 Unit ................................................................................................................ 5. King’s Garden Main Spring Unit .............................................................................. 6. Cobbs Spring Unit .................................................................................................... 7. Cowan Creek Spring Unit ........................................................................................ 8. Walnut Spring Unit ................................................................................................... 9. Twin Springs Unit ..................................................................................................... 10. Bat Well Cave Unit ................................................................................................. Private ....................................................... Private ....................................................... Private ....................................................... Private, State, City .................................... Private ....................................................... Private ....................................................... Private ....................................................... Private, County ......................................... Private, County ......................................... Private ....................................................... Total ...................................................................................................................... ................................................................... Size of unit in acres (hectares) 68 68 68 175 68 68 68 68 68 68 (28) (28) (28) (71) (28) (28) (28) (28) (28) (28) 787 (323) Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Georgetown Salamander Critical habitat units proposed for the Georgetown salamander may require special management because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and future development in the watershed, present operations and future expansion of quarrying activities, depletion of groundwater, and other threats (see Special Management Considerations or Protection). All proposed units are occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The proposed designation includes the spring outlets VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 and outflow up to the high water mark and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat. Units are further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the extent of the subterranean critical habitat. For cave populations of the Georgetown salamander, the unit is delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the underground location of the salamanders, representing the extent of the proposed subsurface critical habitat. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Unit 1: Water Tank Cave Unit Unit 1 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in west-central Williamson County, Texas. A golf course crosses the unit from northwest to southeast, and there are several roads in the eastern part of the unit. A secondary road crosses the extreme southern portion of the unit, and there are residences in the northwestern, southwestern, and west-central portions of the unit. This unit contains Water Tank Cave, which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The unit E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 57590 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules contains the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. Unit 2: Hogg Hollow Spring Unit Unit 2 consists of approximately 122 ac (49 ha) of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land and private land in Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located south of Lake Georgetown and is mostly undeveloped. The northwestern part of the unit includes Sawyer Park, part of the Lake Georgetown recreation area. This unit contains two springs: Hogg Hollow Spring and Hogg Hollow 2 Spring, which are occupied by the Georgetown salamander. Hogg Hollow Spring is located on Hogg Hollow, and Hogg Hollow 2 Spring is located on an unnamed stream, both tributaries to Lake Georgetown. The unit contains the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. Unit 3: Cedar Hollow Spring Unit Unit 3 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in west-central Williamson County, Texas. A secondary road crosses the extreme southern portion of the unit, and there are residences in the northwestern, southwestern, and west-central portions of the unit. This unit contains Cedar Hollow Spring, which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The spring is located on Cedar Hollow, a tributary to Lake Georgetown. The unit contains the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Unit 4: Lake Georgetown Unit Unit 4 consists of approximately 134 ac (54 ha) of Federal and private land in west-central Williamson County, Texas. Part of the unit is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Lake Georgetown property. There are currently no plans to develop the property. There is some control of public access. Unpaved roads are found in the western portion of the unit, and a trail begins in the central part of the unit and leaves the northeast corner. A secondary road crosses the extreme southern portion of the unit, and there are residences in the northwestern, southwestern, and west-central portions of the unit. A large quarry is located a short distance southeast of the unit. This unit includes two springs, Knight (Crockett Gardens) Spring and Cedar Breaks Hiking Trail Spring, which are occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The springs are located on an unnamed tributary to Lake Georgetown. A portion of the northern part of the unit extends under Lake Georgetown. The unit contains the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. Unit 5: Buford Hollow Spring Unit Unit 5 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of Federal and private land in west-central Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located just below the spillway for Lake Georgetown. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers owns most of this unit as part of Lake Georgetown. The D.B. Wood Road, a major thoroughfare, crosses the eastern part of the unit. The rest of the unit is undeveloped. This unit contains Buford Hollow Springs, which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The spring is located on Buford Hollow, a tributary to the North Fork San Gabriel River. The unit contains the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. Unit 6: Swinbank Spring Unit Unit 6 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of City and private land in westcentral Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located near River Road south of Melanie Lane. The northern part of the unit is primarily in residential development, while the southern part of this unit is primarily undeveloped. This unit contains Swinbank Spring, which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The spring is located just off the main channel of North Fork San Gabriel River. The unit contains the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. The population of Georgetown salamanders in the spring is being monitored monthly as part of the Williamson County Regional HCP’s efforts to conserve the species. Unit 7: Avant Spring Unit Unit 7 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in west-central Williamson County, Texas. The northern part of a large quarry is along the southwestern edge of the unit. The rest of the unit is undeveloped. This unit contains Avant’s (Capitol Aggregates) Spring, which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The spring is close to the streambed of the Middle Fork of the San Gabriel River. The unit contains the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. Unit 8: Shadow Canyon Spring Unit Unit 8 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of City and private land in westcentral Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located just south of State Highway 29. This unit contains Shadow Canyon Spring, which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The spring PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 is located on an unnamed tributary of South Fork San Gabriel River. The unit contains the essential physical or biological features for the conservation of the species. The unit is authorized for development under the Shadow Canyon HCP. Impacts to the endangered goldencheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) are permitted under the Shadow Canyon HCP; however, impacts to Georgetown salamander are not covered under the HCP. Unit 9: Garey Ranch Spring Unit Unit 9 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located north of RM 2243. The unit is mostly undeveloped. A small amount of residential development enters the southern and eastern parts of the unit. This unit contains Garey Ranch Spring, which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander. It is located on an unnamed tributary to the South Fork San Gabriel River. The unit contains the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. Salado Salamander Critical habitat units proposed for the Salado salamander may require special management because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and future development in the watershed, present operations and future expansion of quarrying activities, depletion of groundwater, and other threats (see Special Management Considerations or Protection). All proposed units are considered to be occupied by the Salado salamander. The proposed designation includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the high water mark and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat. Units are further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the extent of the subterranean critical habitat. For cave populations of the Salado salamander, the unit is delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the underground location of the salamanders, representing the extent of the proposed subsurface critical habitat. Unit 1: Hog Hollow Spring Unit Unit 1 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land located in southwestern Bell County, Texas. The unit is primarily undeveloped ranch land. This unit contains Hog Hollow Spring, which is occupied by the Salado salamander. The unit is located on a tributary to Rumsey Creek in the Salado Creek drainage and contains the physical or biological features essential E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules for the conservation of the species. In 2016, the owners of the spring entered into an agreement with The Nature Conservancy for a perpetual conservation easement that provides long-term protection for this site. Unit 2: Solana Spring Unit Unit 2 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land located in southwestern Bell County, Texas. The unit is primarily undeveloped ranch land. This unit contains Solana Spring, which is occupied by the Salado salamander. The unit is located on a tributary to Rumsey Creek in the Salado Creek drainage and contains the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. In 2016, the owners of the spring entered into an agreement with The Nature Conservancy for a perpetual conservation easement that provides long-term protection for this site. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Unit 3: Cistern Spring Unit Unit 3 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land located in southwestern Bell County, Texas, on the same private ranch as Units 1 and 2 for the Salado salamander. The unit is primarily undeveloped ranch land. This unit contains Cistern Spring, which is occupied by the Salado salamander. The unit is located on a tributary to Rumsey Creek in the Salado Creek drainage and contains the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. In 2016, the owners of the spring entered into an agreement with The Nature Conservancy for a perpetual conservation easement that provides long-term protection for this site. Unit 4: IH–35 Unit Unit 4 consists of approximately 175 ac (71 ha) of private, State, and City of Salado land located in southwestern Bell County, Texas, in the southern part of the Village of Salado. The unit extends along Salado Creek on both sides of Interstate Highway 35 (IH 35). The IH 35 right-of-way crosses Salado Creek and is owned by the Texas Department of Transportation. The unit is a mixture of residential and commercial properties on its eastern portion, with some undeveloped ranch land in the western part west of IH–35. This unit contains Robertson Springs complex, located on private property. West of IH–35 consists of two springs, Creek Spring and Sam Bass Spring, and five spring openings, Bathtub, Beaver Upper, Beaver Middle, Headwaters, and Maria, occupied by the Salado salamander. East of IH–35, the Downtown Spring complex of Unit 4 contains five springs, Anderson Spring, VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 Big Boiling Spring, Lazy Days Fish Farm, Lil’ Bubbly Spring, and Side Spring, which are all located on private property and occupied by the Salado salamander. The spring habitat within this unit has been modified. In the fall of 2011, the outflow channels and edges of Big Boiling and Lil’ Bubbly Spring were reconstructed by a local organization, with large limestone blocks and mortar, to increase human access and visitation. In addition, in response to other activity in the area, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a cease-and-desist order to the Salado Chamber of Commerce in October 2011, for unauthorized discharge of dredged or fill material that occurred in this area (Brooks 2011, U.S. Corps of Engineers, in litt.). This order was issued in relation to the need for a section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). A citation from a Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) game warden was also issued in October 2011, due to the need for a sand and gravel permit from the TPWD for work being conducted within TPWD jurisdiction (Heger 2012a, pers. comm.). The citation was issued because the Salado Chamber of Commerce had been directed by the game warden to stop work within TPWD jurisdiction, which they did temporarily, but work started again contrary to the game warden’s directive (Heger 2012a, pers. comm.). A sand and gravel permit was obtained on March 21, 2012. The spring run modifications were already completed by this date, but further modifications in the springs were prohibited by the permit. Additional work on the bank upstream of the springs was permitted and completed (Heger 2012b, pers. comm.). Unit 5: King’s Garden Main Spring Unit Unit 5 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in northern Williamson County, Texas. The unit is undeveloped land. The unit contains King’s Garden Main Spring, which is occupied by the Salado salamander. The surface population of King’s Garden Main Spring has been observed at the spring’s outlet. The unit contains the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. Unit 6: Cobbs Spring Unit Unit 6 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land located in northwestern Williamson County, Texas. The unit is undeveloped land. This unit contains Cobbs Spring, which is occupied by the Salado salamander. Cobbs Springs is located on Cobbs Springs Branch. The subsurface PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 57591 population of Cobbs Spring has been observed in Cobbs Well (Gluesenkamp 2011a, TPWD, pers. comm.), which is located approximately 328 ft (100 m) to the southwest of the spring. The unit contains the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. Unit 7: Cowan Creek Spring Unit Unit 7 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land located in westcentral Williamson County, Texas. The northern portion of the unit is residential development; the remainder is undeveloped. This unit contains Cowan Creek Spring, which is occupied by the Salado salamander. The spring is located on Cowan Creek. The unit contains the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. Unit 8: Walnut Spring Unit Unit 8 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private and Williamson County land located in west-central Williamson County, Texas. The western, eastern, and northeastern portions of the unit contain low-density residential development; the southern and northcentral portions are undeveloped. The extreme southeastern corner of the unit is part of Williamson County Conservation Foundation’s Twin Springs Preserve. This unit contains Walnut Spring, which is occupied by the Salado salamander. The spring is located on Walnut Spring Hollow. The unit contains the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species. Unit 9: Twin Springs Unit Unit 9 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private and Williamson County land located in west-central Williamson County, Texas. The northern portion of the unit contains low-density residential development; the remainder of the unit is undeveloped. The majority of the unit is part of Williamson County Conservation Foundation’s Twin Springs Preserve. The preserve is managed by Williamson Conservation Foundation as a mitigation property for the take of golden-cheeked warbler and Bone Cave harvestman under the Williamson County Regional HCP. The preserve habitat will be undeveloped in perpetuity. Salamander populations are monitored, and there is some control of public access. This unit contains Twin Springs, which is occupied by the Salado salamander. The spring is located on Taylor Ray Hollow, a tributary of Lake Georgetown. The unit contains the physical or biological E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 57592 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules features essential for the conservation of the species. Unit 10: Bat Well Cave Unit Unit 10 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land located in west-central Williamson County, Texas. The western, northern, and southern portion of the unit contains residential development. This unit contains Bat Well Cave, a cave occupied by the Salado salamander. The cave is located in the Cowan Creek watershed. The unit contains the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Effects of Critical Habitat Designation jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Section 7 Consultation Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a listed species. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat—and actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 agency—do not require section 7 consultation. Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2), is documented through our issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat. When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during consultation that: (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action, (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency’s legal authority and jurisdiction, (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and (4) Would, in the Service Director’s opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable. Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency’s discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, subsequent to the previous consultation, we have listed a new species or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the Federal action, or the action has been modified in a manner that affects the species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous consultation. In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations also specify some exceptions to the PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 requirement to reinitiate consultation on specific land management plans after we subsequently list a new species or designate new critical habitat. See the regulations for a description of those exceptions. Application of the ‘‘Destruction or Adverse Modification’’ Standard The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate 7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation. Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to: (1) Actions that would physically disturb the surface or subsurface habitat upon which these two salamander species depend. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, channelization, removal of substrate, clearing of vegetation, construction of commercial and residential development, quarrying, and other activities that result in the physical destruction of habitat or the modification of habitat so that it is not suitable for the species. (2) Actions that would increase the concentration of sediment or contaminants in the surface or subsurface habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, increases in impervious cover in the surface watershed, inadequate erosion controls on the surface and subsurface watersheds, and release of pollutants into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (non-point source). These activities could alter water conditions to levels that are harmful to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders or their prey and result in direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects to these salamander individuals and E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules their life cycles. Sedimentation can also adversely affect salamander habitat by reducing access to interstitial spaces. (3) Actions that would deplete the aquifer to an extent that decreases or stops the flow of occupied springs or that reduces the quantity of subterranean habitat used by the species. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, water withdrawals from aquifers, increases in impervious cover over recharge areas, and channelization or other modification of recharge features that would decrease recharge. These activities could dewater habitat or cause reduced water quality to levels that are harmful to one of the two salamanders or their prey and result in adverse effects to their habitat. Exemptions Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: ‘‘The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.’’ There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP within the proposed critical habitat designation. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 The first sentence in section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into consideration the economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any particular area as critical habitat. We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant impacts. Consideration of Economic Impacts Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the result of the species being listed under the Act versus those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 57593 For this particular designation, we developed an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders (Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2020, entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out particular geographic areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of the species. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether there are units that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether units are unoccupied by the species and thus may require additional management or conservation efforts as a result of the critical habitat designation for the species; these additional efforts may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis combined with the information contained in our IEM are what we consider our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders and is summarized in the narrative below. Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 57594 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders, first we identified, in the IEM dated April 14, 2020, probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories of activities: (1) Future stream/river crossings and bridge replacements and maintenance; (2) pipeline construction, replacement, maintenance, or removal; (3) electrical transmission line construction; (4) stream restoration activities for habitat improvement; (5) herbicide and pesticide use along stream banks; (6) irrigation and water supply system installations; (7) livestock management and livestock facilities construction; (8) bank stabilization projects; (9) disaster debris removal; (10) repairs to existing and damaged roads, bridges, utilities, and parks; (11) construction of tornado safe rooms, and demolition of floodprone structures; (12) return of land to open space in perpetuity; and (13) removal of hazardous fuels in wildland urban interface to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. We considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities may have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the Georgetown or Salado salamander are present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process. In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the effects that result from the species being listed and those attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the Georgetown and Salado salamander’s critical habitat. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 Because all of the units we are proposing to designate as critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders are occupied, we do not expect that the critical habitat designation will result in any additional consultations above and beyond those caused by the species’ listing. The conservation recommendations provided to address impacts to the occupied critical habitat will be the same as those recommended to address impacts to the species because the habitat tolerances of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders are inextricably linked to the health, growth, and reproduction of the salamanders, which are present and confined year-round in their occupied critical habitat. Furthermore, because the proposed critical habitat and the Georgetown and Salado salamanders’ known range are identical, the results of consultation under adverse modification are not likely to differ from the results of consultation under jeopardy. In the event of an adverse modification determination, we expect that reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy to the species would also avoid adverse modification of the critical habitat. The only incremental impact of critical habitat designation that we anticipate is the small (not expected to exceed $38,500 per year) administrative effort required during section 7 consultation to document effects on the physical and biological features of the critical habitat and whether the action appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of the listed species (IEc 2020). The proposed critical habitat designations for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders amount to a total of approximately 1,519 ac (622 ha) in Bell and Williamson Counties, Texas. In these areas, any actions that may affect the species or its habitat would also affect designated critical habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. While this additional analysis will require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be significant. Incremental costs are likely to be minor and primarily limited to administrative efforts that consider adverse modification in consultation. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 This finding is based on these factors: (1) All activities with a Federal nexus occurring within the proposed critical habitat designations will be subject to section 7 consultation requirements regardless of critical habitat designation due to the presence of listed species; and (2) since the Service predicts that the majority of project modifications avoiding jeopardy and adverse modification overlap, there will only be a limited number of project modification requests that are solely caused by a critical habitat designation (IEc 2020). The estimated $38,500 per year of incremental costs associated with the designation of critical habitat is well below $100 million and, therefore, is unlikely to trigger additional requirements under State or local regulations. Further, while some perceptional effects may arise, they are not expected to result in substantial costs. As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of this proposed rule. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species. During the development of a final designation, we will consider any additional economic impact information we receive through the public comment period, and, as such, areas may be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. Consideration of National Security Impacts In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands within the proposed designation of critical habitat for Georgetown and Salado salamanders are not owned, managed, or used by the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security. However, during the development of a final designation we will consider any additional information received through the public comment period on the impacts of the proposed designation on national security or homeland security to determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national security discussed above. We consider a number of factors including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with assurances, or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the existence of tribal conservation plans and partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the designation. In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Georgetown or Salado salamanders, and the proposed designation does not include any tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. During the development of a final designation, we will consider any information currently available or received during the public comment period regarding the economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of the proposed designation and will determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Required Determinations Clarity of the Rule We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must: (1) Be logically organized; (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly; (3) Use clear language rather than jargon; (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible. If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has waived their review regarding their significance determination of this proposed rule. Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation’s regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 57595 have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term ‘‘significant economic impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical small business firm’s business operations. Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in the light of recent court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. There is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final as proposed, the proposed critical E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 57596 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Executive Order 13771 We do not believe this proposed rule is an E.O. 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because we believe this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866; however, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has waived their review regarding their E.O. 12866 significance determination of this proposed rule. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that this proposed critical habitat designation would significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we make the following finding: (1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’ and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’ includes a regulation that ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,’’ if the provision would ‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government’s responsibility to provide funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’ includes a regulation that ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.’’ The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments. (2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The draft economic analysis states that incremental impacts may occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations for development, water management activities, transportation projects, utility projects, mining, and PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 livestock grazing; however, these are not expected to significantly affect small governments. Incremental impacts stemming from various species conservation and development control activities are expected to be borne by the Federal Government, Texas Department of Transportation, City of Austin, Lower Colorado River Authority, Travis and Williamson Counties, Concordia University, and other entities, which are not considered small governments. Consequently, we do not believe that the critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Takings—Executive Order 12630 In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for Georgetown and Salado salamanders in a takings implications assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the proposed designation of critical habitat for Georgetown and Salado salamanders, and it concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical habitat does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation. Federalism—Executive Order 13132 In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist State and local governments in long-range planning because they no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur. Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 12988 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this proposed rule identifies the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 elements of physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed areas of designated critical habitat are presented on maps, and the proposed rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if desired. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 57597 Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. We have determined that no tribal lands fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat for the Georgetown or Salado salamanders, so no tribal lands would be affected by the proposed designation. References Cited A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). Authors 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 PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the Service’s Austin Ecological Services Field Office. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. Proposed Regulation Promulgation Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. 2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entries for ‘‘Salamander, Georgetown’’ and ‘‘Salamander, Salado’’ in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under ‘‘AMPHIBIANS’’ to read as set forth below: ■ § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife. * * * (h) * * * E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 * * 57598 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules Common name Scientific name * AMPHIBIANS * * Status * * Wherever found .................. * * * * Salamander, Salado ........... Eurycea chisholmensis ...... * Wherever found .................. * * * 3. Amend § 17.95(d) by adding entries for ‘‘Georgetown Salamander (Eurycea naufragia)’’ and ‘‘Salado Salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis)’’ in the same order that these species appear in the table at § 17.11(h) to read as follows: ■ § 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. * * * * (d) Amphibians. * * * * * * Georgetown Salamander (Eurycea naufragia) (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Williamson County, Texas, on the maps in this entry. (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Georgetown salamander consist of the following components: (i) For surface habitat: (A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater issuing to the surface from the underlying aquifer is similar to natural aquifer conditions as it discharges from natural spring outlets. Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants should be below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the Georgetown salamander’s prey base). The Service is unaware of any studies that specifically define the water quality constituents or contaminants that would have deleterious effects on these salamanders. Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present, with at least some surface flow during the year. The water chemistry of aquatic surface habitats is similar to natural aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 64.1 to 73.1 °F (17.9 to 22.8 °C), dissolved oxygen concentrations from 6 to 8 mg/ L, and specific water conductance from 604 to 721 mS/cm. (B) Rocky substrate with interstitial spaces. Rocks in the substrate of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 * * Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 * * 79 FR 10236, 2/24/2014; 50 17.43(e);4d 50 CFR 17.95(d).CH CFR T * 79 FR 10236, 17.95(d).CH CFR * Sfmt 4702 * T salamander’s surface aquatic habitat are large enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. The substrate and interstitial spaces have minimal sedimentation. (C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The spring environment supports a diverse aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, and flatworms. (D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to the subsurface water table exists to provide shelter, protection, and space for reproduction. This access can occur in the form of large conduits that carry water to the spring outlet or porous voids between rocks in the streambed that extend down into the water table. (ii) For subsurface habitat: (A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater quality is similar to natural aquifer conditions. Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants should be below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the Georgetown salamander’s prey base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present, with continuous flow. The water chemistry is similar to natural aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 64.1 to 73.1 °F (17.9 to 22.8 °C), dissolved oxygen concentrations from 6 to 8 mg/L, and specific water conductance from 604 to 721 mS/cm. (B) Subsurface spaces. Voids between rocks underground are large enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. These spaces have minimal sedimentation. (C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The habitat supports an aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, or flatworms. (3) Surface critical habitat includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat, including the dry stream channel during PO 00000 Listing citations and applicable rules * * * * Salamander, Georgetown ... Eurycea naufragia .............. * jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Where listed * * 2/24/2014; 50 * periods of no surface flow. The surface critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date of this rule; however, the subsurface critical habitat may extend below such structures. The subsurface critical habitat includes underground features in a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the springs. (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were created using a geographic information system (GIS), which included species locations, roads, property boundaries, 2011 aerial photography, and U.S. Geological Survey 7.5′ quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS. We delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by starting with the cave or spring point locations that are occupied by the salamanders. From these cave or springs points, we delineated a 984-ft (300-m) buffer to create the polygons that capture the extent to which we believe the salamander populations exist through underground conduits. The polygons were then simplified to reduce the number of vertices, but still retain the overall shape and extent. Subsequently, polygons that were within 98 ft (30 m) of each other were merged together. Each new merged polygon was then revised to remove extraneous divots or protrusions that resulted from the merge process. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are available to the public at the Service’s internet site at https:// www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ AustinTexas/, at https:// www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048, and at the field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office location information by contacting one E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2. 57599 (5) Note: Index map follows: BILLING CODE 4333–15–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 EP15SE20.000</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 (6) Unit 1: Water Tank Cave Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map follows: 57600 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 EP15SE20.001</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 (7) Unit 2: Hogg Hollow Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Units 2 and 3 follows. Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 3 is provided at paragraph (7) of this entry. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (9) Unit 4: Lake Georgetown Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Units 4, 5, 6, and 7 follows: E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 EP15SE20.002</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 (8) Unit 3: Cedar Hollow Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Unit 57601 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 (10) Unit 5: Buford Hollow Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Unit 5 is provided at paragraph (9) of this entry. (11) Unit 6: Swinbank Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Unit VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 6 is provided at paragraph (9) of this entry. (12) Unit 7: Avant Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Unit 7 is provided at paragraph (9) of this entry. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (13) Unit 8: Shadow Canyon Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map follows: (14) Unit 9: Garey Ranch Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map follows: E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 EP15SE20.003</GPH> 57602 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 57603 EP15SE20.004</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules 57604 BILLING CODE 4333–15–C * * * * * jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Salado Salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis) (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Bell and Williamson Counties, Texas, on the maps in this entry. (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Salado salamander consist of the following components: (i) For surface habitat: (A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 quality issuing to the surface from the underlying aquifer is similar to natural aquifer conditions as it discharges from natural spring outlets. Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants are below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the Salado salamander’s prey base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present, with at least some surface flow during the year. The water chemistry of PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 aquatic surface habitats is similar to natural aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 64.1 to 73.1 °F (17.9 to 22.8 °C), dissolved oxygen concentrations from 6 to 8 mg/L, and specific water conductance from 604 to 721 mS/cm. (B) Rocky substrate with interstitial spaces. Rocks in the substrate of the salamander’s surface aquatic habitat are large enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. The substrate and interstitial spaces have minimal sedimentation. E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 EP15SE20.005</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 (C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The spring environment is capable of supporting a diverse aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, and flatworms. (D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to the subsurface water table exists to provide shelter, protection, and space for reproduction. This access can occur in the form of large conduits that carry water to the spring outlet or porous voids between rocks in the streambed that extend down into the water table. (ii) For subsurface habitat: (A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater quality is similar to natural aquifer conditions. Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants are below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the Salado salamander’s prey base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present, with continuous flow. The water chemistry is similar to natural aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 64.1 to 73.1 °F (17.9 to 22.8 °C), dissolved oxygen concentrations from 6 to 8 mg/L, and specific water conductance from 604 to 721 mS/cm. (B) Subsurface spaces. Voids between rocks underground are large enough to VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. These spaces have minimal sedimentation. (C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The habitat is capable of supporting an aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, or flatworms. (3) Surface critical habitat includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat, including the dry stream channel during periods of no surface flow. The surface critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date of this rule; however, the subsurface critical habitat may extend below such structures. The subsurface critical habitat includes underground features in a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the springs. (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were created using a geographic information system (GIS), which included species locations, roads, property boundaries, 2011 aerial photography, and U.S. Geological Survey 7.5′ quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS. We delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by starting with the cave or spring point locations that are occupied by the PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 57605 salamanders. From these cave or springs points, we delineated a 984-ft (300-m) buffer to create the polygons that capture the extent to which we believe the salamander populations exist through underground conduits. The polygons were then simplified to reduce the number of vertices, but still retain the overall shape and extent. Subsequently, polygons that were within 98 ft (30 m) of each other were merged together. Each new merged polygon was then revised to remove extraneous divots or protrusions that resulted from the merge process. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are available to the public at the Service’s internet site at https:// www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ AustinTexas/, at https:// www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048, and at the field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2. (5) Note: Index map follows: BILLING CODE 4333–15–P E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 57606 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 EP15SE20.006</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 (6) Unit 1: Hog Hollow Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Units 1, 2, and 3 follows: Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 (8) Unit 3: Cistern Spring Unit. Map of Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (6) of this entry. PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (9) Unit 4: IH–35 Unit. Map follows: E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 EP15SE20.007</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 (7) Unit 2: Solana Spring Unit. Map of Unit 2 is provided at paragraph (6) of this entry. 57607 57608 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 EP15SE20.008</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 (10) Unit 5: King’s Garden Main Spring Unit. Map follows: Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules 57609 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 EP15SE20.009</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 (11) Unit 6: Cobbs Spring Unit. Map follows: 57610 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 EP15SE20.010</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 (12) Unit 7: Cowan Creek Spring Unit. Map follows: Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules 57611 VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 EP15SE20.011</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 (13) Unit 8: Walnut Spring Unit. Map of Units 8 and 9 follows: Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 (14) Unit 9: Twin Springs Unit. Map of Unit 9 is provided at paragraph (12) of this entry. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 (15) Unit 10: Bat Well Cave Unit. Map follows: PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 EP15SE20.012</GPH> 57612 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules * * * * 57613 * Aurelia Skipwith, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2020–17921 Filed 9–14–20; 8:45 am] VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\15SEP3.SGM 15SEP3 EP15SE20.013</GPH> jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3 BILLING CODE 4333–15–C

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57578-57613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17921]

[[Page 57577]]

Vol. 85

Tuesday,

No. 179

September 15, 2020

Part V

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Georgetown and Salado Salamanders; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 57578]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0048; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
RIN 1018-BE78

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Georgetown and Salado Salamanders

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; revisions and reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are revising
our proposed designation of critical habitat for the Georgetown
salamander (Eurycea naufragia) and Salado salamander (Eurycea
chisholmensis) in Bell and Williamson Counties, Texas. Based on
published genetic analyses, we are revising the distribution of the
Georgetown and Salado salamanders and are adjusting previously proposed
critical habitat units accordingly. We also propose changes to our
description of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. We propose a total of approximately 1,519
acres (ac) (622 hectares (ha)) of critical habitat for the species in
Bell and Williamson Counties, Texas. The total amount of critical
habitat we are proposing for both salamanders has increased by
approximately 116 ac (47 ha). The reasons for this increase are the
addition of a new occupied site for the Salado salamander and refined
mapping of previously proposed critical habitat units based on more
precise spring locations.
We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis
(DEA) of the revised proposed designation of critical habitat for the
Georgetown and Salado salamanders.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
November 16, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by October 30, 2020. Comments previously submitted
need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in
preparation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-
2020-0048, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click
on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the
left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the
Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2020-0048, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: For the critical habitat
designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps
are generated are included in the administrative record and are
available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/ESA_Sp_Salamanders.html and at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0048. Any additional tools or supporting information
that we may develop for the critical habitat designation will also be
available at the Service website set out above, and may also be
included in the preamble of this document and/or at https://www.regulations.gov.

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.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call
the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, we must designate critical habitat for any
species that we determine to be an endangered or threatened species
under the Act. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species
and designation of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a
rule.
What this document does. We are revising and reopening the comment
period for our proposed designation of critical habitat for the
Georgetown and Salado salamanders. We have determined that designating
critical habitat, both subsurface and surface, is both prudent and
determinable for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. In this
document, we propose a total of approximately 1,519 acres (ac) (622
hectares (ha)) of subsurface and surface critical habitat for the
species in Bell and Williamson Counties, Texas.
The basis for our action. Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to designate critical habitat
concurrent with listing to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time
it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features
(I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may
require special management considerations or protections; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section
4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the designation
on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking
into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national
security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat.
We prepared an economic analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we have
prepared an economic analysis for the revised proposed critical habitat
designation. We hereby announce the availability of the economic
analysis and seek public review and comment.
We will seek peer review. In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the
role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we are seeking
the expert opinions of independent specialists to ensure that our
critical habitat proposal is based on scientifically sound data and
analyses. We invite these peer reviewers to comment on our specific
assumptions and conclusions in this revised proposal to designate
critical habitat. Because we will consider all comments and

[[Page 57579]]

information we receive during the comment period, our final designation
may differ from this proposal.

Information Requested

We intend that any final action resulting from this revised
proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data
available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,
we request comments or information from other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested parties during this reopened comment period on
our proposed designation of critical habitat for the Georgetown and
Salado salamanders that was published in the Federal Register on August
22, 2012 (77 FR 50768), revisions to the proposed rule published in the
Federal Register on January 25, 2013 (78 FR 5385), and this revised
proposed rule. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted,
as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.
We request that you provide comments specifically on the critical
habitat determination and related economic analysis under Docket No.
FWS-R2-ES-2020-0048.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(5) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may
be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(6) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Georgetown and Salado salamander
habitat,
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and
why,
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change, and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments:
(i) Regarding whether occupied areas are inadequate for the
conservation of the species; and
(ii) Providing specific information regarding whether or not
unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the
conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.
(7) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(8) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding
specific areas.
(9) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts.
(10) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(11) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final designation may differ from this
proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on
that new information), our final designation may not include all areas
proposed, may include some additional areas, and may exclude some areas
if we find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. Such final decisions would be a logical outgrowth of this
proposal, as long as: (1) We base the decisions on the best scientific
and commercial data available and take into consideration the relevant
impacts; (2) we articulate a rational connection between the facts
found and the conclusions made, including why we changed our
conclusion; and (3) we base removal of any areas on a determination
either that the area does not meet the definition of ``critical
habitat'' or that the benefits of excluding the area will outweigh the
benefits of including it in the designation. You may submit your
comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the
methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by
the methods described in ADDRESSES.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''

[[Page 57580]]

If you submitted comments or information on the August 22, 2012,
proposed rule (77 FR 50768) or during any other comment period, please
do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into the public record
as part of this comment period, and we will fully consider them in the
preparation of our final determination. Our final determination
concerning critical habitat will take into consideration all written
comments and any additional information we received during previous
comment periods as well as the comment period that opened when this
proposed rule published.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.

Public Hearing

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado
salamanders in this document. For more information on the Georgetown
and Salado salamanders, their habitat, or previous Federal actions,
refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on
February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10236), which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov (at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0035).
On August 22, 2012, we proposed to list the Georgetown salamander
(Eurycea naufragia), Salado salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis),
Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae), and Austin blind
salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) as endangered species and to
designate critical habitat for these species under the Act (77 FR
50768). We proposed to designate approximately 1,031 acres (ac) (423
hectares (ha)) in 14 units located in Williamson County, Texas, as
critical habitat for the Georgetown salamander, and approximately 372
ac (152 ha) in 4 units located in Bell County, Texas, as critical
habitat for the Salado salamander. That proposal had a 60-day comment
period, ending October 22, 2012. We held a public meeting and hearing
in Round Rock, Texas, on September 5, 2012, and a second public meeting
and hearing in Austin, Texas, on September 6, 2012.
On January 25, 2013, we revised the locations of proposed critical
habitat units 2, 3, 5, 8, and 12 for the Georgetown salamander based on
new information (78 FR 5385). We reopened the public comment period for
45 days to allow comments on the revisions to the proposed critical
habitat and the draft economic analysis.
On August 20, 2013, we extended the deadline for our final listing
and critical habitat determination for the Georgetown and Salado
salamanders for 6 months due to scientific disagreements regarding
conservation status of these species and reopened the comment periods
on our August 22, 2012 and January 25, 2013 proposals for 30 days (78
FR 51129). In addition, we announced the availability of new
information and reopened those comment periods for an additional 30
days on January 7, 2014 (79 FR 800).
On February 24, 2014, we (1) finalized the listing of the
Georgetown and Salado salamanders as threatened species under the Act
(79 FR 10236); and (2) proposed a rule under section 4(d) of the Act (a
proposed ``4(d) rule'') containing regulations necessary and advisable
to provide for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander, with a
60-day public comment period, ending April 25, 2014 (79 FR 10077).
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). We finalized the 4(d) rule for
the Georgetown salamander on August 7, 2015 (80 FR 47418).

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions regarding our proposed
listing and critical habitat rule (77 FR 50768; August 22, 2012) from
22 knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise concerning the
hydrology, taxonomy, and ecology that is important to these salamander
species. We requested expert opinions from taxonomists specifically to
review the proposed rule in light of an unpublished report by Forstner
(2012, entire) that questioned the taxonomic validity of the four
central Texas salamanders as separate species. We received responses
from 13 of the peer reviewers.
During the first comment period, we received some contradictory
public comments, and we also found new information relative to the
listing determination. For these reasons, we conducted a second peer
review on: (1) Salamander demographics, and (2) urban development and
stream habitat. During this second peer review, we solicited expert
opinions from 20 knowledgeable individuals with expertise in the two
areas identified above. We received responses from eight peer reviewers
during this second review. The peer reviewers generally concurred with
our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final listing and
critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments were addressed and
incorporated into the final listing rule as appropriate.
Finally, we are seeking peer review for a third time from
independent specialists on this revised proposed rule during the open
comment period (see DATES, above).

Critical Habitat

Background

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and

[[Page 57581]]

(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Designation also does not allow the government
or public to access private lands, nor does designation require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the
Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the
proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they
must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas,
we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the
life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat
characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition,
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species and
summarized in the listing rule. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of this species.

[[Page 57582]]

Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best
available information at the time of designation will not control the
direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation
plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.

Prudency Determination

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
the Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation
would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
As discussed in the final listing rule for the Georgetown and
Salado salamanders (79 FR 10236; February 24, 2014), there is currently
no imminent threat of collection or vandalism identified under Factor B
for these species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat
is not expected to initiate any such threat. In our final listing rule,
we determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of habitat or range is a threat to the Georgetown and
Salado salamanders and that those threats in some way can be addressed
by section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. These species occur wholly in
the jurisdiction of the United States, and we are able to identify
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. Therefore, because
none of the circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(a)(1) have been met and because there are no other circumstances
the Secretary has identified for which this designation of critical
habitat would be not prudent, we have determined that the designation
of critical habitat is prudent for the Georgetown and Salado
salamanders.

Critical Habitat Determinability

Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the
Georgetown and Salado salamanders is determinable. Our regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where these species
are located. This and other information represent the best scientific
data available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is determinable for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders.

Changes From Previously Proposed Critical Habitat

In this revised proposal, we are notifying the public of changes to
the proposed critical habitat designation for the Georgetown and Salado
salamanders. Based on additional information we received during the
comment period on our January 25, 2013, revised proposed critical
habitat rule (78 FR 5383) and on research published since 2013, we
propose to reassign some critical habitat units previously proposed for
the Georgetown salamander to the Salado salamander, expand critical
habitat, and refine mapped locations of specific spring sites. In
addition, based on public comment, we separated the summary of
essential physical or biological features (formerly primary constituent
elements) for both salamander species into surface and subsurface
habitat categories and added additional details in order to clarify
habitat needs of both species. We also propose changes to our
description of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species.
Research conducted since our initial proposed critical habitat
designation (77 FR 50768; August 22, 2012) assessed population
structure, phylogeny, and distribution of multiple Eurycea species
across the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer of west-central Texas through
analyses of genome-wide DNA (Devitt et al. 2019a, entire). The results
of this work have significant implications for the distribution of the
many central Texas Eurycea species, including the Georgetown and Salado
salamanders. Salado salamanders from the Salado Creek watershed
retained their genetic distinctiveness as a species. Salamanders from
the Berry Creek watershed, formerly considered as the Georgetown
salamander, were more genetically similar to the Salado salamander and
assigned to that species (Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,629). This
reassignment of populations expands the range of the Salado salamander
and reduces the range of the Georgetown salamander to those spring
sites south and east of Lake Georgetown in the North and Middle Forks
of the San Gabriel River watershed (Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,629). A
single salamander collected from Georgetown Springs, long considered as
the Georgetown salamander, was more genetically similar to the
Jollyville Plateau salamander and assigned to that species (Devitt et
al. 2019a, p. 2,629). This Jollyville Plateau salamander population may
no longer be extant, as salamanders have not been observed at
Georgetown Springs since 1991 (Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,629). In
summation, this information changed our understanding of current ranges
of both species, with the current range of the Georgetown salamander
considered as south and east of Lake Georgetown in the North and Middle
Forks of the San Gabriel River watershed, and the Salado salamander
occurring north of Lake Georgetown to the Salado Creek watershed
(Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,629).
Based on analyses from Devitt et al. (2019a, p. 2,629), Units 1, 2,
3, and 5 of previously proposed critical habitat for the Georgetown
salamander are now assigned to the Salado salamander. Researchers,
including Devitt et al. (2019b, pp. 4, 13), have not genetically
assessed salamanders from previously proposed critical habitat Unit 4,
Walnut Spring for the Georgetown salamander. Walnut Spring is located
north of Lake Georgetown and west of Twin Springs, a site sampled by
Devitt et al. (2019b, pp. 13-14) and assigned to the Salado salamander
rather than the Georgetown

[[Page 57583]]

salamander. Given Walnut Spring's location north of Lake Georgetown, we
consider that spring as a site inhabited by the Salado salamander. We
propose to treat Walnut Spring as a critical habitat unit for the
Salado salamander and not the Georgetown salamander, with no change in
amount of critical habitat at Walnut Spring.
Analyses by Devitt et al. (2019a, p. 2,629) further indicate that
the Eurycea population at Georgetown Springs, previously assigned to
the Georgetown salamander (Chippindale et al. 2000), should instead be
assigned to the Jollyville Plateau salamander. This site would
represent the northern-most record of the Jollyville Plateau salamander
in Williamson County. We propose to remove Georgetown Springs,
previously proposed as Unit 14 (San Gabriel Springs Unit) of critical
habitat for the Georgetown salamander, from further consideration in
this proposed rule given the site is now recognized as occupied by the
Jollyville Plateau salamander (Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,629).
Based on additional information we received during the comment
period on our January 25, 2013, publication (78 FR 5383), we propose to
expand the extent of surface critical habitat for both the Georgetown
and Salado salamanders. In the August 22, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR
50768), surface critical habitat was delineated by starting with the
cave or spring point locations that are occupied by the salamanders and
extending a line downstream 164 feet (ft) (50 meters (m)), as this was
the farthest a salamander has been observed from a spring outlet.
However, we are revising the proposed surface critical habitat to
include 262 ft (80 m) of stream habitat upstream and downstream from
known salamander sites. This revision is based on a study completed by
Bendik et al. (2016, p. 9) that found Jollyville Plateau salamander
movement occurring up to 262 ft (80 m) from a spring outlet in a single
year and the presence of the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species in the unit. Due to their similar
life histories, this knowledge was applied to the Georgetown and Salado
salamanders. Because the surface designation overlays, or is contained
within, the subsurface critical habitat, this expansion did not
increase the total acreage of critical habitat for either species.
An additional observation from Bendik et al. (2016, p. 9) at Bull
Creek in Travis County provided evidence that Jollyville Plateau
salamanders can travel up to 1,640 ft (500 m) from a spring outlet over
multiple years. However, the unique hydrology where that observation
was made leads us to conclude that it should not be extrapolated to the
Georgetown and Salado salamanders. The area of Bull Creek where this
particular observation was made is known for its alluvial deposits (COA
2012, p. 6), which discharge spring water through non-obvious seeps,
instead of open springheads (SWCA 2012, p. 77). This type of hydrology
seems to create suitable habitat for salamanders along long stretches
of streams, rather than a short stretch of springwater-influenced
habitat following an open spring outlet (Bendik 2013, pers. comm.). We
have no information indicating that any Georgetown or Salado salamander
sites function in the same manner as these Bull Creek alluvial
resurgence areas. As currently known, Georgetown and Salado salamanders
do not have access to the same extent or nature of aquatic surface
habitat as the Jollyville Plateau salamander (Pierce at al. 2010, pp.
14-15). Therefore, we conclude that the 1,640 ft (500 m) distance
traveled by a Jollyville Plateau salamander is an observation unique to
the hydrological setting and does not apply to the Georgetown or Salado
salamander sites.
New information we received during the comment period on our
January 25, 2013, publication (78 FR 5383) identified new Georgetown
salamander populations and provided additional data that allowed
critical habitat units to be mapped more precisely. As critical habitat
units were shifted from the Georgetown salamander to the Salado
salamander, based on Devitt et al. (2019, entire), critical habitat
units for both species were re-numbered. New locations for Salado
salamander were also discovered through sampling efforts after January
25, 2013. Georgetown and Salado salamanders are restricted to
subterranean spaces in aquifers and on the surface to springs and
associated outflow where groundwater emerges from the underlying
aquifer emerges. They are not capable of unaided, long-distance surface
dispersal between isolated springs given their aquatic life history.
Most springs in Bell and Williamson counties, and their underlying
aquifer connections, are historical landscape features that predate
European settlement of the North American continent (Brune 1981, pp.
65-69, 473-476). Given their limited mobility, and the long-term
presence of springs across this landscape, both species certainly
occupied these additional locations at the time of listing in 2014 (79
FR 10235). Springs within the Robertson Springs complex, occupied by
the Salado salamander, were also mapped to a greater level of detail.
We, therefore, propose the following additions and adjustments to
specific critical habitat units for these salamander species.
Revision of the Hogg Hollow Spring unit of critical habitat for the
Georgetown salamander involves the addition of a new location 1,207 ft
(368 m) southeast of Hogg Hollow Spring. As the subsurface habitat of
these two locations overlapped, we merged them into one critical
habitat unit. Formerly critical habitat Unit 6, the Hogg Hollow Spring
unit is renumbered as critical habitat Unit 2 for the Georgetown
salamander. We also added an additional Georgetown salamander location
(Garey Ranch Spring) 3.4 miles (mi) (5.4 kilometers (km)) southwest of
Shadow Canyon Spring.
Revision of the IH-35 Unit (Unit 4) of critical habitat for the
Salado salamander includes finer-scale mapping of spring openings
within this unit and the addition of new locations for the species at
Anderson Spring and Side Spring (Diaz and Montagne 2017, p. 6). A new
location for the Salado salamander was also identified at King's Garden
Main Spring (Unit 5) by Cambrian (2018, pp. 5-6). Individuals from this
site were not sampled by Devitt et al. (2019a, entire), but the site's
location north of Lake Georgetown places it within the current range of
the Salado salamander defined by Devitt et al. (2019a, p. 2,629). We
moved the boundaries of critical habitat at Bat Well Cave (formerly
Georgetown salamander critical habitat Unit 3 and renumbered as Salado
salamander critical habitat Unit 10) approximately 328 ft (100 m) to
the northeast, based on information that stated this is where
salamanders were found in the cave underground (Hunter and Russell
1993, p. 7-8). We also re-evaluated Cobbs Well and concluded that this
location is part of the same population of Salado salamanders (formerly
Georgetown salamanders) as Cobbs Springs rather than its own separate
subsurface population, due to its proximity to Cobbs Springs (within
the 984-ft (300-m) subsurface habitat of Cobbs Springs). We, therefore,
removed Cobbs Well as a separate occupied location from proposed Salado
salamander critical habitat Unit 6 (formerly Georgetown salamander
critical habitat Unit 1), reducing the subsurface critical habitat
acreage for this unit from 83 ac (34 ha) to 68 ac (28 ha). Cobbs Well
is still contained within Unit 6 for the Salado salamander.
For the Georgetown salamander, these proposed revisions decrease
the total

[[Page 57584]]

proposed critical habitat designation by five units and approximately
300 ac (124 ha). The total number of proposed critical habitat units,
landownership by type, and size of the proposed critical habitat units
for the Georgetown salamander are presented in Table 1, below.
For the Salado salamander, these proposed revisions increase the
total proposed critical habitat designation by six units and
approximately 415 ac (171 ha). The total number of proposed critical
habitat units, landownership by type, and size of the proposed critical
habitat units for the Salado salamander are presented in Table 2,
below.
The total amount of critical habitat we are proposing for both
salamanders has increased by approximately 116 ac (47 ha). The reasons
for this increase are the addition of a new occupied site for the
Salado salamander and refined mapping of previously proposed critical
habitat units based on more precise spring locations.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkali soil
for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or susceptibility
to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-successional habitat
characteristics. Biological features might include prey species, forage
grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting,
symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species consistent
with conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be
combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the
relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a
characteristic essential to support the life history of the species. In
considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the
species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
Based on public comment, we separated the summary of essential
physical or biological features (formerly primary constituent elements)
for these salamander species into surface and subsurface habitat
categories and added additional details in order to clarify habitat
needs of both species. We derive the specific physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the Georgetown and Salado
salamanders from studies of the species' habitat, ecology, and life
history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the proposed
rule to designate critical habitat published in the Federal Register on
August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50768), and in the information presented below.
Additional information can be found in the final listing rule for the
Georgetown and Salado salamanders (79 FR 10236; February 24, 2014).
Observational and experimental studies on the habitat requirements
of Georgetown and Salado salamanders are rare. In the field of aquatic
ecotoxicology, it is common practice to apply the results of
experiments on common species to other species that are of direct
interest (Caro et al. 2005, p. 1,823). In addition, the field of
conservation biology is increasingly relying on information about
surrogate species to predict how related species will respond to
stressors (for example, see Caro et al. 2005 pp. 1,821-1,826; Wenger
2008, p. 1,565). In instances where information was not available for
the Georgetown and Salado salamander specifically, we have provided
references for studies conducted on similarly related species, such as
the Jollyville Plateau salamander and Barton Springs salamander
(Eurycea sosorum), which occur within the central Texas area, and other
salamander species that occur in other parts of the United States. The
similarities among these species may include: (1) A clear systematic
(evolutionary) relationship (for example, members of the Family
Plethodontidae); (2) shared life-history attributes (for example, the
lack of metamorphosis into a terrestrial form); (3) similar morphology
and physiology (for example, the lack of lungs for respiration and
sensitivity to environmental conditions); (4) similar prey (for
example, small invertebrate species); and (5) similar habitat and
ecological requirements (for example, dependence on aquatic habitat in
or near springs with a rocky or gravel substrate). Depending on the
amount and variety of characteristics in which one salamander species
can be analogous to another, we used these similarities as a basis to
infer further parallels in what Georgetown and Salado salamanders
require from their habitat. We have determined that the Georgetown and
Salado salamanders require the physical or biological features
described below.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

Georgetown and Salado Salamanders
The Georgetown salamander occurs in wetted caves and where water
emerges from the ground as a spring-fed stream. The Salado salamander
occurs where water emerges from the ground as a spring-fed stream.
Within the spring ecosystem, salamanders' proximity to the springhead
is presumed important because of the appropriate stable water chemistry
and temperature, substrate, and flow regime. Eurycea salamanders, which
includes Georgetown and Salado salamanders, are rarely found more than
66 ft (20 m) from a spring source (TPWD 2011, p. 3). Georgetown
salamanders have been found within 164 ft (50 m) of a spring opening
(Pierce et al. 2011a, p. 4). However, they are most abundant within the
first 16 ft (5 m) (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 294) of a spring opening.
Pierce et al. (2013, p. 2) found little movement of Georgetown
salamanders within two spring sites, but their study limited the search
area to the first 92 ft (28 m) of the spring run. However, Jollyville
Plateau salamanders, a closely related species, have been found up to
262 ft (80 m) both upstream and downstream

[[Page 57585]]

from a spring outlet (Bendik et al. 2016, p. 9). Bendik et al. (2016,
p. 9) demonstrates that Eurycea salamanders, such as the Jollyville
Plateau salamander, in central Texas can travel greater distances from
a discrete spring opening than previously thought, including upstream
areas, if suitable habitat is present.
Georgetown and Salado salamanders likely use the subterranean
aquifer for habitat throughout the year, similar to other Eurycea
species (Bendik and Gluesenkamp 2012, pp. 4-5; Bendik et al. 2013, pp.
10-12, 15; Bendik 2017, p. 5,013; Diaz and Bronson-Warren 2018, p. 11;
Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,625). Morphological forms of Georgetown
salamander with cave adaptations have been found at two caves (TPWD
2011, p. 8), indicating that they spend all of their lives underground
at these two locations. We assume that the Salado salamander also uses
subsurface areas given recruitment of individuals to the surface from
the underlying aquifer, with surface recruitment at one occupied spring
opening in Bell County estimated at 0.03 salamanders per day (Diaz and
Bronson-Warren 2019, p. 7). Therefore, based on the information above,
we identify springs, associated streams, and underground spaces within
the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer to be physical or
biological features essential for individual and population growth and
for normal behavior of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders.

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

Georgetown and Salado Salamanders
No species-specific dietary study has been completed, but the diet
of the Georgetown salamander is presumed to be similar to other Eurycea
species, consisting of small aquatic invertebrates such as amphipods,
copepods, isopods, and insect larvae (reviewed in COA 2001, pp. 5-6).
Crustaceans from the Class Ostracoda were the most commonly observed
prey item for Salado salamanders (Diaz and Bronson-Warren 2018, pp. 8,
14). Other invertebrates consumed by the Salado salamander included
amphipods, aquatic snails, and larvae of mayflies and caddisflies (Diaz
and Bronson-Warren 2018, p. 14). Flatworms were found to be the primary
food source for the related Barton Springs salamander (Gillespie 2013,
p. 5), suggesting that flatworms may also contribute to the diet of the
Georgetown and Salado salamanders if present in the invertebrate
community.
Georgetown and Salado salamanders are strictly aquatic and spend
their entire lives submersed in water from the Northern Segment of the
Edwards Aquifer (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 296; Diaz and Bronson-Warren
2019, p. 7). These salamanders, and the prey that they feed on, require
water sourced from the Edwards Aquifer at sufficient flows (quantity)
to meet all of their physiological requirements (TPWD 2011, p. 8). This
water should be flowing and unchanged in chemistry, temperature, and
volume from natural conditions. Normal water temperature at two
relatively undisturbed Georgetown salamander sites ranged from 64.1 to
73.1 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (17.9 to 22.9 degrees Celsius
([deg]C)) throughout the year (Pierce 2012, pp. 7-8). Concentrations of
contaminants should be below levels that could exert direct lethal or
sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth,
development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as
effects to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders' prey base).
Edwards Aquifer Eurycea species are adapted to a lower ideal range
of oxygen saturations compared to other salamanders (Turner 2009, p.
11). However, Eurycea salamanders need dissolved oxygen concentrations
to be above a certain threshold, as the related Barton Springs
salamander demonstrates declining abundance with declining dissolved
oxygen levels (Turner 2009, p. 14). In addition, low dissolved oxygen
concentrations (below 4.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L)) resulted in a
number of physiological effects in the related San Marcos salamander
including decreased metabolic rates and decreased juvenile growth rates
(Woods et al. 2010, p. 544). Georgetown salamander sites are
characterized by high levels of dissolved oxygen, typically 6 to 8 mg/L
(Pierce and Wall 2011, p. 33). Therefore, we presume that the dissolved
oxygen level of water is important to the Georgetown and Salado
salamanders for respiratory function.
The conductivity of water is also important to salamander
physiology. Increased conductivity is associated with increased water
contamination and decreased Eurycea abundance (Willson and Dorcas 2003,
pp. 766-768; Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 117-118). The lower limit of
observed conductivity in developed Jollyville Plateau salamander sites
where salamander densities were lower than undeveloped sites was 800
micro Siemens per cm ([micro]S/cm) (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117).
Salamanders were significantly more abundant at undeveloped sites where
water conductivity averaged 600 [micro]S/cm (Bowles et al. 2006, p.
117). Because of their similar physiology to the Jollyville Plateau
salamander, we presume that the Georgetown and Salado salamanders will
have a similar response to elevated water conductance. Normal water
conductance at a relatively undisturbed Georgetown salamander site
ranges from 604 to 721 [micro]S/cm throughout the year (Pierce et al.
2010, p. 294). Although one laboratory study on the related San Marcos
salamander demonstrated that conductivities up to 2,738 [micro]S/cm had
no measurable effect on adult activity (Woods and Poteet 2006, p. 5),
it remains unclear how elevated water conductance might affect
juveniles or the long-term health of salamanders in the wild. In the
absence of better information on the sensitivity of salamanders to
changes in conductivity (or other contaminants) in the wild, it is
reasonable to presume that salamander survival, growth, and
reproduction will be most successful when water quality is unaltered
from natural aquifer conditions.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify aquatic
invertebrates and water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards
Aquifer, including adequate dissolved oxygen concentration of 6 to 8
mg/L, water conductance of 604 to 721 [micro]S/cm, and water
temperature of 64.1 to 73.1 [deg]F (17.9 to 22.9 [deg]C), to be
physical or biological features essential for the nutritional and
physiological requirements of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders.

Cover or Shelter

Georgetown and Salado Salamanders
Similar to other Eurycea salamanders in central Texas, Georgetown
and Salado salamanders move an unknown depth into the interstitial
spaces (empty voids between rocks) within the substrate, using these
spaces for foraging habitat and cover from predators (Cole 1995, p. 24;
Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. 16-17). These spaces should have minimal
sediment, as sediment fills interstitial spaces, eliminating resting
places and also reducing habitat of the prey base (small aquatic
invertebrates) (O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34).
Georgetown and Salado salamanders have been observed under rocks,
leaf litter, woody debris, and other cover objects (Pierce et al. 2010,
p. 295; Gluesenkamp 2011a, TPWD, pers. comm.). Georgetown salamanders
appear to prefer large rocks over other cover objects (Pierce et al.
2010, p. 295), which is consistent with other studies on Eurycea
habitat (Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 114, 116). Although no study has

[[Page 57586]]

demonstrated the substrate preference of the Salado salamander, we
presume that this species prefers large rocks over other cover objects,
similar to other closely related Eurycea salamanders. Larger rocks
provide more suitable interstitial spaces for foraging and cover.
If springs stop flowing and the surface habitat dries up,
Jollyville Plateau salamanders recede with the water table and persist
in groundwater refugia until surface flow returns (Bendik 2011a, p.
31). Access to refugia allows populations some resiliency against
drought events. Due to the similar life history and habitats of the
Georgetown, Salado, and Jollyville Plateau salamanders, we presume that
access to subsurface refugia for shelter during drought is also
important for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify rocky
substrate, consisting of boulder, cobble, and gravel, with interstitial
spaces that have minimal sediment, and access to the subsurface
groundwater table to be physical or biological features essential for
the cover and shelter for these species.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring

Georgetown and Salado Salamanders
Little is known about the reproductive habits of these species in
the wild. However, the Georgetown and Salado salamanders are fully
aquatic, spending all of their life cycles in aquifer and spring
waters. Eggs of central Texas Eurycea species are rarely seen on the
surface, so it is widely assumed that eggs are laid underground
(Gluesenkamp 2011a, TPWD, pers. comm.; Bendik 2011b, COA, pers. comm.).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify access to
subsurface or subterranean, water-filled voids of varying sizes (e.g.,
caves, conduits, fractures, and interstitial spaces) to be a physical
or biological feature essential for breeding and reproduction for this
species.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features for the Georgetown
and Salado Salamanders

We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders from studies of these
species' habitat, ecology, and life history, as described above. We
have determined that the following physical or biological features are
essential to the conservation of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders:
Georgetown Salamander
(1) For surface habitat:
(A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
Groundwater issuing to the surface from the underlying aquifer is
similar to natural aquifer conditions as it discharges from natural
spring outlets. Concentrations of water quality constituents and
contaminants should be below levels that could exert direct lethal or
sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth,
development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as
effects to the Georgetown salamander's prey base). The Service is
unaware of any studies that specifically define the water quality
constituents or contaminants that would have deleterious effects on
these salamanders. Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern
of the specific sites are present, with at least some surface flow
during the year. The water chemistry of aquatic surface habitats is
similar to natural aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 64.1 to
73.1 [deg]F (17.9 to 22.8 [deg]C), dissolved oxygen concentrations from
6 to 8 mg/L, and specific water conductance from 604 to 721 [micro]S/
cm.
(B) Rocky substrate with interstitial spaces. Rocks in the
substrate of the salamander's surface aquatic habitat are large enough
to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. The
substrate and interstitial spaces have minimal sedimentation.
(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The spring environment supports
a diverse aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans,
insects, and flatworms.
(D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to the subsurface water table
exists to provide shelter, protection, and space for reproduction. This
access can occur in the form of large conduits that carry water to the
spring outlet or porous voids between rocks in the streambed that
extend down into the water table.
(2) For subsurface habitat:
(A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
Groundwater quality is similar to natural aquifer conditions.
Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants should be
below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such
as effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic
processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the Georgetown
salamander's prey base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical
pattern of the specific sites are present, with continuous flow. The
water chemistry is similar to natural aquifer conditions, with
temperatures from 64.1 to 73.1 [deg]F (17.9 to 22.8 [deg]C), dissolved
oxygen concentrations from 6 to 8 mg/L, and specific water conductance
from 604 to 721 [micro]S/cm.
(B) Subsurface spaces. Voids between rocks underground are large
enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging
habitat. These spaces have minimal sedimentation.
(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The habitat supports an aquatic
invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, or
flatworms.
Salado Salamander
(1) For surface habitat:
(A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
Groundwater quality issuing to the surface from the underlying aquifer
is similar to natural aquifer conditions as it discharges from natural
spring outlets. Concentrations of water quality constituents and
contaminants are below levels that could exert direct lethal or
sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth,
development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as
effects to the Salado salamander's prey base). Hydrologic regimes
similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present,
with at least some surface flow during the year. The water chemistry of
aquatic surface habitats is similar to natural aquifer conditions, with
temperatures from 64.1 to 73.1 [deg]F (17.9 to 22.8 [deg]C), dissolved
oxygen concentrations from 6 to 8 mg/L, and specific water conductance
from 604 to 721 [micro]S/cm.
(B) Rocky substrate with interstitial spaces. Rocks in the
substrate of the salamander's surface aquatic habitat are large enough
to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. The
substrate and interstitial spaces have minimal sedimentation.
(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The spring environment is
capable of supporting a diverse aquatic invertebrate community that
includes crustaceans, insects, and flatworms.
(D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to the subsurface water table
exists to provide shelter, protection, and space for reproduction. This
access can occur in the form of large conduits that carry water to the
spring outlet or porous voids between rocks in the streambed that
extend down into the water table.
(2) For subsurface habitat:
(A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
Groundwater quality is similar to natural aquifer conditions.
Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants are below
levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as
effects to reproduction, growth,

[[Page 57587]]

development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as
effects to the Salado salamander's prey base). Hydrologic regimes
similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present,
with continuous flow. The water chemistry is similar to natural aquifer
conditions, with temperatures from 64.1 to 73.1 [deg]F (17.9 to 22.8
[deg]C), dissolved oxygen concentrations from 6 to 8 mg/L, and specific
water conductance from 604 to 721 [micro]S/cm.
(B) Subsurface spaces. Voids between rocks underground are large
enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging
habitat. These spaces have minimal sedimentation.
(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The habitat is capable of
supporting an aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans,
insects, or flatworms.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of this species
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce
the following threats: Water quality degradation from contaminants,
alteration to natural flow regimes, and physical habitat modification.
The areas proposed for critical habitat include both surface and
subsurface critical habitat components. The surface critical habitat
includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the high water line and
150 ft (80 m) of downstream habitat, but does not include manmade
structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas); nor does it include upland habitat adjacent to streams.
However, the subterranean aquifer may extend below such structures
beneath the surface habitat. The subsurface critical habitat includes
underground features in a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around
the springs. Most of our proposed critical habitat is a subsurface
designation and only includes the physical area beneath any buildings
on the surface.
We detailed threats to surface and subsurface habitats in Factor A:
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range of the final listing rule for the Georgetown and
Salado salamanders (79 FR 10235). The Georgetown and Salado salamanders
are sensitive to modification of surface (i.e., spring openings and
outflow) and subsurface habitats. Due to the connectivity between the
surface and subsurface habitats, an impact to one will affect the
other. Examples of surface habitat modifications may include (but are
not limited to) damage to spring openings, sedimentation due to
construction activities, and installation of impoundments. Examples of
impacts to subsurface habitat may include (but are not limited to)
pipeline construction, replacement, and maintenance, excavation for
construction or quarrying, and groundwater depletion that can reduce
spring flow. The depth of the subsurface habitat will vary from site to
site.
For these salamanders, special management considerations or
protections may be needed to address identified threats. Management
activities that could ameliorate threats to surface habitat include
(but are not limited to): (1) Protecting the quality of cave and spring
water by implementing comprehensive programs to control and reduce
point sources and non-point sources of pollution throughout the
Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer; (2) minimizing the likelihood
of pollution events or surface runoff from existing and future
development that would affect groundwater quality; (3) protecting
groundwater and spring flow quantity (for example, by implementing
water conservation and drought contingency plans throughout the
Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer); (4) protecting water quality
and quantity from present and future quarrying; (5) excluding cattle
and feral hogs from spring openings and outflow through fencing to
protect spring habitats from damage; and (6) fencing and signage to
protect spring habitats from human vandalism. Some of the management
activities listed above, such as those that protect spring flow and
groundwater quality, protect both surface and subsurface habitats, as
these are interconnected.
Additional management activities that could ameliorate threats that
are specific to subsurface habitat include (but are not limited to):
(1) The development and implementation of void mitigation plans for
construction projects to prevent impacts to salamanders in the event of
severed aquifer conduits or interrupted groundwater flow paths; (2)
site-specific plans developed by geotechnical engineers to prevent
changes to subsurface water flow from construction activities; (3) the
presence of environmental monitors during construction, excavation, and
drilling activities to monitor spring flow; and (4) post-construction
monitoring of spring flow. Because subsurface habitat differs with
regard to groundwater flow paths, depth, and amount of water-bearing
rocks with voids that can support salamanders, management and
mitigation plans to ameliorate threats will need to be developed on a
site-specific basis.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. During our preparation for
designating critical habitat for the two salamander species, we
reviewed: (1) Data for historical and current occurrence; (2)
information pertaining to habitat features essential for the
conservation of these species; and (3) scientific information on the
biology and ecology of the two species. We have also reviewed a number
of studies and surveys of the two salamander species that confirm
historical and current occurrence of the two species including, but not
limited to, Sweet (1978; 1982), Russell (1993), Warton (1997), COA
(2001), Chippindale et al. (2000), Hillis et al. (2001), and Devitt et
al. (2019). Finally, salamander site locations and observations were
verified with the aid of salamander biologists, museum collection
records, and site visits.
We are not currently proposing to designate any additional areas
outside the geographical area occupied by these species because we have
determined that occupied areas are sufficient to conserve the
Georgetown and Salado salamanders, although we acknowledge that other
areas, such as the recharge zone of the aquifers supporting salamander
locations, are very important to the conservation of the species. This
critical habitat designation delineates the habitat that is physically
occupied and used by the species rather than delineating all land or
aquatic areas that influence the species. We also recognize that there
may be additional occupied areas outside of the areas designated as
critical habitat that we are not aware of at the time of this
designation that may be necessary for

[[Page 57588]]

the conservation of the species. For the purpose of designating
critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders, we define
an area as occupied based upon the reliable observation of a salamander
species by a knowledgeable scientist. It is very difficult to determine
whether a salamander population has been extirpated from a spring site
due to these species' ability to occupy the inaccessible subsurface
habitat. We, therefore, consider any site that had a salamander
observation occupied at the time of listing to be currently occupied,
unless that spring or cave site had been destroyed.
Based on our review, the critical habitat areas (described below)
are within the geographical range occupied by at least one of the two
salamander species and meet the definition of critical habitat. The
true extent to which the subterranean populations of these species
exist below ground away from outlets of the spring system is unknown
because the hydrology of central Texas is very complex and information
on the hydrology of specific spring sites is largely unknown. We will
continue to seek information to increase our understanding of spring
hydrology and salamander underground distribution to inform
conservation efforts for these species. At the time of this proposed
critical habitat rule, the best scientific evidence available suggests
that a population of groundwater-dependent Eurycea salamanders can
extend at least 984 ft (300 m) from the spring opening through
underground conduits or voids between rocks. For example, the Austin
blind salamander is believed to occur underground throughout the entire
Barton Springs complex (Dries 2011, pers. comm.). The spring habitats
used by salamanders of the Barton Springs complex are not connected on
the surface, so the Austin blind salamander population extends at least
984 feet (ft) (300 meters (m)) underground, as this is the approximate
distance between the farthest two outlets within the Barton Springs
complex known to be occupied by the species.
We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas that we
have determined are occupied by one of the two salamanders and contain
physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the
species. We delineated both surface and subsurface critical habitat
components. As previously stated, a Jollyville Plateau salamander was
observed to have traveled up to 1,640 ft (500 m) after multiple years
in Bull Creek (Bendik et al. 2016, p. 9). However, the surface critical
habitat component was delineated by starting with the spring point
locations that are occupied by the salamanders and extending a line
upstream and downstream 262 ft (80 m). This was the furthest distance a
Eurycea salamander has been observed from a spring outlet in a single
year (Bendik et al. 2016, p. 9) and is likely a more reasonable
distance for salamander's in common hydrological settings. We applied
this maximum distance to account for the potential movement and surface
habitat use of Georgetown and Salado salamanders upstream and
downstream of spring openings. It is reasonable to consider the
downstream and upstream habitat occupied based on the dispersal
capabilities observed in individuals of very similar species. When
determining surface critical habitat boundaries, we were not able to
delineate specific stream segments on the map due to the small size of
the streams. Therefore, we drew a circle with a 262-ft (80-m) radius
representing the extent the surface population of the site is estimated
to exist upstream and downstream. This circle does not include upland
habitat adjacent to streams. The surface critical habitat includes the
spring outlets and outflow up to the ordinary high water mark (the
average amount of water present in nonflood conditions, as defined in
33 CFR 328.3(e)) and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and downstream habitat
(to the extent that this habitat is ever present), including the dry
stream channel during periods of no surface flow. We acknowledge that
some spring sites occupied by one of the two salamanders are the start
of the watercourse, and upstream habitat does not exist for these
sites. The surface habitat we are designating as critical habitat does
not include human made structures (such as buildings, aqueducts,
runways, roads, and other paved areas) within this circle, nor does it
include upland habitat adjacent to streams.
We delineated the subsurface critical habitat unit boundaries by
starting with the cave or spring point locations that are occupied by
the salamanders. Depth to subsurface habitat will vary from site to
site based on local geology. From these cave or spring points, we
delineated an area with a 984-ft (300-m) radius to create the polygons
that capture the extent to which we believe the salamander populations
exist through underground habitat. This radial distance comes from
observations of the Austin blind salamander, which is believed to occur
underground throughout the entire Barton Springs complex (Dries 2011,
COA, pers. comm.). The Austin blind salamander is a reasonable
surrogate for Salado and Georgetown salamanders as it also inhabits
subsurface, water-filled voids in the underlying Edwards Aquifer
(Hillis et al. 2001, p. 23). The spring outlets used by salamanders of
the Barton Springs complex are not connected on the surface, so the
Austin blind salamander population extends a horizontal distance of at
least 984 ft (300 m) underground, as this is the approximate distance
between the farthest two outlets within the Barton Springs complex
known to be occupied by the species. This distance was applied to the
Georgetown and Salado salamanders given their reliance on subsurface
aquifer habitats (Bendik and Gluesenkamp 2012, pp. 4-5; Bendik et al.
2013, pp. 10-12, 15; Bendik 2017, p. 5,013; Diaz and Bronson-Warren
2018, p. 11; Devitt et al. 2019, p. 2,625). Polygons that were within
98 ft (30 m) of each other were merged together as these areas have the
potential to be connected underground (Devitt et al. 2019a, pp. 2,629-
2,630). Each merged polygon was then revised by removing extraneous
divots or protrusions that resulted from the merge process.
Developed areas of surface habitat, such as lands covered by
buildings, pavement, and other structures, lack physical or biological
features for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. The scale of the
maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code
of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed
lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat
boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded
by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as
critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as
proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger
section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical
habitat.
We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently
occupied) and that contain all of the physical or biological features
that are essential to support life-history processes of the species.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat

[[Page 57589]]

designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2020-0048, and on our internet site https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/ESA_Sp_Salamanders.html.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

In Tables 1 and 2 below, we present the revised proposed critical
habitat units for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. All units are
considered occupied by the relevant species at the time of listing. We
also provide revised unit descriptions for all Georgetown and Salado
salamander critical habitat units. The critical habitat areas we
describe below constitute our current best assessment of subsurface and
surface areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the
Georgetown and Salado salamanders. During periods of drought or
dewatering on the surface in and around spring sites, access to the
subsurface water table must be provided for shelter and protection.
Surface critical habitat includes the spring outlets and outflow up to
the high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of downstream habitat, but does
not include terrestrial habitats or humanmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule or land adjacent to streams; however,
the subterranean aquifer may extend below such structures. The
subterranean critical habitat includes underground features in a circle
with a radius 984 ft (300 m) around the springs.

Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Georgetown Salamander
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of unit
Critical habitat unit Land ownership by in acres
type (hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Water Tank Cave Unit........... Private............. 68 (28)
2. Hogg Hollow Spring Unit........ Private, Federal.... 122 (49)
3. Cedar Hollow Spring Unit....... Private............. 68 (28)
4. Lake Georgetown Unit........... Federal, Private.... 134 (54)
5. Buford Hollow Spring Unit...... Federal, Private.... 68 (28)
6. Swinbank Spring Unit........... City, Private....... 68 (28)
7. Avant Spring Unit.............. Private............. 68 (28)
8. Shadow Canyon Spring Unit...... City, Private....... 68 (28)
9. Garey Ranch Spring Unit........ Private............. 68 (28)
---------------
Total......................... .................... 732 (299)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all
land within critical habitat unit boundaries.

Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Salado Salamander
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of unit
Critical habitat unit Land ownership by in acres
type (hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Hog Hollow Spring Unit......... Private............. 68 (28)
2. Solana Spring Unit............. Private............. 68 (28)
3. Cistern Spring Unit............ Private............. 68 (28)
4. IH-35 Unit..................... Private, State, City 175 (71)
5. King's Garden Main Spring Unit. Private............. 68 (28)
6. Cobbs Spring Unit.............. Private............. 68 (28)
7. Cowan Creek Spring Unit........ Private............. 68 (28)
8. Walnut Spring Unit............. Private, County..... 68 (28)
9. Twin Springs Unit.............. Private, County..... 68 (28)
10. Bat Well Cave Unit............ Private............. 68 (28)
---------------
Total......................... .................... 787 (323)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all
land within critical habitat unit boundaries.

Georgetown Salamander

Critical habitat units proposed for the Georgetown salamander may
require special management because of the potential for groundwater
pollution from current and future development in the watershed, present
operations and future expansion of quarrying activities, depletion of
groundwater, and other threats (see Special Management Considerations
or Protection). All proposed units are occupied by the Georgetown
salamander. The proposed designation includes the spring outlets and
outflow up to the high water mark and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and
downstream habitat. Units are further delineated by drawing a circle
with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the
extent of the subterranean critical habitat. For cave populations of
the Georgetown salamander, the unit is delineated by drawing a circle
with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the underground location of the
salamanders, representing the extent of the proposed subsurface
critical habitat.
Unit 1: Water Tank Cave Unit
Unit 1 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in
west-central Williamson County, Texas. A golf course crosses the unit
from northwest to southeast, and there are several roads in the eastern
part of the unit. A secondary road crosses the extreme southern portion
of the unit, and there are residences in the northwestern,
southwestern, and west-central portions of the unit. This unit contains
Water Tank Cave, which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The
unit

[[Page 57590]]

contains the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species.
Unit 2: Hogg Hollow Spring Unit
Unit 2 consists of approximately 122 ac (49 ha) of U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers land and private land in Williamson County, Texas. The
unit is located south of Lake Georgetown and is mostly undeveloped. The
northwestern part of the unit includes Sawyer Park, part of the Lake
Georgetown recreation area. This unit contains two springs: Hogg Hollow
Spring and Hogg Hollow 2 Spring, which are occupied by the Georgetown
salamander. Hogg Hollow Spring is located on Hogg Hollow, and Hogg
Hollow 2 Spring is located on an unnamed stream, both tributaries to
Lake Georgetown. The unit contains the physical or biological features
essential for the conservation of the species.
Unit 3: Cedar Hollow Spring Unit
Unit 3 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in
west-central Williamson County, Texas. A secondary road crosses the
extreme southern portion of the unit, and there are residences in the
northwestern, southwestern, and west-central portions of the unit. This
unit contains Cedar Hollow Spring, which is occupied by the Georgetown
salamander. The spring is located on Cedar Hollow, a tributary to Lake
Georgetown. The unit contains the physical or biological features
essential for the conservation of the species.
Unit 4: Lake Georgetown Unit
Unit 4 consists of approximately 134 ac (54 ha) of Federal and
private land in west-central Williamson County, Texas. Part of the unit
is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Lake Georgetown property. There
are currently no plans to develop the property. There is some control
of public access. Unpaved roads are found in the western portion of the
unit, and a trail begins in the central part of the unit and leaves the
northeast corner. A secondary road crosses the extreme southern portion
of the unit, and there are residences in the northwestern,
southwestern, and west-central portions of the unit. A large quarry is
located a short distance southeast of the unit. This unit includes two
springs, Knight (Crockett Gardens) Spring and Cedar Breaks Hiking Trail
Spring, which are occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The springs
are located on an unnamed tributary to Lake Georgetown. A portion of
the northern part of the unit extends under Lake Georgetown. The unit
contains the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species.
Unit 5: Buford Hollow Spring Unit
Unit 5 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of Federal and
private land in west-central Williamson County, Texas. The unit is
located just below the spillway for Lake Georgetown. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers owns most of this unit as part of Lake Georgetown.
The D.B. Wood Road, a major thoroughfare, crosses the eastern part of
the unit. The rest of the unit is undeveloped. This unit contains
Buford Hollow Springs, which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander.
The spring is located on Buford Hollow, a tributary to the North Fork
San Gabriel River. The unit contains the physical or biological
features essential for the conservation of the species.
Unit 6: Swinbank Spring Unit
Unit 6 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of City and private
land in west-central Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located near
River Road south of Melanie Lane. The northern part of the unit is
primarily in residential development, while the southern part of this
unit is primarily undeveloped. This unit contains Swinbank Spring,
which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The spring is located
just off the main channel of North Fork San Gabriel River. The unit
contains the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species. The population of Georgetown salamanders
in the spring is being monitored monthly as part of the Williamson
County Regional HCP's efforts to conserve the species.
Unit 7: Avant Spring Unit
Unit 7 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in
west-central Williamson County, Texas. The northern part of a large
quarry is along the southwestern edge of the unit. The rest of the unit
is undeveloped. This unit contains Avant's (Capitol Aggregates) Spring,
which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The spring is close to
the streambed of the Middle Fork of the San Gabriel River. The unit
contains the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species.
Unit 8: Shadow Canyon Spring Unit
Unit 8 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of City and private
land in west-central Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located just
south of State Highway 29. This unit contains Shadow Canyon Spring,
which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The spring is located
on an unnamed tributary of South Fork San Gabriel River. The unit
contains the essential physical or biological features for the
conservation of the species. The unit is authorized for development
under the Shadow Canyon HCP. Impacts to the endangered golden-cheeked
warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and Bone Cave harvestman (Texella
reyesi) are permitted under the Shadow Canyon HCP; however, impacts to
Georgetown salamander are not covered under the HCP.
Unit 9: Garey Ranch Spring Unit
Unit 9 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in
Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located north of RM 2243. The
unit is mostly undeveloped. A small amount of residential development
enters the southern and eastern parts of the unit. This unit contains
Garey Ranch Spring, which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander. It
is located on an unnamed tributary to the South Fork San Gabriel River.
The unit contains the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species.

Salado Salamander

Critical habitat units proposed for the Salado salamander may
require special management because of the potential for groundwater
pollution from current and future development in the watershed, present
operations and future expansion of quarrying activities, depletion of
groundwater, and other threats (see Special Management Considerations
or Protection). All proposed units are considered to be occupied by the
Salado salamander. The proposed designation includes the spring outlets
and outflow up to the high water mark and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and
downstream habitat. Units are further delineated by drawing a circle
with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the
extent of the subterranean critical habitat. For cave populations of
the Salado salamander, the unit is delineated by drawing a circle with
a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the underground location of the
salamanders, representing the extent of the proposed subsurface
critical habitat.
Unit 1: Hog Hollow Spring Unit
Unit 1 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land
located in southwestern Bell County, Texas. The unit is primarily
undeveloped ranch land. This unit contains Hog Hollow Spring, which is
occupied by the Salado salamander. The unit is located on a tributary
to Rumsey Creek in the Salado Creek drainage and contains the physical
or biological features essential

[[Page 57591]]

for the conservation of the species. In 2016, the owners of the spring
entered into an agreement with The Nature Conservancy for a perpetual
conservation easement that provides long-term protection for this site.
Unit 2: Solana Spring Unit
Unit 2 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land
located in southwestern Bell County, Texas. The unit is primarily
undeveloped ranch land. This unit contains Solana Spring, which is
occupied by the Salado salamander. The unit is located on a tributary
to Rumsey Creek in the Salado Creek drainage and contains the physical
or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
In 2016, the owners of the spring entered into an agreement with The
Nature Conservancy for a perpetual conservation easement that provides
long-term protection for this site.
Unit 3: Cistern Spring Unit
Unit 3 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land
located in southwestern Bell County, Texas, on the same private ranch
as Units 1 and 2 for the Salado salamander. The unit is primarily
undeveloped ranch land. This unit contains Cistern Spring, which is
occupied by the Salado salamander. The unit is located on a tributary
to Rumsey Creek in the Salado Creek drainage and contains the physical
or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.
In 2016, the owners of the spring entered into an agreement with The
Nature Conservancy for a perpetual conservation easement that provides
long-term protection for this site.
Unit 4: IH-35 Unit
Unit 4 consists of approximately 175 ac (71 ha) of private, State,
and City of Salado land located in southwestern Bell County, Texas, in
the southern part of the Village of Salado. The unit extends along
Salado Creek on both sides of Interstate Highway 35 (IH 35). The IH 35
right-of-way crosses Salado Creek and is owned by the Texas Department
of Transportation. The unit is a mixture of residential and commercial
properties on its eastern portion, with some undeveloped ranch land in
the western part west of IH-35. This unit contains Robertson Springs
complex, located on private property. West of IH-35 consists of two
springs, Creek Spring and Sam Bass Spring, and five spring openings,
Bathtub, Beaver Upper, Beaver Middle, Headwaters, and Maria, occupied
by the Salado salamander. East of IH-35, the Downtown Spring complex of
Unit 4 contains five springs, Anderson Spring, Big Boiling Spring, Lazy
Days Fish Farm, Lil' Bubbly Spring, and Side Spring, which are all
located on private property and occupied by the Salado salamander.
The spring habitat within this unit has been modified. In the fall
of 2011, the outflow channels and edges of Big Boiling and Lil' Bubbly
Spring were reconstructed by a local organization, with large limestone
blocks and mortar, to increase human access and visitation. In
addition, in response to other activity in the area, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers issued a cease-and-desist order to the Salado
Chamber of Commerce in October 2011, for unauthorized discharge of
dredged or fill material that occurred in this area (Brooks 2011, U.S.
Corps of Engineers, in litt.). This order was issued in relation to the
need for a section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.). A citation from a Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)
game warden was also issued in October 2011, due to the need for a sand
and gravel permit from the TPWD for work being conducted within TPWD
jurisdiction (Heger 2012a, pers. comm.). The citation was issued
because the Salado Chamber of Commerce had been directed by the game
warden to stop work within TPWD jurisdiction, which they did
temporarily, but work started again contrary to the game warden's
directive (Heger 2012a, pers. comm.). A sand and gravel permit was
obtained on March 21, 2012. The spring run modifications were already
completed by this date, but further modifications in the springs were
prohibited by the permit. Additional work on the bank upstream of the
springs was permitted and completed (Heger 2012b, pers. comm.).
Unit 5: King's Garden Main Spring Unit
Unit 5 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in
northern Williamson County, Texas. The unit is undeveloped land. The
unit contains King's Garden Main Spring, which is occupied by the
Salado salamander. The surface population of King's Garden Main Spring
has been observed at the spring's outlet. The unit contains the
physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the
species.
Unit 6: Cobbs Spring Unit
Unit 6 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land
located in northwestern Williamson County, Texas. The unit is
undeveloped land. This unit contains Cobbs Spring, which is occupied by
the Salado salamander. Cobbs Springs is located on Cobbs Springs
Branch. The subsurface population of Cobbs Spring has been observed in
Cobbs Well (Gluesenkamp 2011a, TPWD, pers. comm.), which is located
approximately 328 ft (100 m) to the southwest of the spring. The unit
contains the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species.
Unit 7: Cowan Creek Spring Unit
Unit 7 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land
located in west-central Williamson County, Texas. The northern portion
of the unit is residential development; the remainder is undeveloped.
This unit contains Cowan Creek Spring, which is occupied by the Salado
salamander. The spring is located on Cowan Creek. The unit contains the
physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the
species.
Unit 8: Walnut Spring Unit
Unit 8 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private and
Williamson County land located in west-central Williamson County,
Texas. The western, eastern, and northeastern portions of the unit
contain low-density residential development; the southern and north-
central portions are undeveloped. The extreme southeastern corner of
the unit is part of Williamson County Conservation Foundation's Twin
Springs Preserve. This unit contains Walnut Spring, which is occupied
by the Salado salamander. The spring is located on Walnut Spring
Hollow. The unit contains the physical or biological features essential
for the conservation of the species.
Unit 9: Twin Springs Unit
Unit 9 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private and
Williamson County land located in west-central Williamson County,
Texas. The northern portion of the unit contains low-density
residential development; the remainder of the unit is undeveloped. The
majority of the unit is part of Williamson County Conservation
Foundation's Twin Springs Preserve. The preserve is managed by
Williamson Conservation Foundation as a mitigation property for the
take of golden-cheeked warbler and Bone Cave harvestman under the
Williamson County Regional HCP. The preserve habitat will be
undeveloped in perpetuity. Salamander populations are monitored, and
there is some control of public access. This unit contains Twin
Springs, which is occupied by the Salado salamander. The spring is
located on Taylor Ray Hollow, a tributary of Lake Georgetown. The unit
contains the physical or biological

[[Page 57592]]

features essential for the conservation of the species.
Unit 10: Bat Well Cave Unit
Unit 10 consists of approximately 68 ac (28 ha) of private land
located in west-central Williamson County, Texas. The western,
northern, and southern portion of the unit contains residential
development. This unit contains Bat Well Cave, a cave occupied by the
Salado salamander. The cave is located in the Cowan Creek watershed.
The unit contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require
section 7 consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2), is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and,
subsequent to the previous consultation, we have listed a new species
or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the Federal
action, or the action has been modified in a manner that affects the
species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous
consultation. In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need
to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations
also specify some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation on specific land management plans after we subsequently
list a new species or designate new critical habitat. See the
regulations for a description of those exceptions.

Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard

The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above,
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate 7(a)(2)
of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, or that
may be affected by such designation.
Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would physically disturb the surface or subsurface
habitat upon which these two salamander species depend. Such activities
could include, but are not limited to, channelization, removal of
substrate, clearing of vegetation, construction of commercial and
residential development, quarrying, and other activities that result in
the physical destruction of habitat or the modification of habitat so
that it is not suitable for the species.
(2) Actions that would increase the concentration of sediment or
contaminants in the surface or subsurface habitat. Such activities
could include, but are not limited to, increases in impervious cover in
the surface watershed, inadequate erosion controls on the surface and
subsurface watersheds, and release of pollutants into the surface water
or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release
(non-point source). These activities could alter water conditions to
levels that are harmful to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders or
their prey and result in direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse
effects to these salamander individuals and

[[Page 57593]]

their life cycles. Sedimentation can also adversely affect salamander
habitat by reducing access to interstitial spaces.
(3) Actions that would deplete the aquifer to an extent that
decreases or stops the flow of occupied springs or that reduces the
quantity of subterranean habitat used by the species. Such activities
could include, but are not limited to, water withdrawals from aquifers,
increases in impervious cover over recharge areas, and channelization
or other modification of recharge features that would decrease
recharge. These activities could dewater habitat or cause reduced water
quality to levels that are harmful to one of the two salamanders or
their prey and result in adverse effects to their habitat.

Exemptions

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

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat
any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to
an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.'' There are no
Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP within the proposed
critical habitat designation.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the
statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that
the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and
how much weight to give to any factor.
The first sentence in section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we
take into consideration the economic, national security, or other
relevant impacts of designating any particular area as critical
habitat. We describe below the process that we undertook for taking
into consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the
relevant impacts.

Consideration of Economic Impacts

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and
local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of
all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act
(i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless
of whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical
habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts associated
specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species.
The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not
be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the
species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable
solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the
baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits
of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final
designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct a
discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders (Industrial
Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2020, entire). We began by conducting a
screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in
order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to
result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening
analysis is to filter out particular geographic areas of critical
habitat that are already subject to such protections and are,
therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e.,
absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic
impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans,
land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that
protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of
the species. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our
analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur
probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation.
The screening analysis also assesses whether there are units that may
incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the
designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether units are
unoccupied by the species and thus may require additional management or
conservation efforts as a result of the critical habitat designation
for the species; these additional efforts may incur incremental
economic impacts. This screening analysis combined with the information
contained in our IEM are what we consider our draft economic analysis
(DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Georgetown
and Salado salamanders and is summarized in the narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If

[[Page 57594]]

sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by
the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Georgetown and Salado
salamanders, first we identified, in the IEM dated April 14, 2020,
probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following
categories of activities: (1) Future stream/river crossings and bridge
replacements and maintenance; (2) pipeline construction, replacement,
maintenance, or removal; (3) electrical transmission line construction;
(4) stream restoration activities for habitat improvement; (5)
herbicide and pesticide use along stream banks; (6) irrigation and
water supply system installations; (7) livestock management and
livestock facilities construction; (8) bank stabilization projects; (9)
disaster debris removal; (10) repairs to existing and damaged roads,
bridges, utilities, and parks; (11) construction of tornado safe rooms,
and demolition of flood-prone structures; (12) return of land to open
space in perpetuity; and (13) removal of hazardous fuels in wildland
urban interface to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. We
considered each industry or category individually. Additionally, we
considered whether their activities may have any Federal involvement.
Critical habitat designation generally will not affect activities that
do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of
critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted,
or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the Georgetown or
Salado salamander are present, Federal agencies already are required to
consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they
fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize
this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be
incorporated into the existing consultation process.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the
Georgetown and Salado salamander's critical habitat. Because all of the
units we are proposing to designate as critical habitat for the
Georgetown and Salado salamanders are occupied, we do not expect that
the critical habitat designation will result in any additional
consultations above and beyond those caused by the species' listing.
The conservation recommendations provided to address impacts to the
occupied critical habitat will be the same as those recommended to
address impacts to the species because the habitat tolerances of the
Georgetown and Salado salamanders are inextricably linked to the
health, growth, and reproduction of the salamanders, which are present
and confined year-round in their occupied critical habitat.
Furthermore, because the proposed critical habitat and the Georgetown
and Salado salamanders' known range are identical, the results of
consultation under adverse modification are not likely to differ from
the results of consultation under jeopardy. In the event of an adverse
modification determination, we expect that reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid jeopardy to the species would also avoid adverse
modification of the critical habitat. The only incremental impact of
critical habitat designation that we anticipate is the small (not
expected to exceed $38,500 per year) administrative effort required
during section 7 consultation to document effects on the physical and
biological features of the critical habitat and whether the action
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of the listed species (IEc 2020).
The proposed critical habitat designations for the Georgetown and
Salado salamanders amount to a total of approximately 1,519 ac (622 ha)
in Bell and Williamson Counties, Texas. In these areas, any actions
that may affect the species or its habitat would also affect designated
critical habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional conservation
efforts would be recommended to address the adverse modification
standard over and above those recommended as necessary to avoid
jeopardizing the continued existence of the Georgetown and Salado
salamanders. While this additional analysis will require time and
resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, it is
believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would predominantly
be administrative in nature and would not be significant.
Incremental costs are likely to be minor and primarily limited to
administrative efforts that consider adverse modification in
consultation. This finding is based on these factors: (1) All
activities with a Federal nexus occurring within the proposed critical
habitat designations will be subject to section 7 consultation
requirements regardless of critical habitat designation due to the
presence of listed species; and (2) since the Service predicts that the
majority of project modifications avoiding jeopardy and adverse
modification overlap, there will only be a limited number of project
modification requests that are solely caused by a critical habitat
designation (IEc 2020). The estimated $38,500 per year of incremental
costs associated with the designation of critical habitat is well below
$100 million and, therefore, is unlikely to trigger additional
requirements under State or local regulations. Further, while some
perceptional effects may arise, they are not expected to result in
substantial costs.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of this proposed rule. We may
revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or
address information we receive during the public comment period. In
particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we
determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits
of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the
extinction of this species.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any
additional economic impact information we receive through the public
comment period, and, as such, areas may be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Consideration of National Security Impacts

In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for Georgetown and
Salado salamanders are not owned, managed, or used by the Department of
Defense or the Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, we
anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security.
However, during the development of a final designation we will consider
any additional information received through the public comment period
on the impacts of the proposed designation on national security or
homeland security to determine whether any specific areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of
section 4(b)(2) and our

[[Page 57595]]

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security discussed above. We consider a number of factors including
whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the species in
the area such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements, or candidate
conservation agreements with assurances, or whether there are non-
permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at the existence of tribal conservation plans and
partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of
the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Georgetown or
Salado salamanders, and the proposed designation does not include any
tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal
lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat
designation.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any
information currently available or received during the public comment
period regarding the economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of the proposed designation and will determine whether any
specific areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat
designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management
and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs has waived their review regarding their
significance determination of this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.

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

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in the light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. There
is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final
as proposed, the proposed critical

[[Page 57596]]

habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Executive Order 13771

We do not believe this proposed rule is an E.O. 13771 (``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'') (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017) regulatory action because we believe this rule is not significant
under E.O. 12866; however, the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has waived their review regarding their E.O. 12866 significance
determination of this proposed rule.

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

Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that this
proposed critical habitat designation would significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it would not produce a
Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. The draft economic analysis states that incremental impacts
may occur due to administrative costs of section 7 consultations for
development, water management activities, transportation projects,
utility projects, mining, and livestock grazing; however, these are not
expected to significantly affect small governments. Incremental impacts
stemming from various species conservation and development control
activities are expected to be borne by the Federal Government, Texas
Department of Transportation, City of Austin, Lower Colorado River
Authority, Travis and Williamson Counties, Concordia University, and
other entities, which are not considered small governments.
Consequently, we do not believe that the critical habitat designation
would significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As
such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for Georgetown and Salado salamanders in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation
of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go
forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out,
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed
for the proposed designation of critical habitat for Georgetown and
Salado salamanders, and it concludes that, if adopted, this designation
of critical habitat does not pose significant takings implications for
lands within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation

[[Page 57597]]

with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist State and local
governments in long-range planning because they no longer have to wait
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species,
this proposed rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed
areas of designated critical habitat are presented on maps, and the
proposed rule provides several options for the interested public to
obtain more detailed location information, if desired.

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

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

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

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

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 have determined that no tribal
lands fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat for
the Georgetown or Salado salamanders, so no tribal lands would be
affected by the proposed designation.

References Cited

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

Authors

The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Service's Austin Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), revise the entries for ``Salamander, Georgetown''
and ``Salamander, Salado'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife under ``AMPHIBIANS'' to read as set forth below:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

[[Page 57598]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Amphibians

* * * * * * *
Salamander, Georgetown............ Eurycea naufragia... Wherever found...... T 79 FR 10236, 2/24/
2014; 50 CFR
17.43(e);\4d\ 50
CFR 17.95(d).\CH\

* * * * * * *
Salamander, Salado................ Eurycea Wherever found...... T 79 FR 10236, 2/24/
chisholmensis. 2014; 50 CFR
17.95(d).\CH\

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

0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(d) by adding entries for ``Georgetown Salamander
(Eurycea naufragia)'' and ``Salado Salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis)''
in the same order that these species appear in the table at Sec.
17.11(h) to read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
(d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Georgetown Salamander (Eurycea naufragia)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Williamson County,
Texas, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Georgetown salamander consist of the
following components:
(i) For surface habitat:
(A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
Groundwater issuing to the surface from the underlying aquifer is
similar to natural aquifer conditions as it discharges from natural
spring outlets. Concentrations of water quality constituents and
contaminants should be below levels that could exert direct lethal or
sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth,
development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as
effects to the Georgetown salamander's prey base). The Service is
unaware of any studies that specifically define the water quality
constituents or contaminants that would have deleterious effects on
these salamanders. Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern
of the specific sites are present, with at least some surface flow
during the year. The water chemistry of aquatic surface habitats is
similar to natural aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 64.1 to
73.1 [deg]F (17.9 to 22.8 [deg]C), dissolved oxygen concentrations from
6 to 8 mg/L, and specific water conductance from 604 to 721 [micro]S/
cm.
(B) Rocky substrate with interstitial spaces. Rocks in the
substrate of the salamander's surface aquatic habitat are large enough
to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. The
substrate and interstitial spaces have minimal sedimentation.
(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The spring environment supports
a diverse aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans,
insects, and flatworms.
(D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to the subsurface water table
exists to provide shelter, protection, and space for reproduction. This
access can occur in the form of large conduits that carry water to the
spring outlet or porous voids between rocks in the streambed that
extend down into the water table.
(ii) For subsurface habitat:
(A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
Groundwater quality is similar to natural aquifer conditions.
Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants should be
below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such
as effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic
processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the Georgetown
salamander's prey base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical
pattern of the specific sites are present, with continuous flow. The
water chemistry is similar to natural aquifer conditions, with
temperatures from 64.1 to 73.1 [deg]F (17.9 to 22.8 [deg]C), dissolved
oxygen concentrations from 6 to 8 mg/L, and specific water conductance
from 604 to 721 [micro]S/cm.
(B) Subsurface spaces. Voids between rocks underground are large
enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging
habitat. These spaces have minimal sedimentation.
(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The habitat supports an aquatic
invertebrate community that includes crustaceans, insects, or
flatworms.
(3) Surface critical habitat includes the spring outlets and
outflow up to the high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and
downstream habitat, including the dry stream channel during periods of
no surface flow. The surface critical habitat does not include manmade
structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule; however, the subsurface critical habitat may extend below
such structures. The subsurface critical habitat includes underground
features in a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the
springs.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using a geographic information system (GIS), which included
species locations, roads, property boundaries, 2011 aerial photography,
and U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the
GIS. We delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by starting with
the cave or spring point locations that are occupied by the
salamanders. From these cave or springs points, we delineated a 984-ft
(300-m) buffer to create the polygons that capture the extent to which
we believe the salamander populations exist through underground
conduits. The polygons were then simplified to reduce the number of
vertices, but still retain the overall shape and extent. Subsequently,
polygons that were within 98 ft (30 m) of each other were merged
together. Each new merged polygon was then revised to remove extraneous
divots or protrusions that resulted from the merge process. The maps in
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or
plot points or both on which each map is based are available to the
public at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2020-0048, and at the field office responsible for this designation.
You may obtain field office location information by contacting one

[[Page 57599]]

of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at
50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.000

(6) Unit 1: Water Tank Cave Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map
follows:

[[Page 57600]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.001

(7) Unit 2: Hogg Hollow Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map
of Units 2 and 3 follows.

[[Page 57601]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.002

(8) Unit 3: Cedar Hollow Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map
of Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (7) of this entry.
(9) Unit 4: Lake Georgetown Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of
Units 4, 5, 6, and 7 follows:

[[Page 57602]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.003

(10) Unit 5: Buford Hollow Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas.
Map of Unit 5 is provided at paragraph (9) of this entry.
(11) Unit 6: Swinbank Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of
Unit 6 is provided at paragraph (9) of this entry.
(12) Unit 7: Avant Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of
Unit 7 is provided at paragraph (9) of this entry.
(13) Unit 8: Shadow Canyon Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas.
Map follows:
(14) Unit 9: Garey Ranch Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map
follows:

[[Page 57603]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.004

[[Page 57604]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.005

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
* * * * *
Salado Salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Bell and Williamson
Counties, Texas, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Salado salamander consist of the
following components:
(i) For surface habitat:
(A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
Groundwater quality issuing to the surface from the underlying aquifer
is similar to natural aquifer conditions as it discharges from natural
spring outlets. Concentrations of water quality constituents and
contaminants are below levels that could exert direct lethal or
sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth,
development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as
effects to the Salado salamander's prey base). Hydrologic regimes
similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites are present,
with at least some surface flow during the year. The water chemistry of
aquatic surface habitats is similar to natural aquifer conditions, with
temperatures from 64.1 to 73.1 [deg]F (17.9 to 22.8 [deg]C), dissolved
oxygen concentrations from 6 to 8 mg/L, and specific water conductance
from 604 to 721 [micro]S/cm.
(B) Rocky substrate with interstitial spaces. Rocks in the
substrate of the salamander's surface aquatic habitat are large enough
to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. The
substrate and interstitial spaces have minimal sedimentation.

[[Page 57605]]

(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The spring environment is
capable of supporting a diverse aquatic invertebrate community that
includes crustaceans, insects, and flatworms.
(D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to the subsurface water table
exists to provide shelter, protection, and space for reproduction. This
access can occur in the form of large conduits that carry water to the
spring outlet or porous voids between rocks in the streambed that
extend down into the water table.
(ii) For subsurface habitat:
(A) Water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
Groundwater quality is similar to natural aquifer conditions.
Concentrations of water quality constituents and contaminants are below
levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as
effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic processes),
or indirect effects (such as effects to the Salado salamander's prey
base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern of the
specific sites are present, with continuous flow. The water chemistry
is similar to natural aquifer conditions, with temperatures from 64.1
to 73.1 [deg]F (17.9 to 22.8 [deg]C), dissolved oxygen concentrations
from 6 to 8 mg/L, and specific water conductance from 604 to 721
[micro]S/cm.
(B) Subsurface spaces. Voids between rocks underground are large
enough to provide salamanders with cover, shelter, and foraging
habitat. These spaces have minimal sedimentation.
(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The habitat is capable of
supporting an aquatic invertebrate community that includes crustaceans,
insects, or flatworms.
(3) Surface critical habitat includes the spring outlets and
outflow up to the high water line and 262 ft (80 m) of upstream and
downstream habitat, including the dry stream channel during periods of
no surface flow. The surface critical habitat does not include manmade
structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule; however, the subsurface critical habitat may extend below
such structures. The subsurface critical habitat includes underground
features in a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the
springs.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using a geographic information system (GIS), which included
species locations, roads, property boundaries, 2011 aerial photography,
and U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the
GIS. We delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by starting with
the cave or spring point locations that are occupied by the
salamanders. From these cave or springs points, we delineated a 984-ft
(300-m) buffer to create the polygons that capture the extent to which
we believe the salamander populations exist through underground
conduits. The polygons were then simplified to reduce the number of
vertices, but still retain the overall shape and extent. Subsequently,
polygons that were within 98 ft (30 m) of each other were merged
together. Each new merged polygon was then revised to remove extraneous
divots or protrusions that resulted from the merge process. The maps in
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or
plot points or both on which each map is based are available to the
public at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2020-0048, and at the field office responsible for this designation.
You may obtain field office location information by contacting one of
the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50
CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 57606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.006

(6) Unit 1: Hog Hollow Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map
of Units 1, 2, and 3 follows:

[[Page 57607]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.007

(7) Unit 2: Solana Spring Unit. Map of Unit 2 is provided at
paragraph (6) of this entry.
(8) Unit 3: Cistern Spring Unit. Map of Unit 3 is provided at
paragraph (6) of this entry.
(9) Unit 4: IH-35 Unit. Map follows:

[[Page 57608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.008

(10) Unit 5: King's Garden Main Spring Unit. Map follows:

[[Page 57609]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.009

(11) Unit 6: Cobbs Spring Unit. Map follows:

[[Page 57610]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.010

(12) Unit 7: Cowan Creek Spring Unit. Map follows:

[[Page 57611]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.011

(13) Unit 8: Walnut Spring Unit. Map of Units 8 and 9 follows:

[[Page 57612]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.012

(14) Unit 9: Twin Springs Unit. Map of Unit 9 is provided at
paragraph (12) of this entry.
(15) Unit 10: Bat Well Cave Unit. Map follows:

[[Page 57613]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15SE20.013

* * * * *

Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-17921 Filed 9-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.