[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51328-51379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19713]



[[Page 51327]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 161

August 20, 2013

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

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

[[Page 51328]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

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

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

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

Previous Federal Actions

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

Background

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

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

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

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions

[[Page 51329]]

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

Peer Reviewer Comments

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

Comments From States

    Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the 
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt 
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' 
Comments received from the State regarding the proposal to designate 
critical habitat for the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau 
salamanders are addressed below.
    (4) Comment: State Representative Tony Dale, Texas Comptroller of 
Public Accounts Susan Combs, United States Senator John Cornyn, and 
United States Representative John Carter all stated that the draft 
economic analysis (DEA) underestimates the economic impact of the 
listing and critical habitat designation. These comments reference 
impacts including increased cost of development, increased cost of 
transportation projects, increased traffic congestion, and decreased 
tax revenue as being omitted from the DEA.
    Our Response: As described in Chapter 2 of the DEA, the analysis 
qualitatively describes the baseline protections accorded the Austin 
blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders absent critical habitat 
designation (including the listing of these species) and monetizes the 
potential incremental impacts precipitated specifically by the critical 
habitat designation. The Service does not anticipate requesting 
additional project modifications to avoid adverse modification of 
critical habitat beyond those requested to avoid jeopardy to the 
species. Therefore,

[[Page 51330]]

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

Public Comments

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

[[Page 51331]]

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

[[Page 51332]]

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

[[Page 51333]]

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

[[Page 51334]]

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

[[Page 51335]]

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

[[Page 51336]]

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

[[Page 51337]]

impacts. The DEA focuses on quantifying the incremental impacts of the 
critical habitat designation and, therefore, does not quantify the 
economic impact of restricting development due to the listing of the 
species.
Other Comments
    (58) Comment: The Service has not met its burden for identifying 
how the proposed critical habitat units may require special management. 
The Service makes the same generic statement regarding special 
management that it does for nearly all of the critical habitat units in 
the proposed rule: ``This critical habitat unit requires special 
management because of the potential for groundwater pollution from 
current and future development in the watershed, potential for 
vandalism, and depletion of groundwater.'' The Service does not 
identify the sources of potential groundwater pollution or the 
magnitude of this threat. This does not meet the burden under the Cape 
Hatteras or Home Builders case, which stated ``Rather than discuss how 
each identified PCE would need management protection, the Service lists 
activities that once resulted in consultation and makes a conclusory 
statement that dredging or shoreline management could result in 
permanent habitat loss.'' The Service's critical habitat designation is 
legally deficient without a more robust description as to why the 
particular area requires special management or protection.
    Our Response: Although we did not list activities that identify the 
sources and magnitude of threats within each critical habitat unit, we 
believe that the level of detail provided in the unit descriptions is 
legally sufficient. The source and magnitude of threats for specific 
sites is often unknown. In our critical habitat designation, we assess 
whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing contain features that are essential to 
the conservation of the species and which may require special 
management considerations or protection. Each unit description states 
whether or not the unit has the features that need special management. 
Please see Special Management Considerations or Protections section of 
the final critical habitat rule for particular management needs of the 
physical or biological features.
    (59) Comment: It is unclear what the impact will be to activities 
outside of critical habitat that may impact water quality in critical 
habitat areas.
    Our Response: A critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not to be 
managed or conserved for recovery of the species. Areas that are 
important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside 
the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) 
Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) 
regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any 
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that 
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects outside of 
designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy or in 
adverse effects on areas within critical habitat, if those activities 
are affecting the critical habitat.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 51338]]

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

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

Critical Habitat

Background

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

[[Page 51339]]

species. Additional information sources may include articles in peer-
reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, 
scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, other 
unpublished materials, or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any 
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that 
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects outside the 
designated critical habitat areas may still result in adverse effects 
on areas within critical habitat, if those activities are affecting the 
critical habitat. In addition, federally funded or permitted projects 
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat 
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These 
protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to 
recovery of these species. Similarly, critical habitat designations 
made on the basis of the best available information at the time of 
designation will not control the direction and substance of future 
recovery plans, HCPs, or other species conservation planning efforts if 
new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls 
for a different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may 
require special management considerations or protection. These include, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential 
for the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders from studies of 
these species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the 
Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 
50768), and in the information presented below. Additional information 
can be found in the final listing rule published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register. We have determined that the Austin blind and 
Jollyville Plateau salamanders require the following physical or 
biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Austin Blind Salamander
    The Austin blind salamander has been found where water emerges from 
the ground as a spring. However, this species is rarely seen at the 
surface of the spring, so we assume that it is subterranean for most of 
its life (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 267). Supporting this assumption is 
the fact that the species' physiology is cave-adapted, with reduced 
eyes and pale coloration (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 267). Most individuals 
found on the surface near spring openings are juveniles (Hillis et al. 
2001, p. 273), and it is unclear if this means adults are able to 
retreat back into the aquifer or if juveniles are more likely to be 
flushed to the surface habitat. Austin blind salamanders have been 
found in the streambed a short distance (about 33 ft (10 m)) downstream 
of Sunken Gardens Spring (Laurie Dries 2011, COA, pers. comm.). 
However, Jollyville Plateau salamanders, a closely related species, 
have been found farther from a spring opening in the Bull Creek 
drainage. A recent study using mark-recapture methods found marked 
individuals moved up to 262 ft (80 m) both upstream and downstream from 
the Lanier Spring outlet (Bendik 2013, pers. comm.). This study 
demonstrates that Eurycea salamanders can travel greater distances from 
a discrete spring opening than previously thought, including upstream 
areas, if suitable habitat is present. Therefore, based on the 
information above, we identify springs, associated streams, Barton 
Springs pool, and underground spaces within the Barton Springs Segment 
of the Edwards Aquifer to be the primary space essential for individual 
and population growth and for normal behavior.
Jollyville Plateau Salamander
    The Jollyville Plateau salamander occurs in wetted caves and where 
water emerges from the ground as a spring-fed stream. Within the spring 
ecosystem, proximity to the springhead is presumed important because of 
the appropriate stable water chemistry and temperature, substrate, and 
flow regime. Eurycea salamanders are rarely found more than 66 ft (20 
m) from a spring source (TPWD 2011, p. 3). However, Jollyville Plateau 
salamanders have been found farther from a spring opening in the Bull 
Creek drainage. A recent study using mark-recapture methods found 
marked individuals moved up to 262 ft (80 m) both upstream and 
downstream from the Lanier Spring outlet (Bendik 2013, pers. comm.). 
This study demonstrates that Eurycea salamanders can travel greater 
distances from a discrete spring opening than previously thought, 
including upstream areas, if suitable habitat is present. Jollyville 
Plateau salamanders are also known to retreat underground to wetted 
areas (such as the aquifer) for habitat when surface habitats go dry 
(Bendik 2011a, p. 31). We presume that these salamanders also use 
subsurface areas to some extent during normal flow conditions. Forms of 
Jollyville Plateau salamander with cave morphology have been found in 
several underground streams (Chippindale et al. 2000, pp. 36-37; TPWD 
2011a, pp. 9-10). Therefore, based on the information above, we 
identify springs, associated streams, and underground spaces within the 
Trinity Aquifer, Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, and local 
alluvial aquifers to be the primary space essential for individual and 
population growth and for normal behavior.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
Austin Blind Salamander
    No species-specific dietary study has been completed, but the diet 
of the Austin blind salamander is presumed to

[[Page 51340]]

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

[[Page 51341]]

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

[[Page 51342]]

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

Special Management Considerations or Protections

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

[[Page 51343]]

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

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

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

[[Page 51344]]

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

Final Critical Habitat Designation

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

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


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

[[Page 51345]]

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

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

Austin Blind Salamander

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

Jollyville Plateau Salamander

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

[[Page 51346]]

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

[[Page 51347]]

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

[[Page 51348]]

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

[[Page 51349]]

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

[[Page 51350]]

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

[[Page 51351]]

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

[[Page 51352]]

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

[[Page 51353]]

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

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

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

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or 
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of critical habitat for the Austin blind and 
Jollyville Plateau salamanders. As discussed above, the role of 
critical habitat is to support life-history needs of the species and 
provide for the conservation of the species. The function of each unit 
with respect to species conservation is to contribute to the 
redundancy, representation, and resiliency of its respective species, 
which affects the species' probability of persistence.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders. 
These activities include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would physically disturb the spring or subsurface 
habitat upon which these two salamander species depend. Such activities 
could include, but are not limited to, channelization, removal of the 
substrate, and other activities that result in the physical destruction 
of habitat or the modification of habitat so that it is not suitable 
for the species.
    (2) Actions that would increase the concentration of sediment or 
contaminants in the surface or subsurface habitat. Such activities 
could include, but are not limited to, increases in impervious cover in 
the surface watershed, inadequate erosion controls on the surface and 
subsurface watersheds, and release of pollutants into the surface water 
or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release 
(non-point source). These activities could alter water conditions to 
levels that are harmful to the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau 
salamanders or their prey and result in direct, indirect, or cumulative 
adverse effects to these salamander individuals and their life cycles. 
Sedimentation can also adversely affect salamander habitat by reducing 
access to interstitial spaces.
    (3) Actions that would deplete the aquifer to an extent that 
decreases or

[[Page 51354]]

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

Exemptions

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

    The Sikes Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if 
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit 
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.''
    There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP 
within or near the critical habitat designation. Therefore, we are not 
exempting lands from this final designation of critical habitat for the 
Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders pursuant to section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.

Exclusions

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well 
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad 
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give 
to any factor.
    In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the 
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the 
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the 
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may 
exercise her discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion 
would not result in the extinction of the species.
    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the 
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of 
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping 
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits 
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that 
may apply to critical habitat.
    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides 
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would 
provide.
    In the case of the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders, 
the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the 
species' presence and the importance of habitat protection and, in 
cases where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for 
the species due to the protection from adverse modification or 
destruction of critical habitat.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion and whether exclusion is 
likely to result in implementation of a management plan that provides 
equal or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would 
provide, we consider a variety of factors, including but not limited 
to, whether the plan is finalized; how it provides for the conservation 
of the essential physical or biological features; whether there is a 
reasonable expectation that the conservation management strategies and 
actions contained in a management plan will be implemented into the 
future; whether the conservation strategies in the plan are likely to 
be effective; and whether the plan contains a monitoring program or 
adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are 
effective and can be adapted in the future in response to new 
information.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion and whether exclusion is 
likely to result in the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement 
of partnerships, we consider a variety of factors including but not 
limited to, whether or not the Service has entered into written 
conservation agreements with landowners based on conservation 
partnerships or issued permits with assurances covering the species.
    After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis 
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in 
extinction. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result 
in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as additional public comments received, we evaluated whether 
certain lands were appropriate for exclusion from this final 
designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. As a result, we are 
excluding approximately 576 ac (233 ha) from the portions of Jollyville 
Plateau salamander proposed critical

[[Page 51355]]

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

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

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. To consider 
economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed 
critical habitat designation and related factors (Industrial Economics 
2013).
    The intent of the final economic analysis (FEA) is to quantify the 
economic impacts of potential conservation efforts for the central 
Texas salamanders; some of these costs will likely be incurred 
regardless of whether we designate critical habitat (baseline). The 
economic impact of the final critical habitat designation is analyzed 
by comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without 
critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario 
represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections 
already in place for the species (for example, under the Federal 
listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, 
therefore, represents the estimated costs incurred regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated. The ``with critical habitat'' 
scenario describes the estimated incremental impacts (costs) associated 
specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. 
The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts are those 
not expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for 
the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those 
attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat above and 
beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we consider in the final 
designation of critical habitat.
    The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to 
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional 
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of 
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and 
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with 
residential and commercial development and public projects and 
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and 
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy 
industry. The Service uses this information to assess whether the 
effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or 
economic sector. Finally, the FEA considers those costs that may occur 
in the 23 years following the designation of critical habitat, which 
was determined to be the appropriate period for analysis because 
limited planning information was available for most activities to 
forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 23-year timeframe. The 
FEA quantifies economic impacts of the Austin blind and Jollyville 
Plateau salamanders' conservation efforts associated with the following 
categories of activity: (1) Development, (2) Water management 
activities, (3) Transportation projects, (4) Utility projects, (5) 
Mining, and (6) Livestock grazing.
    All incremental costs anticipated to result from the designation 
are administrative in nature and result from the consideration of 
adverse modification in section 7 consultations and reinitiation for 
existing management plans. Consultations associated with development 
activities account for approximately 98.7 percent of incremental 
impacts in the FEA. Please refer to the FEA for a comprehensive 
discussion of the potential impacts.
    Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs 
that are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat for 
the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders. Consequently, we 
have determined not to use our discretion to exclude any areas from 
this designation of critical habitat based on economic impacts. A copy 
of the FEA with supporting documents may be obtained by contacting the 
Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) or by 
downloading them from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, 
Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0001.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a 
national security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we 
have determined that none of the lands within the designation of 
critical habitat for the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau 
salamanders are owned and managed by the Department of Defense. 
Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude 
any areas from this final designation based on impacts on national 
security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. We consider a number of factors including whether the 
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the 
area, or whether there are

[[Page 51356]]

conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, 
or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any tribal 
issues and consider the government-to-government relationship of the 
United States with tribal entities.
Land and Resource Management Plans, Conservation Plans, or Agreements 
Based on Conservation Partnerships
    When considering the benefits of exclusion based on a current land 
management or conservation plan (HCPs as well as other types), we 
assess whether:
    (1) The plan is complete and identifies how it provides for the 
conservation of the essential physical or biological features;
    (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the 
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or 
regulations;
    (3) the conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be 
effective;
    (4) the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management 
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be 
adapted in the future in response to new information; and
    (5) whether the plan provides equal or more conservation than a 
critical habitat designation would provide.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion based on whether it is 
likely to result in the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement 
of partnerships, we assess whether:
    (1) The Service has entered into a written conservation agreement 
with a landowner based on a conservation partnership, or
    (2) the Service has issued a permit with assurances covering the 
species.
    Based on consideration of these other relevant factors, we believe 
the benefits of excluding the Four Points, Grandview Hills, and 
Buttercup Creek HCP areas outweigh the benefits of including them. 
Thus, we are excluding approximately 576 ac (233 ha) of non-Federal 
lands in portions of Units 3, 14, and 19 under these HCPs. See further 
discussion of our assessment below.

Four Points HCP Overview

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

Grandview Hills HCP Overview

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

[[Page 51357]]

Buttercup Creek HCP Overview

    The goals of the Buttercup Creek HCP are to avoid, minimize, and 
mitigate for the potential negative effects of construction and 
operation of single and multifamily residences and a school near and 
adjacent to currently occupied habitat of the endangered Tooth Cave 
ground beetle and other rare cave and karst species, including the 
Jollyville Plateau salamander, and to contribute to conservation of the 
listed and non-listed cave or karst fauna. The Jollyville Plateau 
salamander was covered as a non-listed species in an Implementing 
Agreement signed by the Service, and the Service provided ``No 
Surprises'' assurances covering the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
    The Buttercup Creek HCP authorizes incidental take of endangered 
karst invertebrates, if encountered during construction. Under the 
Buttercup Creek HCP, mitigation for take of the karst invertebrates was 
implemented by setting aside 12 separate cave preserves (totaling 130 
ac (53 ha) and encompassing 37 caves) and two greenbelt flood plains 
(33 ac (13 ha)) for a total of 163 ac (66 ha), which remain in a 
natural undisturbed condition and are preserved in perpetuity for the 
benefit of the listed and non-listed species. There are 21 occupied 
endangered karst invertebrate caves and 10 Jollyville Plateau 
salamander caves in the preserves. The shape and size of each preserve 
was designed to include surface drainage basins for all caves, the 
subsurface extent of all caves, and connectivity between nearby caves 
and features. Additionally, for those more sensitive cave preserves, 
particularly with regard to recharge, 7 of the 12 preserves are to be 
fenced off to restrict access for only maintenance, monitoring, and 
research. All preserves are regularly monitored, fences and gates are 
checked and repaired, and red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) 
controlled. Surface water drainage from streets and parking areas will 
be diverted by permanent diversion structures to treatment systems and 
detention ponds or will discharge down-gradient of the cave preserves. 
An additional 3 to 4 in (76 to 102 mm) of topsoil are added in yards 
and landscaped areas for additional filtration and absorption of 
fertilizers, pesticides, and other common constituents. And an 
education and outreach program informs homeowners about the proper use 
of fertilizers and pesticides, the benefits of native landscaping, and 
the disposal of household hazardous waste.
    All of the approximately 375 ac (152 ha) of non-Federal lands under 
the Buttercup Creek HCP in critical habitat Unit 3 that we are 
excluding have either been authorized for development or preserved in 
perpetuity for the conservation of the Tooth Cave ground beetle, 
Jollyville Plateau salamander, and other non-listed species. The 
entirety of Unit 3 is not covered under this HCP, and thus, the entire 
unit was not excluded.
Benefits of Inclusion
    The principal benefit of including an area in critical habitat 
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure that 
actions that they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated 
critical habitat, which is the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act under which consultation is completed. Federal agencies must 
consult with the Service on actions that may affect a listed species, 
and refrain from actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of such species. The analysis of effects to critical habitat 
is a separate and different analysis from that of the effects to the 
species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two analyses 
represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For some cases, 
the outcome of these analyses will be similar, because effects to 
habitat will often result in effects to the species. However, the 
regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy analysis investigates 
the action's impact to survival and recovery of the species, while the 
adverse modification analysis investigates the action's effects to the 
designated critical habitat's contribution to conservation. This will, 
in many cases, lead to different results and different regulatory 
requirements. Thus, critical habitat designation may provide greater 
benefits to the recovery of a species than listing would alone. 
Therefore, critical habitat designation may provide a regulatory 
benefit for the Jollyville Plateau salamander on lands covered under 
the Four Points, Grandview Hills, and Buttercup Creek HCPs when there 
is a Federal nexus present for a project that might adversely modify 
critical habitat.
    Another possible benefit of including lands in critical habitat is 
public education regarding the potential conservation value of an area 
that may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation 
value for certain species. We consider any information about the 
Jollyville Plateau salamander and its habitat that reaches a wide 
audience, including parties engaged in conservation activities, to be 
valuable. Designation of critical habitat would provide educational 
benefits by informing Federal agencies and the public about the 
presence of listed species for all units.
    In summary, we believe that the benefits of inclusion of lands 
under the Four Points, Grandview Hills, and Buttercup Creek HCPs are 
(1) a regulatory benefit when there is a Federal nexus present for a 
project that might adversely modify critical habitat and (2) 
educational benefits about the Jollyville Plateau salamander and its 
habitat.
Benefits of Exclusion
    The benefits of excluding lands from critical habitat designation 
with properly implemented HCPs, such as the Four Points, Grandview 
Hills, and Buttercup Creek HCPs, include relieving the permit holders 
of any additional regulatory burden that might be imposed as a result 
of the designation. A related benefit of exclusion is the continued 
ability to maintain existing relationships and seek new partnerships 
with future HCP participants, including States, counties, local 
jurisdictions, conservation organizations, private landowners, and 
developers, which together can implement conservation actions that we 
would be unable to accomplish on our own. Not only are HCPs important 
for listed species, but they can help conserve many species that are 
not State or federally listed, which might not otherwise receive 
protection absent the HCPs. We place great value on the partnerships 
that are developed with HCPs.
    The exclusion of lands under the Four Points, Grandview Hills, and 
Buttercup Creek HCPs from critical habitat will help preserve the 
partnership we have developed with the permittees, reinforce those 
relationships we are building with other developers, and foster future 
partnerships and development of future management plans. The preserve 
lands under these HCPs are providing some protection for the physical 
and biological features essential to the conservation of the species. 
Therefore, exclusion of these lands under the Four Points, Grandview 
Hills, and Buttercup Creek HCPs from critical habitat will help 
preserve the partnerships and will foster future partnerships and 
future conservation efforts. Excluding lands under these HCPs will show 
that we are committed to our partners to further the conservation for 
the Jollyville Plateau salamander and other endangered and threatened 
species.

[[Page 51358]]

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

[[Page 51359]]

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

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

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

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must publish 
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended 
the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. In this final rule, we are certifying that the critical 
habitat designation for the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau 
salamanders will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains 
our rationale.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include 
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, 
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and 
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general 
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in 
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual 
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts on 
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of 
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as 
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, 
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical 
small business firm's business operations.
    Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be both 
significant and substantial to prevent certification of the rule under 
the RFA and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are 
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation, but the per-
entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify. 
Likewise, if the per-entity economic impact is likely to be 
significant, but the number of affected entities is not substantial, 
the Service may also certify.
    The Service's current understanding of recent case law is that 
Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential impacts of 
rulemaking only on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking; 
therefore, they are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to 
those entities not directly regulated. The designation of critical 
habitat for an endangered or threatened species only has a regulatory 
effect where a Federal action agency is involved in a particular action 
that may affect the designated critical habitat. Under these 
circumstances, only the Federal action agency is directly regulated by 
the designation, and, therefore, consistent with the Service's current 
interpretation of RFA and recent case law, the Service may limit its 
evaluation of the potential impacts to those identified for Federal 
action agencies. Under this interpretation, there is no requirement 
under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not 
directly regulated, such as small businesses. However, Executive Orders 
12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess costs and benefits of 
available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent 
feasible) and qualitative terms. Consequently, it is the current 
practice of the Service to assess to the extent practicable these 
potential impacts if sufficient data are available, whether or not this 
analysis is believed

[[Page 51360]]

by the Service to be strictly required by the RFA. In other words, 
while the effects analysis required under the RFA is limited to 
entities directly regulated by the rulemaking, the effects analysis 
under the Act, consistent with the E.O. regulatory analysis 
requirements, can take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable.
    In conclusion, we believe that, based on our interpretation of 
directly regulated entities under the RFA and relevant case law, this 
designation of critical habitat will directly regulate only Federal 
agencies, which are not by definition small business entities. And as 
such, we certify that, if promulgated, this designation of critical 
habitat would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small business entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required. However, though not necessarily required by 
the RFA, in our final economic analysis for this rule we considered and 
evaluated the potential effects to third parties that may be involved 
with consultations with Federal action agencies related to this action.
    Designation of critical habitat affects only activities authorized, 
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities 
are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be 
affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is 
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under 
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
that may affect the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders. 
Federal agencies also must consult with us if their activities may 
affect critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat, therefore, 
could result in an additional economic impact on small entities due to 
the requirement to reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal 
activities (see Application of the ``Adverse Modification Standard'' 
section).
    In our final economic analysis of the critical habitat designation, 
we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities 
resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of the 
Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders and the designation of 
critical habitat. The analysis is based on the estimated impacts 
associated with the rulemaking as described in Chapters 1 through 4 and 
Appendix A of the analysis and evaluates the potential for economic 
impacts related to: (1) Residential and commercial development, (2) 
surface mining, and (3) habitat and species management.
    The FEA analyzes the proposed designation as described in the 
proposed rule and does not reflect changes to the proposed critical 
habitat designation made in the final rule. In summary, we considered 
whether this designation would result in a significant economic effect 
on a substantial number of small entities. Based on the currently 
available information, we concluded that this rule would not result in 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
(Industrial Economics 2013, pp. A-2-A-8). Therefore, we are certifying 
that the designation of critical habitat for Austin blind and 
Jollyville Plateau salamanders will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required.

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

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this 
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a 
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory 
action under consideration.
    The economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are 
relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the economic 
analysis, energy-related impacts associated with the Austin blind and 
Jollyville Plateau salamanders' conservation activities within critical 
habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat 
is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, 
or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and 
no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it would not produce a Federal mandate 
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it

[[Page 51361]]

is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act. The FEA concludes incremental impacts may occur due to 
administrative costs of section 7 consultations for development, water 
management activities, transportation projects, utility projects, 
mining, and livestock grazing; however, these are not expected to 
significantly affect small governments. Incremental impacts stemming 
from various species conservation and development control activities 
are expected to be borne by the Federal Government, Texas Department of 
Transportation, City of Austin, Lower Colorado River Authority, Travis 
and Williamson Counties, Concordia University, and other entities, 
which are not considered small governments. Consequently, we do not 
believe that the critical habitat designation would significantly or 
uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government 
Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), 
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating 
critical habitat for the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau 
salamanders in a takings implications assessment. As discussed above, 
the designation of critical habitat affects only Federal actions. 
Although private parties that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action 
may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the 
legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. The FEA found 
that this designation will not affect a substantial number of small 
entities, but there could be costs of development restrictions in the 
form of reduced land values. A number of the private landowners are not 
small businesses. However, we found that 6,864 small developers may be 
affected by this designation, but the impact is less than 1 percent of 
average annual sales of these businesses. Based on information 
contained in the FEA and described within this document, it is not 
likely that economic impacts to a property owner will be of a 
sufficient magnitude to support a takings action. The takings 
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical 
habitat for the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders does 
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected 
by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this rule 
does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism impact 
summary statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the 
Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information 
from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation 
with appropriate State resource agencies in Texas. We received comments 
from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality, Texas Department of Transportation, Office of 
the Governor, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, and the Texas 
Department of Agriculture and have addressed them in the Summary of 
Comments and Recommendations, which can be found on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/ at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0001. The designation of 
critical habitat in areas currently occupied by the Austin blind and 
Jollyville Plateau salamanders imposes no additional restrictions to 
those currently in place and, therefore, has little incremental impact 
on State and local governments and their activities. The designation 
may have some benefit to these governments in that the areas that 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the elements 
of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the 
species are specifically identified. This information does not alter 
where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it 
may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than having 
them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

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

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

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

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

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations

[[Page 51362]]

with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 
13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), 
and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily 
acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with 
recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In 
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian 
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 
Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to 
work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy 
ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the 
same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian 
culture, and to make information available to tribes. We determined 
that there are no tribal lands occupied by the Austin blind and 
Jollyville Plateau salamanders at the time of listing that contain the 
physical or biological features essential to conservation of the 
species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by the Austin blind and 
Jollyville Plateau salamanders that are essential for the conservation 
of the species. Therefore, we are not designating critical habitat for 
the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders on tribal lands.

References Cited

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

Author(s)

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

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


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
            Amphibians
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Salamander, Austin blind.........  Eurycea               U.S.A. (TX)          Entire.............  E                       817     17.95(d)           NA
                                    waterlooensis.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Salamander, Jollyville Plateau...  Eurycea tonkawae....  U.S.A. (TX)          Entire.............  T                       817     17.95(d)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

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

[[Page 51363]]

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

[[Page 51364]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU13.000

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

[[Page 51365]]

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

[[Page 51366]]

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

[[Page 51367]]


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


[[Page 51368]]


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


[[Page 51369]]


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


[[Page 51370]]


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


[[Page 51371]]


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


[[Page 51372]]


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


[[Page 51373]]


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

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

[[Page 51374]]

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

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

[[Page 51375]]

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

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

[[Page 51376]]

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


[[Page 51377]]


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

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

[[Page 51378]]

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

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

[[Page 51379]]

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

* * * * *

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