46536 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048; 

FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BE78 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Georgetown and Salado 

Salamanders 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), designate 

critical habitat for the Georgetown 

salamander (Eurycea naufragia) and 

Salado salamander (Eurycea 

chisholmensis) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We designate a total of approximately 

1,315 acres (538 hectares) of critical 

habitat for these species in Bell and 

Williamson Counties, Texas. This rule 

extends the Act’s protections to the 

Georgetown salamander’s and Salado 

salamander’s designated critical habitat. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

17, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov and at http://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/austintexas. 

Comments and materials we received, as 

well as some supporting documentation 

we used in preparing this rule, are 

available for public inspection at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048. 

The coordinates or plot points or both 

from which the maps are generated are 

included in the decision file for this 

critical habitat designation and are 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048 

and at the Austin Ecological Services 

Field Office’s website (https://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/austin

texas/). Any additional tools or 

supporting information that we 

developed for this critical habitat 

designation will also be available at the 

Service website and may also be 

included in this preamble and/or at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin 

Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 

Burnet Rd., Suite 200, Austin, TX 

78758; telephone 512–490–0057. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, if we determine that a species 

is an endangered or threatened species, 

we must designate critical habitat to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable. We published a final rule 

to list the Georgetown salamander and 

Salado salamander as threatened species 

on February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10236). 

Designations of critical habitat can be 

completed only by issuing a rule. 

What this document does. This rule 

designates a total of approximately 

1,315 acres (ac) (538 hectares (ha)) as 

critical habitat for the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders in Bell and 

Williamson Counties, Texas. 

The basis for our action. Under 

section 4(a)(3) of the Act, if we 

determine that any species is an 

endangered or threatened species, we 

must, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable, designate critical 

habitat. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act 

defines critical habitat as (i) the specific 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species, at the time it 

is listed, on which are found those 

physical or biological features (I) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (II) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protections; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination by the Secretary 

that such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 

Secretary must make the designation on 

the basis of the best 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. 

Economic analysis. In accordance 

with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

prepared an economic analysis of the 

impacts of designating critical habitat 

for the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders. We published the 

announcement of, and solicited public 

comments on, the draft economic 

analysis (DEA; 85 FR 57578, September 

15, 2020). 

Previous Federal Actions 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders in 

this rule. For more information on the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders, 

their habitat, or previous Federal 

actions, refer to the final listing rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10236), which 

is available online at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035. 

On August 22, 2012, we published a 

proposed rule (77 FR 50768) to list the 

Georgetown salamander (Eurycea 

naufragia), Salado salamander (Eurycea 

chisholmensis), Jollyville Plateau 

salamander (Eurycea tonkawae), and 

Austin blind salamander (Eurycea 

waterlooensis) as endangered species 

and to designate critical habitat for these 

species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). We proposed to designate 

approximately 1,031 acres (ac) (423 

hectares (ha)) in 14 units located in 

Williamson County, Texas, as critical 

habitat for the Georgetown salamander, 

and approximately 372 ac (152 ha) in 4 

units located in Bell County, Texas, as 

critical habitat for the Salado 

salamander. That proposal had a 60-day 

comment period, ending October 22, 

2012. We held a public meeting and 

hearing in Round Rock, Texas, on 

September 5, 2012, and a second public 

meeting and hearing in Austin, Texas, 

on September 6, 2012. 

On January 25, 2013, we published a 

proposed rule (78 FR 5385) revising the 

locations of proposed critical habitat 

units 2, 3, 5, 8, and 12 for the 

Georgetown salamander based on new 

information. We reopened the public 

comment period for 45 days, ending 

March 11, 2013, to allow comments on 

the revisions to the proposed critical 

habitat and the draft economic analysis. 

On August 20, 2013, we announced 

our decision to extend the deadline for 

our final listing and critical habitat 

determination for the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders for 6 months due to 

scientific disagreements regarding 

conservation status of these species and 

reopened the comment periods on our 

August 22, 2012, and January 25, 2013, 

proposals for 30 days (78 FR 51129). In 

addition, on January 7, 2014, we 

announced the availability of new 

information and reopened the previous 

comment periods for an additional 15 

days, until January 22, 2014 (79 FR 800). 

On February 24, 2014, we published: 

(1) A final rule (79 FR 10236) to list the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders as 

threatened species under the Act; and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46537 

(2) a proposed rule (79 FR 10077) under 

section 4(d) of the Act (a proposed ‘‘4(d) 

rule’’) containing regulations necessary 

and advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the Georgetown 

salamander, with a 60-day public 

comment period, ending April 25, 2014. 

On April 9, 2015, we published a 

revised proposed 4(d) rule for the 

Georgetown salamander (80 FR 19050); 

that document reopened the public 

comment period on the proposed 4(d) 

rule for 30 days, ending May 11, 2015. 

On August 7, 2015, we published a final 

4(d) rule for the Georgetown salamander 

(80 FR 47418). 

On September 15, 2020, we published 

a proposed rule (85 FR 57578) to revise 

our proposed designation of critical 

habitat for the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders. Based on published 

genetic analyses, we revised the 

distribution of the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders and adjusted 

previously proposed critical habitat 

units accordingly. We also proposed 

changes to our description of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. We 

proposed a total of approximately 1,519 

ac (622 ha) of critical habitat for the 

species in Bell and Williamson 

Counties, Texas. The total amount of 

critical habitat proposed for both 

salamanders increased by 

approximately 116 ac (47 ha). The 

reasons for this increase were the 

addition of a new occupied site for the 

Salado salamander and refined mapping 

of previously proposed critical habitat 

units based on more precise spring 

locations. That proposal had a 60-day 

comment period, ending November 16, 

2020. 

Summary of Changes From the 

September 15, 2020, Proposed Rule 

As noted above, we published three 

proposed rules concerning the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders (77 

FR 50768, August 22, 2012; 78 FR 5385, 

January 25, 2013; 85 FR 57578, 

September 15, 2020), as well as other 

relevant documents concerning these 

species. In doing so, we gathered public 

comments on the proposed critical 

habitat and its revisions during multiple 

comment periods, and we obtained new 

and updated scientific information 

following the publication of the 2012 

proposed rule. Accordingly, the critical 

habitat we are designating in this rule 

differs from what we originally 

proposed to designate as critical habitat 

for these species in 2012. Please see the 

January 25, 2013, and September 15, 

2020, proposed rules for a discussion of 

our proposed revisions to the August 22, 

2012, proposed critical habitat, and the 

reasons for those revisions. This 

summary discusses only the changes we 

make in this final rule from the 

September 15, 2020, proposed rule. 

This final rule incorporates changes to 

our September 15, 2020, proposed rule 

(85 FR 57578) based on the comments 

we received, as discussed below under 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations. Based on those 

comments, in this rule, we revise our 

discussion under Physical or Biological 

Features Essential to the Conservation of 

the Species, specifically the discussion 

of aspects of salamander movement 

from spring openings, potential prey, 

and water quality parameters. We also 

revise our discussion under Criteria 

Used To Identify Critical Habitat to 

provide additional clarity. Finally, we 

exclude three critical habitat units for 

the Salado salamander, totaling 

approximately 204 ac (84 ha), as 

identified below in Table 3. These 

exclusions account for the difference 

between the approximately 1,519 ac 

(622 ha) we proposed for designation as 

critical habitat for the two salamanders 

in our September 15, 2020, proposed 

rule (85 FR 57578) and the 

approximately 1,315 ac (538 ha) we are 

designating as critical habitat for the 

species in this rule. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

September 15, 2020 (85 FR 57578), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by November 16, 2020. We 

also contacted appropriate Federal and 

State agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. Newspaper notices 

inviting general public comment were 

published in the Temple Daily Telegram 

and Williamson County Sun. We did 

not receive any requests for a public 

hearing. During the open comment 

period, we received 25 public comments 

on the proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders. Some commenters 

provided suggestions on how we could 

refine or improve the designation, and 

all substantive information provided to 

us during the comment period has been 

incorporated directly into this final rule 

or is addressed below. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), and our August 22, 2016, 

memorandum updating and clarifying 

the role of peer review actions under the 

Act, we solicited expert opinion on the 

proposed critical habitat from five 

knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise that includes 

familiarity with the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders and their taxonomy, 

habitat, biological needs, and threats. 

We received responses from three of the 

peer reviewers. The purpose of peer 

review is to ensure that our critical 

habitat designations are based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. 

We reviewed all the comments we 

received from the peer reviewers for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders and their habitat use and 

needs. The peer reviewers generally 

concurred with the information 

regarding the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders’ taxonomy and habitat. In 

some cases, they provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions to improve the designation. 

The reviewers also provided or 

corrected references we cited in the 

September 15, 2020, proposed rule. The 

additional details and information have 

been incorporated into this final rule as 

appropriate. Substantive comments we 

received from peer reviewers as well as 

local governments, nongovernmental 

organizations, and the public are 

outlined below. 

Peer Review Comments 

Comment 1: One peer reviewer 

recommended subsurface areas 

designated as critical habitat should be 

larger considering that the Georgetown 

and Salado salamanders heavily rely 

upon subterranean habitat. Specifically, 

more emphasis should be placed on the 

recharge zones that allow water to enter 

the aquifer that supports habitat for 

these species. 

Our Response: In accordance with 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we are 

designating critical habitat in specific 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing that contain the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. We 

acknowledge that the recharge zone of 

the aquifer supporting salamander 

locations is very important to the 

conservation of these 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46538 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

aquifers is occupied by the salamander 

species. 

Public Comments 

Comment 2: One commenter 

requested that Solana Ranch in Bell 

County be excluded from the final 

critical habitat designation because the 

area occupied by the Salado salamander 

is protected by a conservation easement 

monitored by The Nature Conservancy. 

Our Response: In this final rule, we 

exclude 204 ha (84 ac) of private land 

within the boundaries of the 256 ac (104 

ha) Solana Ranch under perpetual 

conservation easement, from our 

designation of critical habitat (see 

Exclusions, below). When considering 

the benefits of exclusion based on a 

current land management or 

conservation plan, we examine a 

number of different criteria (see 

Exclusions, below, in this rule). Among 

these is the likelihood that the 

conservation strategies in the plan will 

be effective. The conservation easement, 

established on a portion of the Solana 

Ranch (i.e., Solana Ranch Preserve) in 

2016, includes management activities 

such as maintenance of the site as 

permanent open space that has been left 

in its natural vegetative state, 

maintenance and repair of existing 

enclosure fences around springs, and 

research approved by the landowner. In 

addition, we evaluate if the 

conservation management strategies and 

actions in the plan will be implemented 

into the future, based on past practices, 

written guidance, or regulations. The 

perpetual Solana Ranch Preserve 

conservation easement will result in 

long-term protection of three springs 

located on Solana Ranch, including 

areas immediately upstream of the 

springs to maintain water quality. By 

protecting the springs and their 

surrounding areas, occupied Salado 

salamander habitat will be protected 

from development and other threats. 

Comment 3: One commenter stated 

their view that the Service did not make 

the case that all areas considered as 

occupied critical habitat met the Act’s 

standard that they be occupied at the 

time of listing. The September 15, 2020, 

proposed rule added several new 

critical habitat units based on 

discoveries made since the original 2012 

proposed designation, but the Service 

does not make the required showing 

that these locations were occupied at 

the time of listing. The September 15, 

2020, proposed rule also did not 

establish that the areas proposed for 

designation continue to be occupied. 

Instead, the proposal acknowledged the 

difficultly in determining whether a 

salamander population has been 

extirpated from a spring site due to 

these species’ ability to occupy the 

inaccessible subsurface habitat. The 

commenter believes this approach is 

inadequate to establish occupancy. 

Our Response: In our September 15, 

2020, proposed rule, we explain the 

evidence for the inclusion of the new 

proposed critical habitat units, and we 

conclude that the additional areas of 

proposed critical habitat were occupied 

at the time of listing (see 85 FR 57583). 

Additionally, we state in our September 

15, 2020, proposed rule that as critical 

habitat units were shifted from the 

Georgetown salamander to the Salado 

salamander, based on Devitt et al. (2019, 

entire), critical habitat units for both 

species were re-numbered. New 

locations for Salado salamander were 

also discovered through sampling efforts 

after January 25, 2013. Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders are restricted to 

subterranean spaces in aquifers and on 

the surface to springs and associated 

outflow where groundwater emerges 

from the underlying aquifer. They are 

not capable of unaided, long-distance 

surface dispersal between isolated 

springs given their aquatic life history. 

Most springs in Bell and Williamson 

Counties and their underlying aquifer 

connections are historical landscape 

features that predate European 

settlement of the North American 

continent (Brune 1981, pp. 65–69, 473– 

476). Therefore, we conclude that these 

Salado salamander sites were occupied 

at the time of listing and we are 

designating critical habitat in specific 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing that contain the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection, as directed 

by the Act. 

We are required to make 

determinations based on the best 

available information, and the Devitt et 

al. (2019) peer-reviewed publication 

used to inform the September 15, 2020, 

revisions to our proposed critical habitat 

for these species, as well as this final 

rule designating critical habitat for these 

species, is the best available 

information. 

Comment 4: One commenter stated 

that because the September 15, 2020, 

proposed rule contained all known 

locations of the salamander species in 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation, it is contrary to the 

statement in section 3 of the Act that 

critical habitat shall not include the 

entire geographical area which can be 

occupied by the threatened or 

endangered species (16 U.S.C. 

1532(5)(C)). 

Our Response: Section 3(C) of the Act 

says ‘‘Except in those circumstances 

determined by the Secretary, critical 

habitat shall not include the entire 

geographical area which can be 

occupied by the threatened or 

endangered species.’’ The Secretary has 

the discretion to designate the entire 

geographic area that can be occupied. 

However, the critical habitat we are 

designating in this rule does not include 

the entire geographical area which can 

be occupied by the species. We are 

designating only those specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species, at the time it was listed 

in accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, on which are found 

those physical or biological features that 

are essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Comment 5: Some commenters stated 

their belief that designating critical 

habitat for these two species is not 

prudent or is not determinable. These 

commenters believed that the two 

salamander species are better protected 

under the existing, local efforts than 

they would be with the proposed 

critical habitat designation. In their 

view, the existing conservation efforts 

for the species exceeds any conservation 

benefits that would be conferred if 

critical habitat were finalized. 

Our Response: We appreciate and 

acknowledge all the hard work 

conservation partners and residents 

have voluntarily undertaken to help 

conserve both species of salamander. 

However, in our proposed rule we 

concluded that critical habitat is both 

prudent and determinable for 

Georgetown salamander and Salado 

salamander (85 FR 57578; September 

15, 2020), and we affirm those 

determinations in this final rule. 

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 member 

species of the Eurycea salamander 

subgenus Septentriomolge (which 

includes the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders) has been observed from a 

spring outlet. The subsurface critical 

habitat was delineated based on 

evidence that indicates a Eurycea 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46539 

scientist and cited within published 

articles, unpublished reports, and 

Service files including Hunter and 

Russell (1993, p. 7–8), Pierce and Wall 

(2011, pp. 2–3), Chippindale et al. 

(2000, pp. 39–43), Diaz and Montagne 

(2017, p. 6), Cambrian Environmental 

(2018b, pp. 5–6), Devitt et al. (2019a, pp. 

2,626, 2,628), and Devitt et al. (2019b, 

pp. 16–18). Although we do not have 

data for every site indicating that a 

salamander was observed 262 ft (80 m) 

downstream, we find that it is 

reasonable to consider the downstream 

habitat occupied based on the dispersal 

capabilities observed in individuals of 

very similar species. See Criteria Used 

To Identify Critical Habitat, below, for 

more information. 

Comment 6: Some commenters 

questioned the Service’s reliance on the 

proposed 262-ft (80-m) surface 

designation for its divergence from 

available literature, incorrect 

assumption of identical spring sites, and 

significant discrepancies between the 

text description and proposed maps. 

Commenters noted that, the Service 

states Salado salamanders are rarely 

found more than 66 ft (20 m) from a 

spring source and are most abundant 

within the first 16 ft (5 m). Therefore, 

the Service’s proposed 262-ft (80-m) 

radius surface designation is 

inconsistent with the best available 

science. 

Our Response: When determining 

surface critical habitat boundaries, we 

were not able to delineate specific 

stream segments on maps due to the 

small size of the streams. Therefore, we 

drew a circle with a 262-ft (80-m) 

radius, from spring point locations, 

representing the extent the surface 

population of the site is estimated to 

exist upstream and downstream. 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders are 

generally found within 66 ft (20 m) of 

a spring source (TPWD 2011, p. 3; Diaz 

et al. 2015, p. 7) but several studies have 

documented these salamanders beyond 

that distance up to 194 ft (59 m) away 

(Pierce et al. 2011a, p. 4; Pierce 2015, p. 

13; Pierce 2016, pp. 14, 17, 19; Gutierrez 

et al. p. 386). In addition, the closely 

related Jollyville Plateau salamander has 

been observed 262 ft (80 m) from a 

spring opening (Bendik et al. 2016, p. 9). 

Given the close taxonomic relationship 

of the Georgetown, Jollyville Plateau, 

and Salado salamanders we applied that 

distance (i.e., 262 ft (80 m) in 

designating surface critical habitat 

boundaries. Surface critical habitat 

includes the spring outlets and outflow 

up to the ordinary high water mark (the 

average amount of water present in 

nonflood conditions, as defined in 33 

CFR 328.3(e)) and 262 ft (80 m) of 

upstream and downstream habitat (to 

the extent that this habitat is ever 

present), including the dry stream 

channel during periods of no surface 

flow. Upland habitat adjacent to 

streams, 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 

designated subsurface or surface critical 

habitat (see Application of the 

‘‘Destruction or Adverse Modification’’ 

Standard, below). We defined an area as 

occupied based upon the reliable 

observations of Georgetown and/or 

Salado salamander species by a 

knowledgeable scientist and cited 

within published articles, unpublished 

reports, and Service files including 

Hunter and Russell (1993, p. 7–8), 

Pierce and Wall (2011, pp. 2–3), 

Chippindale et al. (2000, pp. 39–43), 

Diaz and Montagne (2017, p. 6), 

Cambrian Environmental (2018b, pp. 5– 

6), Devitt et al. (2019a, pp. 2,626, 2,628), 

and Devitt et al. (2019b, pp. 16– 

18).Although we do not have data for 

every site indicating that a salamander 

was observed 262 ft (80 m) downstream, 

we conclude 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 Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat, below, for more 

information. 

Comment 7: The Bell County 

Adaptive Management Coalition and 

others commented that the use of a 984- 

ft (300-m) subsurface designation is not 

consistent with available literature, and 

provided two references in support of 

this conclusion, from the Clearwater 

Underground Water Conservation 

District and Baylor University. The 984- 

ft (300-m) subsurface designation, as 

delineated by the Service, is not 

consistent with Baylor University 

research, which indicated that the 

geology and hydrology of the subsurface 

feature (i.e., springshed) do not match 

the delineations proposed by the 

Service. Much of the subsurface 

delineations do not actually contribute 

to the spring flow for the occupied sites; 

thus, their inclusion within critical 

habitat would improperly subject those 

areas to the same regulations as areas 

that actually have an impact on the 

salamander and its habitat. 

Our Response: The commenter 

suggested that we should restrict the 

subsurface critical habitat designation to 

an area that they defined as the 

contributing springshed. We reviewed 

the information provided by the 

Clearwater Underground Water 

Conservation District and Baylor 

University 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. Wong 

and Yelderman (2015, pp. 8–15) found 

connectivity between Stagecoach Inn 

Cave well and all the down-gradient 

springs indicating the Salado 

salamander, and other mobile aquatic 

organisms, can move throughout the 

entire spring system and it should be 

grouped as one system. If toxins entered 

Salado Creek, groundwater flows could 

carry the toxins to occupied salamander 

springs. The proposed 984-ft (300-m) 

radius subsurface designation is an area 

that represents where salamander 

populations are likely to exist, which is 

further supported from studies 

conducted on the Austin blind 

salamander that showed their presence 

throughout the entire underground 

Barton Springs complex (Dries 2011, 

pers. comm.). Regarding the Coalition’s 

concern about holding areas outside the 

springshed to the same standards as 

within the springshed, Salado Creek is 

a gaining stream (i.e., reaches of a 

stream where groundwater exits the 

subsurface and contributes to stream 

flow) near downtown Salado. Therefore, 

pollution introduced to Salado Creek 

could enter the aquifer system providing 

water to springs occupied by the Salado 

salamander. 

The Coalition identified Edwards 

Aquifer Recharge Zone and applied the 

springshed boundary mapped by 

Yelderman (2013, pp. 6–8) and Wong 

and Yelderman (2015, p. 4) to show a 

simplified groundwater flow system that 

indicates groundwater recharge to the 

spring is limited to southwestern 

sources. This approach was used to 

create a management area, which is a 

section of the watershed that they 

propose can impact the springs 

occupied by the Salado salamander. 

However, the Wong and Yelderman 

(2015, p. 22) study that the Coalition 

used to delineate this area also 

concluded that Salado Creek and nearby 

springs receive waters from the north 

bank (i.e., Rock Spring), that is sourced 

from groundwater from the north and 

south of Salado Creek. Therefore, 

activities such as spills of hazardous 

materials north and south of Salado 

Creek could adversely impact 

groundwater, nearby springs, and 

salamander habitat. While we recognize 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46540 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the uncertainty inherent in identifying 

subsurface habitat boundaries for these 

two salamander species, we used the 

best available scientific information to 

designate critical habitat, as required by 

the Act. A fuller understanding of all of 

the subsurface flow patterns and 

connections for every salamander site 

will require numerous years of research. 

The subsurface critical habitat was 

delineated based on evidence that 

indicates that a Eurycea salamander 

population can extend at least 984 ft 

(300 m) from the spring opening 

through underground conduits. 

Comment 8: One commenter stated 

support for designating as unoccupied 

critical habitat reaches beyond the 

current 262-ft (80-m) extent of proposed 

critical habitat downstream and 

upstream of known salamanderoccupied spring openings, and 

extending that to 1,640 ft (5,381 m) 

instead based on Bendik et al. (2016, p. 

9). These streambeds and riverbeds trace 

the outlines of likely remaining and/or 

restorable subterranean aquatic 

connectivity for these salamanders. 

Maintaining such connectivity or 

restoring it where feasible is essential to 

their conservation and eventual 

recovery. Bendik et al. (2016, p. p. 9) 

indicates that the closely related 

Jollyville Plateau salamanders along 

Bull Creek that uses habitats as far as 

1,640-ft (5,381-m) from its epigean 

habitat. Designation of the full 1,640-ft 

(5,381-m) distance downstream and 

upstream as critical habitat would 

provide regulatory and educational 

means to manually rehabilitate 

degraded streambeds (for example, 

through revegetation) and to decrease 

human extraction of groundwater (for 

example, through retirement of 

agricultural lands) in order to effectuate 

conservation of these species, which is 

precisely the Act’s purpose for critical 

habitat designation. 

Our Response: We did not consider 

unoccupied areas for critical habitat 

because we determined that occupied 

areas were sufficient to conserve the 

species. In accordance with section 

3(5)(A) of the Act, we are designating 

critical habitat in specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing that contain 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. The Service has developed a 

preliminary long-term conservation 

strategy that represents the overall 

objectives and actions that we believe 

are needed to conserve the salamanders 

(Service 2013, entire). The purpose of 

the strategy is to provide initial 

guidance for conservation and threat 

alleviation. In general, this includes 

measures aimed at reducing or removing 

threats to the species and ensuring selfsustaining populations remain in the 

wild. 

The unique hydrology where that 

Jollyville Plateau salamander 

observation was made leads us to 

conclude that it should not be 

extrapolated to the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders. The area of Bull 

Creek where that observation was made 

is known for its alluvial deposits (COA 

2012, p. 6), which discharge spring 

water through non-obvious seeps, 

instead of open springheads (SWCA 

2012, p. 77). This type of hydrology 

appears to create suitable habitat for 

salamanders along long stretches of 

stream, rather than a short stretch of 

springwater-influenced habitat 

following an open spring outlet (Bendik 

2013, pers. comm.). We have no 

information indicating that any 

Georgetown or Salado salamander sites 

function in the same manner as these 

Bull Creek alluvial resurgence areas. As 

currently known, Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders do not have access 

to the same extent or nature of aquatic 

surface habitat as the Jollyville Plateau 

salamander (Pierce at al. 2010, pp. 14– 

15). Therefore, we conclude that the 

1,640 feet (500 meters) distance traveled 

by a Jollyville Plateau salamander is an 

observation unique to the hydrological 

setting and does not apply to 

Georgetown or Salado salamander sites. 

The purpose of designating critical 

habitat is to identify those areas needed 

for a species’ recovery. In this case, we 

designated habitat occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed on 

which are found those physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations 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 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. 

Comment 9: One commenter provided 

a number of publications that they 

thought should be considered and 

referenced in the final rule. 

Our Response: The contributions 

stakeholders, academic researchers, and 

others have made to advance knowledge 

on the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders and their habitat is valued 

by the Service. Where relevant and 

appropriate, we have incorporated 

information from these efforts and cited 

peer-reviewed articles and unpublished 

reports pertaining to salamander 

dispersal, taxonomy, and water quality 

parameters including Cambrian 

Environmental (2016; 2017; 2018; 2019; 

2020), Diaz et al. (2016; 2017), Diaz et 

al. (2020), Gutierrez et al. (2018), Jones 

et al. (2020), Pierce et al. (2014), and 

Wall et al. (2020). Other publications 

cited by the commenter provide 

valuable information on the life history 

(e.g., temporal activity and tail loss) of 

the Georgetown and/or Salado 

salamanders but were not directly 

relevant to this final critical habitat rule 

or more current information was 

available and include Biagas et al. 

(2012), McEntire and Pierce (2015), 

Norris et al. (2012), and Pierce and 

Gonzalez (2019). See Physical or 

Biological Features Essential to the 

Conservation of the Species, below, for 

more information. 

Comment 10: One commenter opined 

that the Service does not identify the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the Georgetown 

and Salado salamanders with an 

appropriate level of specificity as 

required by 50 CFR 424.12(b)(1)(ii). 

Although the Service describes each of 

the physical and biological features in 

some detail, the Service used studies 

relating to different species, the 

Jollyville Plateau salamander and 

Barton Springs salamander, in an 

attempt to infer further parallels as to 

the habitat requirements for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders. In 

the commenter’s view, inferring 

parallels between species does not 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46541 

comport with the contemporary 

scientific practice or the applicable legal 

standard because it’s not specific to the 

conservation of the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders. 

Our Response: We conclude that the 

Jollyville Plateau salamander is an 

appropriate surrogate for determining 

habitat requirements for the Georgetown 

and Salado salamanders. The Jollyville 

Plateau, Georgetown, and Salado 

salamander species are within the same 

genus, are entirely aquatic throughout 

each portion of their life cycles, respire 

through gills, inhabit water of high 

quality with a narrow range of 

conditions, depend on water from the 

Edwards Aquifer, and have similar 

predators. Both the Jollyville Plateau 

and Georgetown salamanders have cave 

populations that live exclusively in 

subterranean habitats. Certain 

populations of the Salado salamander 

also appear to spend more time 

inhabiting subterranean habitat than 

surface habitats. These three 

biologically and ecologically similar 

species also form a related clade of 

Eurycea salamanders in the Northern 

Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, 

distinct from other Eurycea species in 

southern portions of the Edwards 

Aquifer. Peer reviewers of earlier 

proposed and final rules for the 

Georgetown, Jollyville Plateau, and 

Salado salamanders have agreed that it 

is acceptable to use and apply ecological 

information on closely related species if 

species-specific information is lacking. 

Based on this information, the best 

available scientific information supports 

our conclusion that these species are 

suitable surrogates for each other. 

Comment 11: The September 15, 

2020, proposed rule does not 

demonstrate that the proposed critical 

habitat units meet the definition of 

critical habitat. The Service proposes to 

designate occupied areas, which, by 

statutory definition, must have the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species that may require special 

management. Although the Service 

describes each of the physical and 

biological features in some detail, the 

Service does not identify the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders with an appropriate 

level of specificity. Instead, the Service 

used studies relating to a different 

species, the Jollyville Plateau 

salamander and Barton Springs 

salamander, in an attempt to infer 

further parallels as to the habitat 

requirements for the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders. 

Our Response: Occupied critical 

habitat always contains at least one or 

more of the physical or biological 

features that provide for some lifehistory needs of the listed species. 

However, an area of critical habitat may 

not contain all physical or biological 

features 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 

physical or biological features such as 

rocky substrate and access to the 

subsurface habitat may be present, even 

if the water quality physical or 

biological feature is not. 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 

protection. See also our responses to 

Comments 9 and 10, above. 

Comment 12: One commenter stated 

that we should not designate critical 

habitat for the Salado salamanders 

because public identification of habitat 

could increase impacts to the species 

and its habitat, in the form of site 

disturbance and harassment of the 

species. 

Our Response: These sites are already 

publicly identified in several survey 

reports, in descriptions in scientific 

papers, and in our proposed critical 

habitat rules. The Service is not aware 

of any trade in these species or general 

collection, other than research, that 

would lead the Service to believe that 

there may be harm to the species in 

designating critical habitat. 

Comment 13: The Bell County 

Adaptive Management Coalition stated 

that water quantity and quality 

degradation in Bell County is being 

addressed through various actions such 

as regulations, ordinances, and zoning. 

Because the Coalition has successfully 

managed the quality of water associated 

with the Salado salamander and its 

habitat, they did not agree that water 

quality and quantity degradation should 

be considered as a factor for critical 

habitat designation. The result is 

managed spring flow with sufficient 

water quantity for the Salado 

salamander, invalidating the need for 

critical habitat designation. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

efforts of Bell County to address water 

quality and quantity issues within the 

range of the Salado salamander. Bell 

County’s efforts have ameliorated some 

of the threats to the Salado salamander 

and have provided protection to some of 

the critical habitat units. However, 

additional threats to the species remain, 

including increased impervious cover, 

chemical spills from existing and future 

roadways, and leakage from sewer lines 

and septic systems. 

The Service is not relieved of its 

statutory obligation to designate critical 

habitat based on the contention that 

designation will not provide additional 

conservation benefit. In Ctr. for 

Biological Diversity v. Norton, 240 F. 

Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Ariz. 2003), the court 

held that the Act does not direct us to 

designate critical habitat only in those 

areas where ‘‘additional’’ special 

management considerations or 

protection is needed. We find that the 

areas in question meet the definition of 

critical habitat in the Act. 

Special management considerations 

that will ameliorate threats to surface 

habitat include, but are not limited to, 

protecting the quality of cave and spring 

water by implementing comprehensive 

programs to control and reduce point 

sources and non-point sources of 

pollution, minimizing the likelihood of 

pollution events or surface runoff from 

existing and future development that 

would affect groundwater quality, 

protecting groundwater and spring flow 

quantity, and measures to prevent 

surface habitat destruction or 

degradation (e.g., exclusion of cattle and 

feral hogs). Some of the management 

activities listed above, such as those that 

protect spring flow and groundwater 

quality, protect both surface and 

subsurface habitats, as these are 

interconnected. 

Additional management activities that 

could ameliorate threats that are specific 

to subsurface habitat include, but are 

not limited to, the development and 

implementation of void mitigation plans 

for construction projects to prevent 

impacts to salamanders in the event of 

severed aquifer conduits or interrupted 

groundwater flow paths, site-specific 

plans to prevent changes to subsurface 

water flow from construction activities, 

environmental monitors during 

construction, excavation, and drilling 

activities to monitor spring flow, and 

post-construction monitoring of spring 

flow. 

Comment 14: Some commenters 

believe that the Service should have 

determined that critical habitat for the 

species is not prudent because 

‘‘designation is not wise, such as when 

a designation would apply additional 

regulation but not further the 

conservation of the species’’ (see p. 84 

FR 45041). The State, Williamson 

County, and its residents have 

voluntarily restricted their activities to 

degrees far more protective than an 

added layer of regulation under the Act 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46542 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

would achieve. The Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality’s Edwards 

Aquifer rules were enacted to prevent 

water quality degradation within the 

Edwards Aquifer where the salamanders 

reside. Those rules require, among other 

things, that any construction-related 

activity occurring over the Edwards 

Aquifer must first prepare detailed 

studies and reports and then employ 

certain best management practices to 

prevent pollution of the surface water 

and groundwater. The Georgetown 

water quality ordinance heavily restricts 

activity in a tiered structure within 262- 

ft (80-m) and 984-ft (300-m) of 

salamander occupied springs. The City 

of Georgetown’s water quality ordinance 

provides protections that exceed what 

would be achieved by the proposed 

critical habitat, but without the 

additional regulatory layer and 

associated delays and costs that would 

result from a critical habitat designation. 

The Georgetown water quality 

ordinance has been strictly 

implemented, and the success of such 

efforts is evidenced by the monitoring 

results voluntarily undertaken by the 

Williamson County Conservation 

Foundation. Further, numerous other 

voluntary conservation actions are in 

place to address the surface and 

subsurface concerns identified in the 

September 15, 2020, proposed rule. 

These actions demonstrate that 

significant and existing conservation 

efforts exceed the protections that 

would otherwise be afforded by a 

critical habitat designation. A critical 

habitat designation would not further 

the conservation of the species, but it 

would add significant regulatory 

processes resulting in project delays and 

increased costs. 

Our Response: See our response to 

Comment 13. Again, we appreciate and 

acknowledge all the hard work 

conservation partners and residents 

have voluntarily undertaken to help 

conserve both species of salamander. 

However, we have concluded that 

critical habitat is prudent for 

Georgetown salamander and Salado 

salamander (85 FR 57578). In the final 

listing rule, we identified destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range as threats to the species and 

include increases in impervious cover 

and infrastructure (e.g., roadways and 

sewage lines) that accompany 

urbanization and degrade water quality, 

quarrying that may damage 

subterranean habitat, and installation of 

impoundments that alter surface habitat. 

These threats can be addressed under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

The buffer zones described in the City 

of Georgetown’s ordinance lessen the 

potential for further water quality 

degradation, but they do not remove the 

threat posed by existing development. 

Buffer zones also do not address threats 

to water quantity. The threat of 

chemical spills from existing highways, 

sewer lines, and septic systems still 

exists. We acknowledge that some 

Georgetown salamander, and now 

Salado salamander, sites in Williamson 

County have been monitored since 

2008. However, only a small number of 

sites occupied by those salamanders 

have been regularly monitored for water 

quality and salamander abundance. Data 

are lacking for many springs occupied 

by the Georgetown salamander as well 

as additional sites for the Salado 

salamander. Available monitoring data 

do not reflect the potential for 

individual site variation or depict the 

range of landscape or habitat conditions 

(e.g., degree of urbanization or age of 

development) within which the 

occupied springs occur. 

Comment 15: One commenter stated 

that the Service should explain how 

special management may be required for 

the biological and physical features 

when describing each proposed critical 

habitat unit. Courts have interpreted the 

special management provision to mean 

that the Service must provide an 

analysis explaining how the biological 

and physical features in the proposed 

critical habitat area may require special 

management. 

Our Response: On the contrary, in 

Arizona Cattle Growers Association v. 

Kempthorne, the courts stated that ‘‘. . . 

the statute does not require anything 

more than a finding that the physical 

and biological features themselves . . . 

may require special management.’’ and 

the Service ‘‘. . . has fulfilled its lone 

requirement . . .’’ by making such a 

finding that an area(s) may require 

special management (534 F. Supp. 2d. 

1013, 1031, D. Ariz. 2008). The court 

made clear in its finding that the Service 

needs to look at whether the physical or 

biological features may require special 

management considerations. Each unit 

description identifies the physical or 

biological features in the unit and 

identifies which special management 

considerations or protections may be 

needed for that unit, fulfilling this 

requirement. Please see unit 

descriptions and Special Management 

Considerations or Protections, below, 

for a description of the management 

needs of the physical or biological 

features. 

Comment 16: Some commenters 

requested that the final rule address the 

effects to the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders from nitrates, as we have 

done in past rules (77 FR 50768; 79 FR 

10236), because salamanders might be 

experiencing impairments to their 

respiratory, metabolic, and feeding 

capabilities as a result of high nitrate 

concentrations. 

Our Response: Nutrient input, such as 

nitrogen, may affect the aquatic habitats 

inhabited by the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders (Gomez et al. 2020, entire). 

Nitrate, ammonia, total dissolved solids, 

and total suspended solids can increase 

in watersheds that encompass 

residential development, golf courses, 

and other human activities. The 

February 24, 2014, final rule listing the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders as 

threatened species (79 FR 10236) 

reviewed the potential impacts of 

nitrates on amphibians and noted higher 

levels of this substance at some 

salamander locations. At this time, we 

lack sufficient information to 

specifically detail a range of nitrate 

levels that may affect Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders, and we therefore 

do not describe them under Physical or 

Biological Features Essential to the 

Conservation of the Species in this rule. 

Comment 17: In the September 15, 

2020, proposed rule, the Service cited a 

single paper (Pierce et al. 2010) that 

primarily reports one year of water 

quality data at Swinbank Spring. Water 

quality data pertinent to these species 

can also be found in additional peerreviewed, published manuscripts as 

well as numerous reports. These 

collective reports and publications 

identify a much wider range of 

appropriate water conditions than 

included in the September 15, 2020, 

proposed rule. The Service did not rely 

on the best available scientific 

information when defining water 

conditions that are essential to the 

conservation of the two species. One 

commenter stated that our analysis of 

the negative effects of elevated water 

conductance on the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders was flawed because 

we based our analysis on research 

conducted on the Jollyville Plateau 

salamander. Pierce et al. (2010, p. 294) 

studied a different species of 

salamander with different habitat 

requirements and did not indicate that 

conductance of 604 to 721 microSiemens per centimeter (mS/cm) was an 

essential requirement for the 

Georgetown salamander, as the Service 

stated in the proposed rule. 

Our Response: Based on comments, 

scientific research, and water quality 

monitoring data, we have updated text 

in this final rule regarding water quality 

parameters to include temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, and specific 

conductance. See Physical or Biological 

Features Essential to the Conservation of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46543 

the Species, below, for more 

information. 

Comment 18: Some commenters 

stated that our economic analysis did 

not accurately capture impacts to 

tourism or development in Bell and 

Williamson counties. Commenters 

stated that the Village of Salado relies 

on the tourism industry and receives 

approximately 75,000 visitors per year, 

or 30 times the number of people living 

in Salado and believed there is serious 

potential for this industry to be 

negatively impacted by the proposed 

designation. In addition, development 

in surrounding areas may experience 

increased restrictions and negative 

impacts to property values. The 

designation of critical habitat may also 

cause delays in public safety and 

education projects. For example, if a 

bridge is not up to standards, and the 

bridge’s new construction is tied to 

Federal nexus funding, then there will 

be additional costs and delays from 

section 7 consultation. Commenters 

anticipate the impact to Bell and 

Williamson Counties to be a much 

larger estimate than the described 

$38,500 per year. 

The commenters stated that the draft 

economic analysis’ estimate of $38,500 

per year conclusion did not to 

acknowledge the stigma that arises 

when an area is designated as critical 

habitat. As acknowledged by the Fifth 

Circuit, a critical habitat designation 

creates an economic stigma that affects 

property values, even where the 

designation affects non-Federal lands 

and does not presently have a Federal 

nexus. This cost is not mentioned or 

captured anywhere in the September 15, 

2020, proposed rule. Where there is a 

Federal nexus, the designation of 

critical habitat can trigger formal 

consultation where consultation could 

otherwise be avoided through the 

implementation of best management 

practices. Further, critical habitat can 

prompt a formal consultation where 

informal consultation would otherwise 

be appropriate. Consultation, itself, 

imposes costs and takes time, and a 

critical habitat designation adds another 

layer of analysis. In some instances, the 

Service seeks additional conservation or 

restoration measures based on adverse 

modification. All of these processes, 

measures, and delays can have 

significant costs to a project proponent. 

Our Response: We revised the 

economic analysis based on several 

comments; the final economic analysis 

is available at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048. As directed by 

the Act, we proposed as critical habitat 

those areas occupied by the species at 

the time of listing and that contain the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species, 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection. Section 3 

of the economic analysis outlines the 

substantial baseline protections 

currently afforded the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders throughout the 

proposed designation (IEc 2021, p. 7). 

These baseline protections result from 

the listing of the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders under the Act. As a result 

of these protections, the economic 

analysis concludes that incremental 

impacts associated with section 7 

consultations for the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders is likely limited to 

additional administrative effort. The 

analysis forecasts future section 7 

consultation activity based on 

consultations for the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders that have occurred 

since its listing in 2014. Using these 

historical consultation rates and 

applying estimated consultation costs 

presented in Exhibit 3 of the analysis 

(IEc 2021, p. 11), we expect that the 

additional administrative costs incurred 

by critical habitat designation will not 

exceed $38,500 in a given year. 

The Service anticipates conservation 

measures provided to address impacts 

to occupied critical habitat areas will be 

the same as those recommended to 

address impacts to the species because 

the habitat requirements of the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders are 

closely linked to the survival, growth, 

and reproduction of these species, 

which are present year-round in their 

spring, stream, cave, and subterranean 

habitats. As such, the economic analysis 

of the critical habitat designation does 

not anticipate that the designation will 

result in new conservation efforts for the 

species that would not already occur 

due to the listing of the species in 

designated critical habitat areas. 

Therefore, critical habitat designation 

for the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders is not anticipated to result 

in additional costs for development or 

other infrastructure projects other than 

administrative costs to address critical 

habitat in section 7 consultations. We 

also updated our economic analysis to 

further elaborate on this topic (IEc 

2021). 

The Act does not authorize the 

Service to regulate private actions on 

private lands. Critical habitat 

designation also does not establish 

specific land management standards or 

prescriptions, although Federal agencies 

are prohibited from carrying out, 

funding, or authorizing actions that 

would destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. 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 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. 

Most of the costs identified by the 

commenter are costs that are a result of 

the listing of the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders and are not attributable to 

the designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The economic analysis 

acknowledges that the two counties in 

which the critical habitat designation 

spans are experiencing significant 

development pressure. The Service 

anticipates conservation 

recommendations provided to address 

impacts to the occupied critical habitat 

will be the same as those recommended 

to address impacts to the species 

because the habitat requirements of the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders are 

closely linked to the survival, growth, 

and reproduction of these species, 

which are present year-round in their 

spring, stream, cave, and subterranean 

habitats. As such, the economic analysis 

of critical habitat designation does not 

anticipate that the designation will 

result in new conservation efforts for the 

species that would not already occur 

due to the listing of the species in 

designated critical habitat areas. As 

such, this critical habitat designation for 

the Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

is not anticipated to result in additional 

restrictions or requirements for 

development or other infrastructure 

projects. Therefore, critical habitat 

designation for the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders is not anticipated to 

result in additional costs for 

development or other infrastructure 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46544 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

projects other than administrative costs 

to address critical habitat in section 7 

consultations. 

Comment 19: One commenter 

believed that our reclassification of five 

spring sites previously considered to be 

Georgetown salamanders as Salado 

salamander sites results in economic 

impacts due to the resulting changes in 

application of the 4(d) rule for the 

Georgetown salamander, which 

incorporates the City of Georgetown’s 

water quality ordinance. This revision 

means that members of the regulated 

community that have previously relied 

on the 4(d) rule and ordinance are now 

exposed to potential section 9 

violations. 

Our Response: The costs identified by 

the commenter are costs that are a result 

of the listing and 4(d) rule for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

and are not attributable to the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. This critical habitat designation 

in no way changes the 4(d) rule for the 

Georgetown salamander referenced by 

the commenter. 

Comment 20: Williamson County 

Conservation Foundation commented 

that the Service did not conduct an 

exclusion analysis consistent with its 

authority under the Act’s section 4(b)(2). 

The broadly drawn proposed critical 

habitat units confer little benefit to the 

species at great detriment to the County 

and its residents. The existing 

protections provide significant upside to 

both the species and the County’s 

residents, while the September 15, 2020, 

proposed rule would yield significant 

downsides and little, if any, benefit to 

the two species. The benefits of 

excluding the proposed critical habitat 

areas far outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion. The Service should redo its 

economic analysis considering the 

myriad of impacts discussed above and 

conduct an exclusion analysis. 

Our Response: For exclusion of an 

area from critical habitat designation 

based on management, we look to our 

Policy Regarding Implementation of 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act (81 FR 7226; February 11, 

2016) that outlines measures we 

consider when excluding any areas from 

critical habitat. Although we published 

revised regulations that address section 

4(b)(2) on December 18, 2020 (85 FR 

82376), the revised regulation applies to 

critical habitat rules for which a 

proposed rule is published after January 

19, 2021. The proposed rule for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

published on September 15, 2020. 

Therefore, this rule is grandfathered 

from the December 18, 2020 regulation. 

The Service considers six elements 

when considering whether to exclude 

any areas from critical habitat: (1) 

Partnerships and conservation plans; (2) 

conservation plans permitted under 

section 10 of the Act; (3) national 

security and homeland security impacts, 

and military lands; (4) Tribal lands; (5) 

Federal lands; and (6) economic 

impacts. We did not receive any request 

for exclusion of any specific critical 

habitat units in Williamson County and 

the Williamson County Conservation 

Foundation. No permitted plans under 

section 10 of the Act exist within the 

county, we are not aware of any impacts 

to national security or homeland 

security, and the designation does not 

include Tribal or Federal lands within 

the county. The partnerships and 

voluntary conservation plans cited by 

the Foundation do not remove the threat 

posed by existing development or the 

threat of chemical spills from existing 

highways, sewer lines, and septic 

systems. The human population in 

Williamson County is projected to 

increase by 161 percent, between 2022 

and 2050 (Texas Demographic Center 

2021). The associated increase in 

urbanization is likely to result in 

continued impacts to water quality that 

require special management of the 

habitat to address. Therefore, we did not 

conduct a weighing analysis to 

determine whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion for other areas. Please see 

Exclusions, below, for a discussion of 

the areas we are excluding from the 

final designation. 

Finally, the Service updated its 

economics analysis (IEc 2021, entire) 

based on public comment provided 

during the comment period associated 

with the proposed critical habitat 

destination (85 FR 57578). 

Comment 21: One commenter stated 

that the September 15, 2020, proposed 

rule did not properly follow the process 

by which the Secretary should take into 

account economic and other impacts 

and exclude areas from critical habitat 

if she determines that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion. 

Our Response: Our regulations state 

that ‘‘The Secretary will make a final 

designation of critical habitat based on 

the best scientific data available, after 

taking into consideration the probable 

economic, national security, and other 

relevant impacts of making such a 

designation in accordance with 

§ 424.19’’ (50 CFR 424.12(a). In 

accordance with 50 CFR 424.19, ‘‘The 

Secretary has the discretion to exclude 

any particular area from critical habitat 

upon a determination that the benefits 

of such exclusion outweigh the benefits 

of specifying the particular area as part 

of the critical habitat.’’ It is the Service’s 

practice to propose all lands that meet 

the definition of critical habitat and 

determine whether any lands should 

then be excluded under Section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act in the final rule. We received 

further information during the public 

comment period on the September 15, 

2020, proposed rule, and after 

conducting a weighing analysis, we are 

excluding Salado salamander units 1, 2, 

and 3 from critical habitat designation 

in this rule. Please see Exclusions, 

below, for a discussion of the areas we 

are excluding from the final designation. 

Comment 22: One commenter 

disagreed with the methodology in the 

draft economic analysis to limit the 

assessment of economic impacts to 

those solely attributable to the critical 

habitat designation (i.e., the baseline 

approach). They opined that the 

Service’s use of the baseline approach is 

not only illegal, it prejudices 

landowners affected by the designation, 

as it significantly understates the 

designation’s economic impact and 

ignores the cumulative impact of adding 

the designation’s costs to those that 

landowners already bear because of the 

salamanders’ listing. The commenter 

believed that we should analyze all of 

the economic impacts of a critical 

habitat designation, regardless of 

whether those impacts are attributable 

co-extensively to other causes, such as 

listing the species. The commenter 

further opined that the Service should 

conduct a new economic analysis, using 

the co-extensive approach. 

Our Response: Because the primary 

purposes of the economic analysis are to 

facilitate the mandatory consideration of 

the economic impact of the designation 

of critical habitat, to inform the 

discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 

analysis, and to determine compliance 

with relevant statutes and Executive 

Orders, the economic analysis focuses 

on the incremental impact of the 

designation. The economic analysis of 

the designation of critical habitat for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

follows this incremental approach. The 

Service acknowledges that significant 

debate has occurred regarding whether 

assessing the impact of critical habitat 

designations using the incremental 

approach is appropriate, with several 

courts issuing divergent opinions. Most 

recently, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals concluded that the incremental 

approach is appropriate, and the U.S. 

Supreme Court declined to hear the case 

(Home Builders Association of Northern 

California v. United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46545 

2010), cert. denied, 179 L. Ed 2d 301, 

2011 U.S. Lexis 1392, 79 U.S.L.W. 3475 

(2011); Arizona Cattle Growers v. 

Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010), 

cert. denied, 179 L. Ed. 2d 300, 2011 

U.S. Lexis 1362, 79 U.S. L.W. 3475 

(2011)). Subsequently, on August 28, 

2013, the Service published a final rule 

(78 FR 53058) revising our regulations 

pertaining to impact analyses conducted 

for designations of critical habitat under 

the Act; the regulations specify that the 

incremental approach should be used 

(see p. 78 FR 53062 and 50 CFR 

424.19(b)). We updated our final 

economic analysis for this critical 

habitat designation to further clarify 

these points (IEc 2021). 

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act states 

that the Secretary shall make listing 

determinations ‘‘solely on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available,’’ which prevents the Service 

from factoring in economic 

considerations when making a listing 

determination. However, with regard to 

designating critical habitat, and specific 

to designating critical habitat, section 

4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 

Secretary shall designate and revise 

critical habitat on the basis of the best 

scientific data available and after taking 

into consideration ‘‘the economic 

impact, the impact on national security, 

and any other relevant impact, of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat.’’ The incremental approach, or 

‘‘baseline approach,’’ is in accord with 

the language and intent of the Act. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19(b) state 

that the Secretary will consider impacts 

at a scale that the Secretary determines 

to be appropriate and will compare the 

impacts with and without the 

designation. The incremental approach 

(baseline approach) compares the 

impacts with and without designating 

the critical habitat, as opposed to with 

or without a listing determination. We 

have concluded that an incremental 

approach is consistent with the Act and 

with the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) guidance and is the most 

logical way of analyzing impacts. Lastly, 

the Service considered the economic 

impacts of the designation of critical 

habitat in its economics analysis 

summarized in an updated 

memorandum dated April 13, 2021, 

which is available at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048. 

Comment 23: One commenter stated 

that our economic analysis is deficient 

because it failed to adequately measure 

reductions in the value of private 

property, did not consider the costs 

likely to be incurred by landowners in 

avoiding or defending against citizen 

lawsuits to enforce other provisions of 

the Act, and ignored incremental costs 

attributable to the avoidance of 

adversely modifying the salamanders’ 

habitat. The commenter recommended 

that we: (1) Analyze or quantify how 

public perception of the critical habitat 

designation will affect private property 

values within the designation; (2) 

analyze the costs that may be incurred 

by landowners in avoiding and 

defending against citizen lawsuits 

pursuant to section 11 of the Act from 

environmental groups or neighbors 

alleging violations of the Act’s section 9 

prohibition on take; and (3) correct the 

proposed rule’s erroneous assumption 

that any adverse modification of habitat 

would necessarily jeopardize the 

species. 

Our Response: First, the costs of 

litigation pursuant to section 11 citizen 

suit provisions alleging that a section 9 

violation has occurred are not 

attributable to the designation of critical 

habitat. The Act does not contain any 

section 9 protections for critical habitat. 

Secondly, as stated in the economic 

screening analysis memorandum, the 

Service recognizes that, under certain 

circumstances, critical habitat 

designations may affect private property 

values. The memorandum describes that 

public attitudes about the limits and 

costs that the Act may impose can cause 

real economic effects to the owners of 

property, regardless of whether such 

limits are actually imposed. This effect 

is sometimes referred to as a stigma 

effect. Over time, as public awareness 

grows of the regulatory burden placed 

on designated lands, the effect of critical 

habitat designation on properties may 

subside. Because the economics 

literature on the subject is limited and 

is species- and site-specific in nature, 

the likelihood and potential magnitude 

of property value effects due to critical 

habitat designation for the salamanders 

is uncertain. Lastly, and consistent with 

this comment, the final economics 

screening memorandum clarifies that 

the Georgetown salamander 4(d) rule at 

50 CFR 17.43(e) exempts the incidental 

take of Georgetown salamander if the 

take occurs on non-Federal land from 

regulated activities that are conducted 

consistent with the water quality 

protection measures contained in the 

City of Georgetown (Texas) Unified 

Development Code (UDC), as endorsed 

by the Service. As the 4(d) rule serves 

to reduce regulatory uncertainty for 

these development activities, 

perceptional effects on land values may 

be less likely to occur on these lands. 

Comment 24: One commenter stated 

that we should conduct a NEPA analysis 

in conjunction with the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders, 

citing various case law in support of 

their assertion. The commenter 

recommended that the Service prepare 

an environmental assessment in 

conjunction with the critical habitat 

designation. 

Our Response: 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 NEPA in 

connection with designating critical 

habitat under the Act. We published a 

notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

position was upheld by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 

1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 

U.S. 1042 (1996)). This critical habitat 

designation is outside the jurisdiction of 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth 

Circuit. 

Comment 25: A commenter stated that 

the Service has not prepared an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis for the 

proposed critical habitat designation as 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The RFA 

requires that, whenever an agency 

publishes a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking, as it has done here, it must 

also ‘‘prepare and make available for 

public comment’’ an ‘‘initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis.’’ Thus, the 

commenter recommended that the 

Service reissue the September 15, 2020, 

proposed rule, after preparing the 

required initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis and conduct a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis prior to finalizing the 

designation. 

Our Response: Under the RFA, 

Federal agencies are only required to 

evaluate the potential incremental 

impacts of a rulemaking on directly 

regulated entities. The regulatory 

mechanism through which critical 

habitat protections are realized is 

section 7 of the Act, which requires 

Federal agencies, in consultation with 

the Service, to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried by the 

agency is not likely to adversely modify 

critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

the specific regulatory requirement 

(avoiding destruction and adverse 

modification) imposed by critical 

habitat designation. Under these 

circumstances, it is the Service’s 

position that only Federal action 

agencies will be directly regulated by 

this designation. Therefore, because 

Federal agencies are not small entities, 

the Service may certify that this critical 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46546 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

habitat designation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Because certification is possible, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

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. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. 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 nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the Federal agency would be required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 

Service were to conclude that the 

proposed activity would result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

the critical habitat, the Federal action 

agency and the landowner are not 

required to abandon the proposed 

activity, or to restore or recover the 

species; instead, they must implement 

‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ 

to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) Which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). In identifying those 

physical or biological features within an 

area, we focus on the specific features 

that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including, 

but not limited to, water characteristics, 

soil type, geological features, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic, or a more 

complex combination of habitat 

characteristics. Features may include 

habitat characteristics that support 

ephemeral or dynamic habitat 

conditions. Features may also be 

expressed in terms relating to principles 

of conservation biology, such as patch 

size, distribution distances, and 

connectivity. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we may 

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. The implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further delineate 

unoccupied critical habitat by setting 

out three specific parameters: (1) When 

designating critical habitat, the 

Secretary will first evaluate areas 

occupied by the species; (2) the 

Secretary will only consider unoccupied 

areas to be essential where a critical 

habitat designation limited to 

geographical areas occupied by the 

species would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species; and (3) 

for an unoccupied area to be considered 

essential, the Secretary must determine 

that there is a reasonable certainty both 

that the area will contribute to the 

conservation of the species and that the 

area contains one or more of those 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. Our 

Policy on Information Standards under 

the Endangered Species Act (published 

in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 

(59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality 

Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106– 

554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated 

Information Quality Guidelines provide 

criteria, establish procedures, and 

provide guidance to ensure that our 

decisions are based on the best scientific 

data available. They require our 

biologists, to the extent consistent with 

the Act and with the use of the best 

scientific data available, to use primary 

and original sources of information as 

the basis for recommendations to 

designate critical habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46547 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in section 9 of the 

Act. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of the 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 those planning 

efforts calls for a different outcome. 

Prudency and Determinability 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat at the time the 

species is determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species. In our 

proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 

57578; September 15, 2020), we found 

that designating critical habitat is both 

prudent and determinable for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders. In 

this final rule, we reaffirm those 

determinations. 

Physical or Biological Features Essential 

to the Conservation of the Species 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

we will designate as critical habitat from 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, we 

consider the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including, 

but not limited to, water characteristics, 

soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic, or a more 

complex combination of habitat 

characteristics. Features may include 

habitat characteristics that support 

ephemeral or dynamic habitat 

conditions. Features may also be 

expressed in terms relating to principles 

of conservation biology, such as patch 

size, distribution distances, and 

connectivity. For example, physical 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species might include gravel of a 

particular size required for spawning, 

alkaline soil for seed germination, 

protective cover for migration, or 

susceptibility to flooding or fire that 

maintains necessary early-successional 

habitat characteristics. Biological 

features might include prey species, 

forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of 

trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic 

fungi, or a particular level of nonnative 

species consistent with conservation 

needs of the listed species. The features 

may also be combinations of habitat 

characteristics and may encompass the 

relationship between characteristics or 

the necessary amount of a characteristic 

essential to support the life history of 

the species. 

In considering whether features are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, we may consider an appropriate 

quality, quantity, and spatial and 

temporal arrangement of habitat 

characteristics in the context of the lifehistory needs, condition, and status of 

the species. These characteristics 

include, but are not limited to, space for 

individual and population growth and 

for normal behavior; food, water, air, 

light, minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

or rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and habitats that are protected from 

disturbance. 

Based on public comment, we 

separated the summary of essential 

physical or biological features (formerly 

primary constituent elements) for these 

salamander species into surface and 

subsurface habitat categories and added 

additional details in order to clarify 

habitat needs of both species. We derive 

the specific physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

from studies of the species’ habitat, 

ecology, and life history as described in 

the August 22, 2012, proposed rule (77 

FR 50768), and in the information 

presented below. Additional 

information can be found in the final 

listing rule for the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders (79 FR 10236; 

February 24, 2014). 

Observational and experimental 

studies on the habitat requirements of 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders are 

rare. In the field of aquatic 

ecotoxicology, it is common practice to 

apply the results of experiments on 

common species to other species that 

are of direct interest (Caro et al. 2005, 

p. 1,823). In addition, the field of 

conservation biology is increasingly 

relying on information about surrogate 

species to predict how related species 

will respond to stressors (for example, 

see Caro et al. 2005 pp. 1,821–1,826; 

Wenger 2008, p. 1,565). In instances 

where information was not available for 

the Georgetown and Salado salamander 

specifically, we have provided 

references for studies conducted on 

similarly related species that inhabit the 

same or nearby segments of the Edwards 

Aquifer, such as the Jollyville Plateau 

salamander (i.e., Northern Segment) and 

Barton Springs salamander (Barton 

Springs Segment; Eurycea sosorum), 

which occur within the central Texas 

area, and other salamander species that 

occur in other parts of the United States. 

The similarities among these species 

may include: (1) A clear systematic 

(evolutionary) relationship (for example, 

members of the Family Plethodontidae); 

(2) shared life-history attributes (for 

example, the lack of metamorphosis into 

a terrestrial form); (3) similar 

morphology and physiology (for 

example, the lack of lungs for 

respiration and sensitivity to 

environmental conditions); (4) similar 

prey (for example, small invertebrate 

species); and (5) similar habitat and 

ecological requirements (for example, 

dependence on aquatic habitat in or 

near springs with a rocky or gravel 

substrate). Depending on the amount 

and variety of characteristics in which 

one salamander species can be 

analogous to another, we used these 

similarities as a basis to infer further 

parallels in what Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders require from their 

habitat. We have determined that the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

require the physical or biological 

features described below. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

Georgetown and Salado Salamanders 

The Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders occur in wetted caves and 

where water emerges from the ground as 

a spring-fed stream. Within the spring 

ecosystem, salamanders’ proximity to 

the springhead is presumed important 

because of the appropriate stable water 

chemistry and temperature, substrate, 

and flow regime. In surface aquatic 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46548 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

habitats (e.g., spring opening and spring 

run), Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders are generally found within 

66 ft (20 m) of a spring source (TPWD 

2011, p. 3; Diaz et al 2015, p. 7). These 

salamanders appear to be most 

abundant within the first 16 ft (5 m) of 

a spring opening (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 

294; Gutierrez et al. 2018, pp. 386–388; 

Pierce et al. 2014, pp. 139–140, 141– 

142). However, some researchers have 

noted results of their mark-recapture 

efforts are most applicable to large 

juvenile and adult Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders, and may not 

accurately depict the movement of 

larvae (Gutierrez et al., pp. 387–388). 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

have been regularly observed, in 

reduced numbers, at distances greater 

than 66 ft (20 m) from spring openings 

(Pierce 2016, p. 13; Pierce 2017, p. 14, 

17, 19; Gutierrez et al. 2018, p. 386)). 

Some individual salamanders have been 

found up to 194 ft (59 m) from a spring 

opening (Pierce et al. 2011a, p. 4; Pierce 

2015, p. 13; Pierce 2016, pp. 14, 17, 19; 

Gutierrez et al. p. 386). Gravid (i.e., eggbearing) Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders have been noted as moving 

more often and to greater distances than 

non-gravid individuals (Pierce 2015, pp. 

7–8; Gutierrez et al. 2018, pp. 385–386). 

Some researchers have indicated that 

areas downstream from spring openings 

may be important for salamander 

reproduction (Pierce 2015, pp. 7–8; 

Gutierrez et al. 2018, pp. 387–388). 

Jollyville Plateau salamander small 

juveniles were most abundant 

downstream from spring openings, with 

most of these individuals occurring at a 

distance of approximately 197–262 ft 

(60–80 m) from spring outlets (Bendik et 

al. 2016, pp. 9–10, 16). 

The Jollyville Plateau salamander has 

been found up to 262 ft (80 m) both 

upstream and downstream from a spring 

outlet (Bendik et al. 2016, p. 9). That 

salamander species, along with the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders, 

comprise a closely related subgenus, 

Septentriomolge, occurring in the 

Northern Segment of the Edwards 

Aquifer (Hillis et al. 2001, pp. 275, 277; 

Devitt et al. 2019, pp. 2626–2628). 

Members of the Eurycea subgenus can 

travel greater distances from a discrete 

spring opening than previously thought, 

including upstream areas (Bendik et al. 

2016, p. 9). Therefore, we presume that 

the Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

may move a comparable distance and 

that aquatic habitat away from spring 

openings is potentially important to 

salamander reproduction. 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

likely use the subterranean aquifer for 

habitat throughout the year, similar to 

other Eurycea species (Bendik and 

Gluesenkamp 2012, pp. 4–5; Bendik et 

al. 2013, pp. 10–12, 15; Bendik 2017, p. 

5,013; Diaz and Bronson-Warren 2018, 

p. 11; Devitt et al. 2019a, p. 2,625). 

Morphological forms of Georgetown 

salamander with cave adaptations have 

been found at two caves (TPWD 2011, 

p. 8), indicating that they spend all of 

their lives underground at these two 

locations. We assume that the Salado 

salamander also uses subsurface areas 

given recruitment of individuals to the 

surface from the underlying aquifer, 

with surface recruitment at one 

occupied spring opening in Bell County 

estimated at 0.03 salamanders per day 

(Diaz and Bronson-Warren 2019, p. 7). 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify springs, associated 

streams, and underground spaces within 

the Northern Segment of the Edwards 

Aquifer to be physical or biological 

features essential for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior of the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders. 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or 

Other Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

Georgetown and Salado Salamanders 

No species-specific dietary study has 

been completed, but the diet of the 

Georgetown salamander is presumed to 

be similar to other Eurycea species, 

consisting of small aquatic invertebrates 

such as amphipods, copepods, isopods, 

and insect larvae (reviewed in COA 

2001, pp. 5–6). Crustaceans from the 

Class Ostracoda were the most 

commonly observed prey item for 

Salado salamanders (Diaz and BronsonWarren 2018, pp. 8, 14). Other 

invertebrates consumed by the Salado 

salamander included amphipods, 

aquatic snails, and larvae of mayflies 

and caddisflies (Diaz and BronsonWarren 2018, p. 14). 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

are strictly aquatic and spend their 

entire lives submersed in water from the 

Northern Segment of the Edwards 

Aquifer (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 296; Diaz 

and Bronson-Warren 2019, p. 7). These 

salamanders, and the prey that they feed 

on, require water sourced from the 

Edwards Aquifer at sufficient flows (i.e., 

quantity) to meet all of their 

physiological requirements (TPWD 

2011, p. 8). This water should be 

flowing and unchanged in chemistry, 

temperature, and volume from natural 

conditions. Currently, only a limited 

subset of springs inhabited by 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

have been assessed for water quality. 

Research at additional occupied spring 

sites will aid in refining the range of 

suitable water quality parameters these 

salamanders depend upon. Our 

assessment of water quality parameters 

was restricted to a subset of relatively 

intact spring sites with available water 

quality data—specifically, Robertson 

Springs in Bell County and Cobbs, 

Cowan, King’s Garden, Swinbank, and 

Twin Springs in Williamson County. 

The Salado salamander occurs at five 

(i.e., Robertson, Cobbs, Cowan, King’s 

Garden, and Twin Springs) of these 

springs. The Georgetown salamander 

occupies Swinbank Spring. We presume 

that water quality parameters at these 

other sites are suitable for the 

Georgetown salamander as well given 

that species’ co-occurrence in the 

Northern Segment of the Edwards 

Aquifer. These spring sites provide 

some degree of a representative sample 

as they lie along a roughly north to 

south line across that segment of the 

Edwards Aquifer, from southern Bell 

County to central Williamson County. 

Water temperature recorded at the six 

springs referenced above averaged 69 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (21 degrees 

Celsius (°C)) and ranged from 61 to 84 °F 

(16 to 29 °C) (Diaz et al. 2015, p. 10; 

Diaz et al. 2016, p. 14; Cambrian 

Environmental 2016, pp. 3, 5, 7; 

Cambrian Environmental 2017a, pp. 3, 

5, 7; Cambrian Environmental 2017b, 

pp. 5, 8, 12; Diaz and Montagne 2017, 

p. 17; Cambrian Environmental 2018a, 

pp. 4, 9, 13; Cambrian Environmental 

2018c, pp. 13–14; Cambrian 

Environmental 2019a, pp. 37–38; 

Cambrian Environmental 2019b, pp. 

295–297, 329; Cambrian Environmental 

2020, pp. 35–36). Concentrations of 

contaminants should be below levels 

that could exert direct lethal or 

sublethal effects (such as effects to 

reproduction, growth, development, or 

metabolic processes), or indirect effects 

(such as effects to the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders’ prey base). 

Edwards Aquifer Eurycea species are 

adapted to a lower ideal range of oxygen 

saturations compared to other 

salamanders (Turner 2009, p. 11). 

However, Eurycea salamanders need 

dissolved oxygen concentrations to be 

above a certain threshold, as the related 

Barton Springs salamander 

demonstrates declining abundance with 

dissolved oxygen levels below 5 

milligrams per liter (mg/L) (Turner 

2004, pp. 5–7, 10; Turner 2009, pp. 12– 

15). In addition, dissolved oxygen 

concentrations below 4.5 mg/L resulted 

in a number of physiological effects in 

the related San Marcos salamander, 

including decreased metabolic rates and 

decreased juvenile growth rates (Woods 

et al. 2010, p. 544). Large-scale mortality 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46549 

of a San Marcos salamander was 

expected if dissolved oxygen dropped 

below 3.4 mg/L for extended periods 

(i.e., 25 days) (Woods et al. 2010, pp. 

544, 549–551). 

Lower dissolved oxygen values have 

been noted at sites inhabited by the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders, 

with measured values as low as 1.5 mg/ 

L (Cambrian Environmental 2018, p. 

22). Reported impacts to Georgetown 

and/or Salado salamanders, in the 

presence of lower dissolved oxygen, are 

limited. One Georgetown salamander 

site (i.e., Swinbank Spring) experienced 

a decrease in dissolved oxygen to 2.2 

mg/L in June 2016, with levels 

rebounding in July 2016 to 6.4 mg/l 

(Cambrian Environmental 2017b, p. 8). 

No decline in numbers of salamanders 

was noted after that event (Cambrian 

Environmental 2017b, p. 22). Dissolved 

oxygen at that spring averaged 7.2 mg/ 

L for the remainder of 2016 (Cambrian 

Environmental 2017b, p. 8). Conversely, 

Cobbs Spring, occupied by the Salado 

salamander, experienced a decrease in 

dissolved oxygen to 3.2 mg/L in 

February 2016, and remained below 4.0 

mg/L into March 2016 (Cambrian 

Environmental 201a8, p. 13). That low 

dissolved oxygen event was followed by 

sharper declines in August 2016 to 1.5 

mg/L with dissolved oxygen remaining 

below 4.0 mg/L through September 2016 

(Cambrian Environmental 2018a, p. 13). 

Numbers of Salado salamanders 

observed at this spring declined after 

the latter event and remained low 

throughout 2017 (Cambrian 

Environmental 2018a, pp. 13, 42–43). 

Subsequently, numbers of Salado 

salamanders observed at this spring 

have increased (Cambrian 

Environmental 2020, p. 18). 

Based on available water quality data, 

the six relatively intact springs in Bell 

and Williamson counties are generally 

characterized by average dissolved 

oxygen of 6.6 mg/L with recorded levels 

ranging from 1.5 to 13.3 mg/L (Diaz et 

al. 2015, p. 10; Diaz et al. 2016, p. 14; 

Cambrian Environmental 2016, pp. 3, 5, 

7; Cambrian Environmental 2017a, pp. 

3, 5, 7; Cambrian Environmental 2017b, 

pp. 5, 8, 12; Diaz and Montagne 2017, 

p. 17; Cambrian Environmental 2018a, 

pp. 4, 9, 13; Cambrian Environmental 

2018c, pp. 13–14; Cambrian 

Environmental 2019a, pp. 37–38; 

Cambrian Environmental 2019b, pp. 

295–297, 329; Cambrian Environmental 

2020, pp. 35–36). Dissolved oxygen 

below 4.5 mg/L appears to have some 

impact on Salado salamander 

abundance. This is consistent with 

observed effects on the Barton Springs 

and San Marcos salamanders (Turner 

2004, pp. 5–7, 10; Turner 2009, pp. 12– 

15; Woods et al. 2010, pp. 544, 549– 

551). Woods et al. (2010, p. 540) states 

that an ambient concentration of 

dissolved oxygen of 5.0 mg/L appears 

adequate to sustain Eurycea 

salamanders. Therefore, we presume 

that dissolved oxygen in the range of 5.0 

to 13.0 mg/L is important to the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders for 

respiratory function. Research is needed 

to better define the physiological 

tolerances of the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders to low dissolved 

oxygen. 

The conductivity of water is also 

important to salamander physiology. 

Increased conductivity is associated 

with increased water contamination and 

decreased Eurycea abundance (Willson 

and Dorcas 2003, pp. 766–768; Bowles 

et al. 2006, pp. 117–118). The lower 

limit of observed conductivity in 

developed Jollyville Plateau salamander 

sites where salamander densities were 

lower than undeveloped sites was 800 

micro Siemens per centimeter (mS/cm) 

(Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). 

Salamanders were significantly more 

abundant at undeveloped sites where 

water conductivity averaged 600 mS/cm 

(Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). Because of 

their similar physiology to the Jollyville 

Plateau salamander, we presume that 

the Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

will have a similar response to elevated 

water conductance (i.e., specific 

conductance). Water conductance at six 

relatively intact salamander sites 

averaged 671 mS/cm and ranged from 

317 to 814 mS/cm (Diaz et al. 2015, p. 

10; Diaz et al. 2016, p. 14; Cambrian 

Environmental 2016, pp. 3, 5, 7; 

Cambrian Environmental 2017a, pp. 3, 

5, 7; Cambrian Environmental 2017b, 

pp. 5, 8, 12; Diaz and Montagne 2017, 

p. 17; Cambrian Environmental 2018a, 

pp. 4, 9, 13; Cambrian Environmental 

2018c, pp. 13–14; Cambrian 

Environmental 2019a, pp. 37–38; 

Cambrian Environmental 2019b, pp. 

295–297, 329; Cambrian Environmental 

2020, pp. 35–36). Although one 

laboratory study on the related San 

Marcos salamander demonstrated that 

conductivities up to 2,738 mS/cm had no 

measurable effect on adult activity 

(Woods and Poteet 2006, p. 5), it 

remains unclear how elevated water 

conductance might affect juveniles or 

the long-term health of salamanders in 

the wild. Bowles et al. (2006, pp. 117– 

118) documented lower densities of the 

Jollyville Plateau salamander at sites 

with higher amounts of human 

development and high specific 

conductance (i.e., average of 917 mS/ 

cm). Greater densities of that 

salamander were observed in 

undeveloped (i.e., less than 10 percent 

impervious cover) sites with lower 

specific conductance (593 mS/cm) 

(Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 117–118). 

Higher specific conductance at 

developed sites was attributed to the 

presence of contaminants from roadway 

runoff, wastewater leakage, and 

fertilizer use (Bowles et al. 2016, pp. 

118–119). A more recent assessment of 

contaminants uptake in the Georgetown, 

Jollyville Plateau, and Salado 

salamanders found higher amounts of 

contaminants (e.g., organochlorines and 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) at 

more heavily developed sites (i.e., 

greater than 10 percent impervious 

cover) and in the tissues of the 

salamanders themselves (Diaz et al. 

2020, pp. 291–294). In that study, 

specific conductance of developed sites 

averaged 798 mS/cm, whereas sites with 

little to no impervious cover averaged 

684 mS/cm (Diaz et al. 2020, Table S5). 

In the absence of better information on 

the sensitivity of salamanders to 

changes in conductivity (or other 

contaminants) in the wild, it is 

reasonable to presume that salamander 

survival, growth, and reproduction will 

be most successful when water quality 

is unaltered from natural aquifer 

conditions. 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify aquatic invertebrates 

and water from the Northern Segment of 

the Edwards Aquifer, including 

adequate dissolved oxygen 

concentration of 5.0 to 13.0 mg/L, water 

conductance of 317 to 814 mS/cm, and 

water temperature of 61 to 84 °F (16 to 

29 °C), to be physical or biological 

features essential for the nutritional and 

physiological requirements of the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders. 

Cover or Shelter 

Similar to other Eurycea salamanders 

in central Texas, Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders move an unknown 

depth into the interstitial spaces (empty 

voids between rocks) within the 

substrate, using these spaces for foraging 

habitat and cover from predators (Cole 

1995, p. 24; Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. 

16–17; Jones et al. 2020, pp. 291–292). 

These spaces should have minimal 

sediment, as sediment fills interstitial 

spaces, eliminating resting places and 

reducing habitat of the prey base (small 

aquatic invertebrates) (O’Donnell et al. 

2006, p. 34). 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

have been observed under rocks, leaf 

litter, woody debris, and other cover 

objects (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 295; Diaz 

and Montagne 2017, p. 10; Diaz and 

Bronson-Warren, 2019, p. 7). 

Georgetown salamanders appear to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46550 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

prefer large rocks over other cover 

objects (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 295), 

which is consistent with other studies 

on Eurycea habitat (Bowles et al. 2006, 

pp. 114, 116). Larger rocks provide more 

suitable interstitial spaces for foraging 

and cover. Other studies have noted 

greater detection of Salado salamanders 

in gravels, although cobble is occupied 

as well (Diaz and Montagne 2017, p. 10; 

Diaz and Bronson-Warren, 2019, p. 7). 

If springs stop flowing and the surface 

habitat dries up, Jollyville Plateau 

salamanders recede with the water table 

and persist in groundwater refugia until 

surface flow returns (Bendik 2011a, p. 

31). Access to refugia allows 

populations some resiliency against 

drought events. Due to the similar life 

history and habitats of the Georgetown 

and Salado salamanders, we presume 

that access to subsurface refugia for 

shelter during drought is also important 

for these salamanders. 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify rocky substrate, 

consisting of boulder, cobble, and 

gravel, with interstitial spaces that have 

minimal sediment, and access to the 

subsurface groundwater table to be 

physical or biological features essential 

for the cover and shelter for these 

species. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Rearing (or Development) of Offspring 

Little is known about the reproductive 

habits of these species in the wild. 

However, the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders are fully aquatic, spending 

all of their life cycles in aquifer and 

spring waters. Eggs of central Texas 

Eurycea species are rarely seen on the 

surface, so it is widely assumed that 

eggs are laid underground 

(Gluesenkamp 2011a, TPWD, pers. 

comm.; Bendik 2011b, COA, pers. 

comm.). 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify access to subsurface 

or subterranean, water-filled voids of 

varying sizes (e.g., caves, conduits, 

fractures, and interstitial spaces) to be a 

physical or biological feature essential 

for breeding and reproduction for this 

species. 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features for the Georgetown 

and Salado Salamanders 

We derive the specific physical or 

biological features essential for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

from studies of these species’ habitat, 

ecology, and life history, as described 

above. We have determined that the 

following physical or biological features 

are essential to the conservation of the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders: 

Georgetown Salamander 

(1) For surface habitat: 

(A) Water from the Northern Segment 

of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater 

issuing to the surface from the 

underlying aquifer is similar to natural 

aquifer conditions as it discharges from 

natural spring outlets. Concentrations of 

water quality constituents and 

contaminants should be below levels 

that could exert direct lethal or 

sublethal effects (such as effects to 

reproduction, growth, development, or 

metabolic processes), or indirect effects 

(such as effects to the Georgetown 

salamander’s prey base). Hydrologic 

regimes similar to the historical pattern 

of the specific sites are present, with at 

least some surface flow during the year. 

The water chemistry of aquatic surface 

habitats is similar to natural aquifer 

conditions, with temperatures from 61 

to 84 °F (16 to 29 °C), dissolved oxygen 

concentrations from 5 to 13 mg/L, and 

specific water conductance from 317 to 

814 mS/cm. 

(B) Rocky substrate with interstitial 

spaces. Rocks in the substrate of the 

salamander’s surface aquatic habitat are 

large enough to provide salamanders 

with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. 

The substrate and interstitial spaces 

have minimal sedimentation. 

(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The 

spring environment supports a diverse 

aquatic invertebrate community that 

includes crustaceans, insects, and 

aquatic snails. 

(D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to 

the subsurface water table exists to 

provide shelter, protection, and space 

for reproduction. This access can occur 

in the form of large conduits that carry 

water to the spring outlet or porous 

voids between rocks in the streambed 

that extend down into the water table. 

(2) For subsurface habitat: 

(A) Water from the Northern Segment 

of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater 

quality is similar to natural aquifer 

conditions. Concentrations of water 

quality constituents and contaminants 

should be below levels that could exert 

direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as 

effects to reproduction, growth, 

development, or metabolic processes), 

or indirect effects (such as effects to the 

Georgetown salamander’s prey base). 

Hydrologic regimes similar to the 

historical pattern of the specific sites are 

present, with continuous flow. The 

water chemistry is similar to natural 

aquifer conditions, with temperatures 

from 61 to 84 °F (16 to 29 °C), dissolved 

oxygen concentrations from 5 to 13 mg/ 

L, and specific water conductance from 

317 to 814 mS/cm. 

(B) Subsurface spaces. Voids between 

rocks underground are large enough to 

provide salamanders with cover, shelter, 

and foraging habitat. These spaces have 

minimal sedimentation. 

(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The 

habitat supports an aquatic invertebrate 

community that includes crustaceans, 

insects, and aquatic snails. 

Salado Salamander 

(1) For surface habitat: 

(A) Water from the Northern Segment 

of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater 

quality issuing to the surface from the 

underlying aquifer is similar to natural 

aquifer conditions as it discharges from 

natural spring outlets. Concentrations of 

water quality constituents and 

contaminants are below levels that 

could exert direct lethal or sublethal 

effects (such as effects to reproduction, 

growth, development, or metabolic 

processes), or indirect effects (such as 

effects to the Salado salamander’s prey 

base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the 

historical pattern of the specific sites are 

present, with at least some surface flow 

during the year. The water chemistry of 

aquatic surface habitats is similar to 

natural aquifer conditions, with 

temperatures from 61 to 84 °F (16 to 29 

°C), dissolved oxygen concentrations 

from 5 to 13 mg/L, and specific water 

conductance from 317 to 814 mS/cm. 

(B) Rocky substrate with interstitial 

spaces. Rocks in the substrate of the 

salamander’s surface aquatic habitat are 

large enough to provide salamanders 

with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. 

The substrate and interstitial spaces 

have minimal sedimentation. 

(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The 

spring environment is capable of 

supporting a diverse aquatic 

invertebrate community that includes 

crustaceans, insects, and aquatic snails. 

(D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to 

the subsurface water table exists to 

provide shelter, protection, and space 

for reproduction. This access can occur 

in the form of large conduits that carry 

water to the spring outlet or porous 

voids between rocks in the streambed 

that extend down into the water table. 

(2) For subsurface habitat: 

(A) Water from the Northern Segment 

of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater 

quality is similar to natural aquifer 

conditions. Concentrations of water 

quality constituents and contaminants 

are below levels that could exert direct 

lethal or sublethal effects (such as 

effects to reproduction, growth, 

development, or metabolic processes), 

or indirect effects (such as effects to the 

Salado salamander’s prey base). 

Hydrologic regimes similar to the 

historical pattern of the specific sites are 

present, with continuous flow. The 

water chemistry is similar to natural 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46551 

aquifer conditions, with temperatures 

from 61 to 84 °F (16 to 29 °C), dissolved 

oxygen concentrations from 5 to 13 mg/ 

L, and specific water conductance from 

317 to 814 mS/cm. 

(B) Subsurface spaces. Voids between 

rocks underground are large enough to 

provide salamanders with cover, shelter, 

and foraging habitat. These spaces have 

minimal sedimentation. 

(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The 

habitat is capable of supporting an 

aquatic invertebrate community that 

includes crustaceans, insects, and 

aquatic snails. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features which are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

features essential to the conservation of 

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. 

The areas designated for critical 

habitat include both surface and 

subsurface critical habitat components. 

The surface critical habitat includes the 

spring outlets and outflow up to the 

high water line and 150 ft (80 m) of 

downstream habitat, but does not 

include human-made structures (such as 

buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, 

and other paved areas); nor does it 

include upland habitat adjacent to 

streams. However, the subterranean 

aquifer may extend below such 

structures beneath the surface habitat. 

The subsurface critical habitat includes 

underground features in a circle with a 

radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the 

springs. Most of designated critical 

habitat is a subsurface designation and 

only includes the physical area beneath 

any buildings on the surface. 

We detailed threats to surface and 

subsurface habitats under A. The 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range in the final listing rule 

for the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders (79 FR 10236, February 24, 

2014, pp. 79 FR 10258–10279). The 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders are 

sensitive to modification of surface (i.e., 

spring openings and outflow) and 

subsurface habitats. Due to the 

connectivity between the surface and 

subsurface habitats, an impact to one 

will affect the other. Examples of 

surface habitat modifications may 

include (but are not limited to) damage 

to spring openings, sedimentation due 

to construction activities, and 

installation of impoundments. Examples 

of impacts to subsurface habitat may 

include (but are not limited to) pipeline 

construction, replacement, and 

maintenance; excavation for 

construction or quarrying; and 

groundwater depletion that can reduce 

spring flow. The depth of the subsurface 

habitat will vary from site to site. 

For these salamanders, special 

management considerations or 

protections may be needed to address 

identified threats. Management 

activities that could ameliorate threats 

to surface habitat include (but are not 

limited to): (1) Protecting the quality of 

cave and spring water by implementing 

comprehensive programs to control and 

reduce point sources and non-point 

sources of pollution throughout the 

Northern Segment of the Edwards 

Aquifer; (2) minimizing the likelihood 

of pollution events or surface runoff 

from existing and future development 

that would affect groundwater quality; 

(3) protecting groundwater and spring 

flow quantity (for example, by 

implementing water conservation and 

drought contingency plans throughout 

the Northern Segment of the Edwards 

Aquifer); (4) protecting water quality 

and quantity from present and future 

quarrying; (5) excluding cattle and feral 

hogs from spring openings and outflow 

through fencing to protect spring 

habitats from damage; and (6) fencing 

and signage to protect spring habitats 

from human vandalism. Some of the 

management activities listed above, 

such as those that protect spring flow 

and groundwater quality, protect both 

surface and subsurface habitats, as these 

are interconnected. 

Additional management activities that 

could ameliorate threats that are specific 

to subsurface habitat include (but are 

not limited to): (1) The development 

and implementation of void mitigation 

plans for construction projects to 

prevent impacts to salamanders in the 

event of severed aquifer conduits or 

interrupted groundwater flow paths; (2) 

site-specific plans developed by 

geotechnical engineers to prevent 

changes to subsurface water flow from 

construction activities; (3) the presence 

of environmental monitors during 

construction, excavation, and drilling 

activities to monitor spring flow; and (4) 

post-construction monitoring of spring 

flow. Because subsurface habitat differs 

with regard to groundwater flow paths, 

depth, and amount of water-bearing 

rocks with voids that can support 

salamanders, management, and 

mitigation plans to ameliorate threats 

will need to be developed on a sitespecific basis. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing and any specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species to be considered for designation 

as critical habitat. During our 

preparation for designating critical 

habitat for the two salamander species, 

we reviewed: (1) Data for historical and 

current occurrence; (2) information 

pertaining to habitat features essential 

for the conservation of these species; 

and (3) scientific information on the 

biology and ecology of the two species. 

We have also reviewed a number of 

studies and surveys of the two 

salamander species that confirm 

historical and current occurrence of the 

two species including, but not limited 

to, Sweet (1978; 1982), Russell (1993), 

Warton (1997), City of Austin 

(COA)(2001), Chippindale et al. (2000), 

Hillis et al. (2001), and Devitt et al. 

(2019). Finally, salamander site 

locations and observations were verified 

with the aid of salamander biologists, 

museum collection records, and site 

visits. 

We are not designating any additional 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by these species because we 

have determined that occupied areas are 

sufficient to conserve the Georgetown 

and Salado salamanders, although we 

acknowledge that other areas, such as 

the recharge zone of the aquifers 

supporting salamander locations, are 

very important to the conservation of 

the species. This critical habitat 

designation delineates the habitat that is 

physically occupied and used by the 

species rather than delineating all land 

or aquatic areas that influence the 

species. We also recognize that there 

may be additional occupied areas 

outside of the areas designated as 

critical habitat that we are not aware of 

at the time of this designation that may 

be necessary for the conservation of the 

species. For the purpose of designating 

critical habitat for the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders, we define an area 

as occupied based upon the reliable 

observation of either salamander species 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46552 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

by a knowledgeable scientist and cited 

within published articles, unpublished 

reports, and Service files including 

Hunter and Russell (1993, p. 7–8), 

Pierce and Wall (2011, pp. 2–3), 

Chippindale et al. (2000, pp. 39–43), 

Diaz and Montagne (2017, p. 6), 

Cambrian Environmental (201bc, pp. 5– 

6), Devitt et al. (2019a, pp. 2,626, 2,628), 

and Devitt et al. (2019b, pp. 16–18). It 

is very difficult to determine whether a 

salamander population has been 

extirpated from a spring site due to 

these species’ ability to occupy the 

inaccessible subsurface habitat. The 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders are 

not capable of long-distance dispersal 

between isolated springs due to their 

reliance on discrete, groundwaterdependent ecosystems. Springs in 

central Texas are frequently historical 

features of the landscape that predate 

European settlement of the North 

American continent (Brune 1981, pp. 

65–69, 473–476). We, therefore, 

consider sites with observations of 

salamanders at the time of listing to be 

currently occupied, unless that spring or 

cave site had been destroyed. 

Based on our review, the critical 

habitat areas (described below) are 

within the geographical range occupied 

by at least one of the two salamander 

species and meet the definition of 

critical habitat. The true extent to which 

the subterranean populations of these 

species exist below ground away from 

outlets of the spring system is unknown 

because the hydrology of central Texas 

is very complex and information on the 

hydrology of specific spring sites is 

largely unknown. We will continue to 

seek information to increase our 

understanding of spring hydrology and 

salamander underground distribution to 

inform conservation efforts for these 

species. At the time of this final critical 

habitat rule, the best scientific evidence 

available indicates that a population of 

groundwater-dependent Eurycea 

salamanders can extend at least 984 ft 

(300 m) from the spring opening 

through underground conduits or voids 

between rocks. For example, the Austin 

blind salamander is thought to occur 

underground throughout the entire 

Barton Springs complex (Dries 2011, 

pers. comm.). The spring habitats used 

by salamanders of the Barton Springs 

complex are not connected on the 

surface, so the Austin blind salamander 

population extends at least 984 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. 

We designate critical habitat in areas 

that we have determined are occupied 

by one of the two salamanders and 

contain physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. We delineated both surface and 

subsurface critical habitat components. 

As previously stated, a Jollyville Plateau 

salamander was observed to have 

traveled up to 1,640 ft (500 m) after 

multiple years (i.e., 2010–2014) in Bull 

Creek (Bendik et al. 2016, p. 9). 

However, the surface critical habitat 

component was delineated by starting 

with the spring point locations that are 

occupied by the salamanders and 

extending a line upstream and 

downstream 262 ft (80 m). This was the 

farthest distance a Eurycea salamander 

has been observed from a spring outlet 

over a 4-month period (i.e., January to 

April) in a single year (Bendik et al. 

2016, pp. 9–10) and is likely a more 

reasonable distance for salamanders in 

common hydrological settings. We 

applied this maximum distance to 

account for the potential movement and 

surface habitat use of Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders upstream and 

downstream of spring openings. It is 

reasonable to consider the downstream 

and upstream habitat occupied based on 

the dispersal capabilities observed in 

individuals of very similar species. 

When determining surface critical 

habitat boundaries, we were not able to 

delineate specific stream segments on 

the map due to the small size of the 

streams. Therefore, we drew a circle 

with a 262-ft (80-m) radius representing 

the extent the surface population of the 

site is estimated to exist upstream and 

downstream. This circle does not 

include upland habitat adjacent to 

streams. The surface critical habitat 

includes the spring outlets and outflow 

up to the ordinary high water mark (the 

average amount of water present in 

nonflood conditions, as defined in 33 

CFR 328.3(e)) and 262 ft (80 m) of 

upstream and downstream habitat (to 

the extent that this habitat is ever 

present), including the dry stream 

channel during periods of no surface 

flow. We acknowledge that some spring 

sites occupied by one of the two 

salamanders are the start of the 

watercourse, and upstream habitat does 

not exist for these sites. The surface 

habitat we are designating as critical 

habitat does not include human-made 

structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, 

runways, roads, and other paved areas) 

within this circle, nor does it include 

upland habitat adjacent to streams. 

We delineated the subsurface critical 

habitat unit boundaries by starting with 

the cave or spring point locations that 

are occupied by the salamanders. Depth 

to subsurface habitat will vary from site 

to site based on local geology. From 

these cave or spring points, we 

delineated an area with a 984-ft (300-m) 

radius to create the polygons that 

capture the extent to which we estimate 

the salamander populations exist 

through underground habitat. This 

radial distance comes from observations 

of the Austin blind salamander, which 

is thought to occur underground 

throughout the entire Barton Springs 

complex (Dries 2011, COA, pers. 

comm.). The Austin blind salamander is 

a reasonable surrogate for Salado and 

Georgetown salamanders, as it also 

inhabits subsurface, water-filled voids 

in the underlying Edwards Aquifer 

(Hillis et al. 2001, p. 23). The spring 

outlets used by salamanders of the 

Barton Springs complex are not 

connected on the surface, so the Austin 

blind salamander population extends a 

horizontal distance of at least 984 ft (300 

m) underground, as this is the 

approximate distance between the 

farthest two outlets within the Barton 

Springs complex known to be occupied 

by the species. This distance was 

applied to the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders given their reliance on 

subsurface aquifer habitats (Bendik and 

Gluesenkamp 2012, pp. 4–5; Bendik et 

al. 2013, pp. 10–12, 15; Bendik 2017, p. 

5,013; Diaz and Bronson-Warren 2018, 

p. 11; Devitt et al. 2019, p. 2,625). 

Polygons that were within 98 ft (30 m) 

of each other were merged together as 

these areas have the potential to be 

connected underground (Devitt et al. 

2019a, pp. 2,629–2,630). Each merged 

polygon was then revised by removing 

extraneous divots or protrusions that 

resulted from the merge process. 

Developed areas of surface habitat, 

such as lands covered by buildings, 

pavement, and other structures, lack 

physical or biological features for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders. 

The scale of the maps we prepared 

under the parameters for publication 

within the Code of Federal Regulations 

may not reflect the exclusion of such 

developed lands. Any such lands 

inadvertently left inside critical habitat 

boundaries shown on the maps of this 

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 

adjacent critical habitat. 

We designate as critical habitat lands 

that we have determined are occupied at 

the time of listing (i.e., currently 

occupied) and that contain one or more 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46553 

of the physical or biological features 

that are essential to support life-history 

processes of the species. 

The critical habitat designation is 

defined by the maps, as modified by any 

accompanying regulatory text, presented 

at the end of this document under 

Regulation Promulgation. 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–2020–0048 and on our 

internet site at https://www.fws.gov/ 

southwest/es/AustinTexas/ESA_Sp_

Salamanders.html. 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating as critical habitat 

nine units for the Georgetown 

salamander and seven units for the 

Salado salamander. In Tables 1 and 2 

below, we present the critical habitat 

units for the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders. All units are considered 

occupied by the relevant species at the 

time of listing. We also provide unit 

descriptions for all Georgetown and 

Salado salamander critical habitat units. 

The critical habitat areas we describe 

below constitute our current best 

assessment of subsurface and surface 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat for the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders. During periods of drought 

or dewatering on the surface in and 

around spring sites, access to the 

subsurface water table must be provided 

for shelter and protection. Surface 

critical habitat includes the spring 

outlets and outflow up to the high water 

line and 262 ft (80 m) of downstream 

habitat, but does not include terrestrial 

habitats or human-made structures 

(such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, 

roads, and other paved areas) and the 

land on which they are located existing 

within the legal boundaries on the 

effective date of this rule (see DATES, 

above) or land adjacent to streams; 

however, the subterranean aquifer 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. 

TABLE 1—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE GEORGETOWN SALAMANDER

Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type 

Size of unit in 

acres 

(hectares) 

1. Water Tank Cave Unit ............................................................................................. Private ....................................................... 68 (28) 

2. Hogg Hollow Spring Unit .......................................................................................... Private, Federal ........................................ 122 (49) 

3. Cedar Hollow Spring Unit ........................................................................................ Private ....................................................... 68 (28) 

4. Lake Georgetown Unit ............................................................................................. Federal, Private ........................................ 134 (54) 

5. Buford Hollow Spring Unit ........................................................................................ Federal, Private ........................................ 68 (28) 

6. Swinbank Spring Unit ............................................................................................... City, Private .............................................. 68 (28) 

7. Avant Spring Unit ..................................................................................................... Private ....................................................... 68 (28) 

8. Shadow Canyon Spring Unit .................................................................................... City, Private .............................................. 68 (28) 

9. Garey Ranch Spring Unit ......................................................................................... Private ....................................................... 68 (28) 

Total ...................................................................................................................... ................................................................... 732 (299) 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. 

TABLE 2—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE SALADO SALAMANDER

Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type 

Size of unit in 

acres 

(hectares) 

1. Hog Hollow Spring Unit ............................................................................................ Excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

2. Solana Spring Unit ................................................................................................... Excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

3. Cistern Spring Unit ................................................................................................... Excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

4. IH–35 Unit ................................................................................................................ Private, State, City .................................... 175 (71) 

5. King’s Garden Main Spring Unit .............................................................................. Private ....................................................... 68 (28) 

6. Cobbs Spring Unit .................................................................................................... Private ....................................................... 68 (28) 

7. Cowan Creek Spring Unit ........................................................................................ Private ....................................................... 68 (28) 

8. Walnut Spring Unit ................................................................................................... Private, County ......................................... 68 (28) 

9. Twin Springs Unit ..................................................................................................... Private, County ......................................... 68 (28) 

10. Bat Well Cave Unit ................................................................................................. Private ....................................................... 68 (28) 

Total ...................................................................................................................... ................................................................... 583 (239) 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. 

Georgetown Salamander 

Critical habitat units for the 

Georgetown salamander may require 

special management because of the 

potential for groundwater pollution 

from current and future development in 

the watershed, present operations and 

future expansion of quarrying activities, 

depletion of groundwater, and other 

threats (see Special Management 

Considerations or Protection, above). All 

units are occupied by the Georgetown 

salamander. The designation includes 

the spring outlets and outflow up to the 

high-water mark and 262 ft (80 m) of 

upstream and downstream habitat. 

Units are further delineated by drawing 

a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) 

around the spring, representing the 

extent of the subterranean critical 

habitat. For cave populations of the 

Georgetown salamander, the unit is 

delineated by drawing a circle with a 

radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the 

underground location of the 

salamanders, representing the extent of 

the subsurface critical habitat. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46554 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Unit 1: Water Tank Cave Unit 

Unit 1 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of private land in west-central 

Williamson County, Texas. A golf 

course crosses the unit from northwest 

to southeast, and there are several roads 

in the eastern part of the unit. A 

secondary road crosses the extreme 

southern portion of the unit, and there 

are residences in the northwestern, 

southwestern, and west-central portions 

of the unit. This unit contains Water 

Tank Cave, which is occupied by the 

Georgetown salamander. Only 

subsurface critical habitat was 

designated for this cave population. The 

unit contains the physical or biological 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species. 

Unit 2: Hogg Hollow Spring Unit 

Unit 2 consists of approximately 122 

ac (49 ha) of U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers land and private land in 

Williamson County, Texas. The unit is 

located south of Lake Georgetown and is 

mostly undeveloped. The northwestern 

part of the unit includes Sawyer Park, 

part of the Lake Georgetown recreation 

area. This unit contains two springs: 

Hogg Hollow Spring and Hogg Hollow 

2 Spring, which are occupied by the 

Georgetown salamander. Hogg Hollow 

Spring is located on Hogg Hollow, and 

Hogg Hollow 2 Spring is located on an 

unnamed stream, both tributaries to 

Lake Georgetown. The unit contains the 

physical or biological features essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Unit 3: Cedar Hollow Spring Unit 

Unit 3 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of private land in west-central 

Williamson County, Texas. A secondary 

road crosses the extreme southern 

portion of the unit, and there are 

residences in the northwestern, 

southwestern, and west-central portions 

of the unit. This unit contains Cedar 

Hollow Spring, which is occupied by 

the Georgetown salamander. The spring 

is located on Cedar Hollow, a tributary 

to Lake Georgetown. The unit contains 

the physical or biological features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Unit 4: Lake Georgetown Unit 

Unit 4 consists of approximately 134 

ac (54 ha) of Federal and private land in 

west-central Williamson County, Texas. 

Part of the unit is the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers’ Lake Georgetown property. 

There are currently no plans to develop 

the property. There is some control of 

public access. Unpaved roads are found 

in the western portion of the unit, and 

a trail begins in the central part of the 

unit and leaves the northeast corner. A 

secondary road crosses the extreme 

southern portion of the unit, and there 

are residences in the northwestern, 

southwestern, and west-central portions 

of the unit. A large quarry is located a 

short distance southeast of the unit. 

This unit includes two springs, Knight 

(Crockett Gardens) Spring and Cedar 

Breaks Hiking Trail Spring, which are 

occupied by the Georgetown 

salamander. The springs are located on 

an unnamed tributary to Lake 

Georgetown. A portion of the northern 

part of the unit extends under Lake 

Georgetown. The unit contains the 

physical or biological features essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Unit 5: Buford Hollow Spring Unit 

Unit 5 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of Federal and private land in 

west-central Williamson County, Texas. 

The unit is located just below the 

spillway for Lake Georgetown. The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers owns most of 

this unit as part of Lake Georgetown. 

The D.B. Wood Road, a major 

thoroughfare, crosses the eastern part of 

the unit. The rest of the unit is 

undeveloped. This unit contains Buford 

Hollow Springs, which is occupied by 

the Georgetown salamander. The spring 

is located on Buford Hollow, a tributary 

to the North Fork San Gabriel River. The 

unit contains the physical or biological 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species. 

Unit 6: Swinbank Spring Unit 

Unit 6 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of City and private land in westcentral Williamson County, Texas. The 

unit is located near River Road south of 

Melanie Lane. The northern part of the 

unit is primarily in residential 

development, while the southern part of 

this unit is primarily undeveloped. This 

unit contains Swinbank Spring, which 

is occupied by the Georgetown 

salamander. The spring is located just 

off the main channel of North Fork San 

Gabriel River. The unit contains the 

physical or biological features essential 

for the conservation of the species. The 

population of Georgetown salamanders 

in the spring is being monitored 

monthly as part of the Williamson 

County Regional HCP’s efforts to 

conserve the species. 

Unit 7: Avant Spring Unit 

Unit 7 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of private land in west-central 

Williamson County, Texas. The 

northern part of a large quarry is along 

the southwestern edge of the unit. The 

rest of the unit is undeveloped. This 

unit contains Avant’s (Capitol 

Aggregates) Spring, which is occupied 

by the Georgetown salamander. The 

spring is close to the streambed of the 

Middle Fork of the San Gabriel River. 

The unit contains the physical or 

biological features essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit 8: Shadow Canyon Spring Unit 

Unit 8 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of City and private land in westcentral Williamson County, Texas. The 

unit is located just south of State 

Highway 29. This unit contains Shadow 

Canyon Spring, which is occupied by 

the Georgetown salamander. The spring 

is located on an unnamed tributary of 

South Fork San Gabriel River. The unit 

contains the essential physical or 

biological features for the conservation 

of the species. The unit is authorized for 

development under the Shadow Canyon 

HCP. Impacts to the endangered goldencheeked warbler (Dendroica 

chrysoparia) and Bone Cave harvestman 

(Texella reyesi) are permitted under the 

Shadow Canyon HCP; however, impacts 

to Georgetown salamander are not 

covered under the HCP. 

Unit 9: Garey Ranch Spring Unit 

Unit 9 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of private land in Williamson 

County, Texas. The unit is located north 

of RM 2243. The unit is mostly 

undeveloped. A small amount of 

residential development enters the 

southern and eastern parts of the unit. 

This unit contains Garey Ranch Spring, 

which is occupied by the Georgetown 

salamander. It is located on an unnamed 

tributary to the South Fork San Gabriel 

River. The unit contains the physical or 

biological features essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Salado Salamander 

Critical habitat units for the Salado 

salamander may require special 

management because of the potential for 

groundwater pollution from current and 

future development in the watershed, 

present operations and future expansion 

of quarrying activities, depletion of 

groundwater, and other threats (see 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection, above). All units are 

considered to be occupied by the Salado 

salamander. The designation includes 

the spring outlets and outflow up to the 

high-water mark and 262 ft (80 m) of 

upstream and downstream habitat. 

Units are further delineated by drawing 

a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) 

around the spring, representing the 

extent of the subterranean critical 

habitat. For cave populations of the 

Salado salamander, the unit is 

delineated by drawing a circle with a 

radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46555 

underground location of the 

salamanders, representing the extent of 

the subsurface critical habitat. 

Unit 1: Hog Hollow Spring Unit 

Unit 1 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of private land located in 

southwestern Bell County, Texas. The 

unit is primarily undeveloped ranch 

land. This unit contains Hog Hollow 

Spring, which is occupied by the Salado 

salamander. The unit is located on a 

tributary to Rumsey Creek in the Salado 

Creek drainage and contains the 

physical or biological features essential 

for the conservation of the species. In 

2016, the owners of the spring entered 

into an agreement with The Nature 

Conservancy for a perpetual 

conservation easement that provides 

long-term protection for this site. We 

have excluded the entire unit from this 

final critical habitat designation (see 

Exclusions, below). 

Unit 2: Solana Spring Unit 

Unit 2 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of private land located in 

southwestern Bell County, Texas. The 

unit is primarily undeveloped ranch 

land. This unit contains Solana Spring, 

which is occupied by the Salado 

salamander. The unit is located on a 

tributary to Rumsey Creek in the Salado 

Creek drainage and contains the 

physical or biological features essential 

for the conservation of the species. In 

2016, the owners of the spring entered 

into an agreement with The Nature 

Conservancy for a perpetual 

conservation easement that provides 

long-term protection for this site. We 

have excluded the entire unit from the 

final critical habitat designation (see 

Exclusions, below). 

Unit 3: Cistern Spring Unit 

Unit 3 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of private land located in 

southwestern Bell County, Texas, on the 

same private ranch as Units 1 and 2 for 

the Salado salamander. The unit is 

primarily undeveloped ranch land. This 

unit contains Cistern Spring, which is 

occupied by the Salado salamander. The 

unit is located on a tributary to Rumsey 

Creek in the Salado Creek drainage and 

contains the physical or biological 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species. In 2016, the owners of the 

spring entered into an agreement with 

The Nature Conservancy for a perpetual 

conservation easement that provides 

long-term protection for this site. We 

have excluded the entire unit from the 

final critical habitat designation (see 

Exclusions, below). 

Unit 4: IH–35 Unit 

Unit 4 consists of approximately 175 

ac (71 ha) of private, State, and City of 

Salado land located in southwestern 

Bell County, Texas, in the southern part 

of the Village of Salado. The unit 

extends along Salado Creek on both 

sides of Interstate Highway 35 (IH 35). 

The unit contains the physical or 

biological features essential for the 

conservation of the species. The IH 35 

right-of-way crosses Salado Creek and is 

owned by the Texas Department of 

Transportation. The unit is a mixture of 

residential and commercial properties 

on its eastern portion, with some 

undeveloped ranch land in the western 

part west of IH–35. This unit contains 

Robertson Springs complex, located on 

private property. West of IH–35 consists 

of two springs, Creek Spring and Sam 

Bass Spring, and five spring openings, 

Bathtub, Beaver Upper, Beaver Middle, 

Headwaters, and Maria, occupied by the 

Salado salamander. East of IH–35, the 

Downtown Spring complex of Unit 4 

contains five springs, Anderson Spring, 

Big Boiling Spring, Lazy Days Fish 

Farm, Lil’ Bubbly Spring, and Side 

Spring, which are all located on private 

property and occupied by the Salado 

salamander. 

The spring habitat within this unit 

has been modified. In the fall of 2011, 

the outflow channels and edges of Big 

Boiling Spring and Lil’ Bubbly Spring 

were reconstructed by a local 

organization, with large limestone 

blocks and mortar, to increase human 

access and visitation. In addition, in 

response to other activity in the area, 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued 

a cease-and-desist order to the Salado 

Chamber of Commerce in October 2011, 

for unauthorized discharge of dredged 

or fill material that occurred in this area 

(Brooks 2011, U.S. Corps of Engineers, 

in litt.). This order was issued in 

relation to the need for a section 404 

permit under the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). A citation from a 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

(TPWD) game warden was also issued in 

October 2011, due to the need for a sand 

and gravel permit from the TPWD for 

work being conducted within TPWD 

jurisdiction (Heger 2012a, pers. comm.). 

The citation was issued because the 

Salado Chamber of Commerce had been 

directed by the game warden to stop 

work within TPWD jurisdiction, which 

they did temporarily, but work started 

again contrary to the game warden’s 

directive (Heger 2012a, pers. comm.). A 

sand and gravel permit was obtained on 

March 21, 2012. The spring run 

modifications were already completed 

by this date, but further modifications in 

the springs were prohibited by the 

permit. Additional work on the bank 

upstream of the springs was permitted 

and completed (Heger 2012b, pers. 

comm.). 

Unit 5: King’s Garden Main Spring Unit 

Unit 5 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of private land in northern 

Williamson County, Texas. The unit is 

undeveloped land. The unit contains 

King’s Garden Main Spring, which is 

occupied by the Salado salamander. The 

surface population of King’s Garden 

Main Spring has been observed at the 

spring’s outlet. The unit contains the 

physical or biological features essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Unit 6: Cobbs Spring Unit 

Unit 6 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of private land located in 

northwestern Williamson County, 

Texas. The unit is undeveloped land. 

This unit contains Cobbs Spring, which 

is occupied by the Salado salamander. 

Cobbs Springs is located on Cobbs 

Springs Branch. The subsurface 

population of Cobbs Spring has been 

observed in Cobbs Well (Gluesenkamp 

2011a, TPWD, pers. comm.), which is 

located approximately 328 ft (100 m) to 

the southwest of the spring. The unit 

contains the physical or biological 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species. 

Unit 7: Cowan Creek Spring Unit 

Unit 7 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of private land located in westcentral Williamson County, Texas. The 

northern portion of the unit is 

residential development; the remainder 

is undeveloped. This unit contains 

Cowan Creek Spring, which is occupied 

by the Salado salamander. The spring is 

located on Cowan Creek. The unit 

contains the physical or biological 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species. 

Unit 8: Walnut Spring Unit 

Unit 8 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of private and Williamson 

County land located in west-central 

Williamson County, Texas. The western, 

eastern, and northeastern portions of the 

unit contain low-density residential 

development; the southern and northcentral portions are undeveloped. The 

extreme southeastern corner of the unit 

is part of Williamson County 

Conservation Foundation’s Twin 

Springs Preserve. This unit contains 

Walnut Spring, which is occupied by 

the Salado salamander. The spring is 

located on Walnut Spring Hollow. The 

unit contains the physical or biological 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46556 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species. 

Unit 9: Twin Springs Unit 

Unit 9 consists of approximately 68 ac 

(28 ha) of private and Williamson 

County land located in west-central 

Williamson County, Texas. The 

northern portion of the unit contains 

low-density residential development; 

the remainder of the unit is 

undeveloped. The majority of the unit is 

part of Williamson County Conservation 

Foundation’s Twin Springs Preserve. 

The preserve is managed by Williamson 

Conservation Foundation as a mitigation 

property for the take of golden-cheeked 

warbler and Bone Cave harvestman 

under the Williamson County Regional 

HCP. The preserve habitat will be 

undeveloped in perpetuity. Salamander 

populations are monitored, and there is 

some control of public access. This unit 

contains Twin Springs, which is 

occupied by the Salado salamander. The 

spring is located on Taylor Ray Hollow, 

a tributary of Lake Georgetown. The unit 

contains the physical or biological 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species. 

Unit 10: Bat Well Cave Unit 

Unit 10 consists of approximately 68 

ac (28 ha) of private land located in 

west-central Williamson County, Texas. 

The western, northern, and southern 

portion of the unit contains residential 

development. This unit contains Bat 

Well Cave, a cave occupied by the 

Salado salamander. The cave is located 

in the Cowan Creek watershed. Only 

subsurface critical habitat was 

designated for this cave population. The 

unit contains the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. 

We published a final rule revising the 

definition of destruction or adverse 

modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 

44976). Destruction or adverse 

modification means a direct or indirect 

alteration that appreciably diminishes 

the value of critical habitat as a whole 

for the conservation of a listed species. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Examples of actions that are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process are actions on State, Tribal, 

local, or private lands that require a 

Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the 

Service under section 10 of the Act) or 

that involve some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat—and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. 

Compliance with the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2), is documented through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Service Director’s 

opinion, avoid the likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the listed species and/or avoid the 

likelihood of destroying or adversely 

modifying critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

reinitiate formal consultation on 

previously reviewed actions. These 

requirements apply when the Federal 

agency has retained discretionary 

involvement or control over the action 

(or the agency’s discretionary 

involvement or control is authorized by 

law) and, subsequent to the previous 

consultation: (1) If the amount or extent 

of taking specified in the incidental take 

statement is exceeded; (2) if new 

information reveals effects of the action 

that may affect listed species or critical 

habitat in a manner or to an extent not 

previously considered; (3) if the 

identified action is subsequently 

modified in a manner that causes an 

effect to the listed species or critical 

habitat that was not considered in the 

biological opinion; or (4) if a new 

species is listed or critical habitat 

designated that may be affected by the 

identified action. 

In such situations, Federal agencies 

sometimes may need to request 

reinitiation of consultation with us, but 

the regulations also specify some 

exceptions to the requirement to 

reinitiate consultation on specific land 

management plans after subsequently 

listing a new species or designating new 

critical habitat. See the regulations for a 

description of those exceptions. 

Application of the ‘‘Destruction or 

Adverse Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is whether 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of the 

critical habitat as a whole for the 

conservation of the listed species. As 

discussed above, the role of critical 

habitat is to support physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of a listed species and 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

violate section 7(a)(2) of the Act by 

destroying or adversely modifying such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that the Service may, 

during a consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, be considered likely 

to destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would physically 

disturb the surface or subsurface habitat 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46557 

upon which these two salamander 

species depend. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, 

channelization, removal of substrate, 

clearing of vegetation, construction of 

commercial and residential 

development, quarrying, and other 

activities that result in the physical 

destruction of habitat or the 

modification of habitat so that it is not 

suitable for the species. 

(2) Actions that would increase the 

concentration of sediment or 

contaminants in the surface or 

subsurface habitat. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, increases 

in impervious cover in the surface 

watershed, inadequate erosion controls 

on the surface and subsurface 

watersheds, and release of pollutants 

into the surface water or connected 

groundwater at a point source or by 

dispersed release (non-point source). 

These activities could alter water 

conditions to levels that are harmful to 

the Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

or their prey and result in direct, 

indirect, or cumulative adverse effects 

to these salamander individuals and 

their life cycles. Sedimentation can also 

adversely affect salamander habitat by 

reducing access to interstitial spaces. 

(3) Actions that would deplete the 

aquifer to an extent that decreases or 

stops the flow of occupied springs or 

that reduces the quantity of 

subterranean habitat used by the 

species. Such activities could include, 

but are not limited to, water 

withdrawals from aquifers, increases in 

impervious cover over recharge areas, 

and channelization or other 

modification of recharge features that 

would decrease recharge. These 

activities could dewater habitat or cause 

reduced water quality to levels that are 

harmful to one of the two salamanders 

or their prey and result in adverse 

effects to their habitat. 

Exemptions 

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

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the 

Secretary shall not designate as critical 

habitat any lands or other geographical 

areas owned or controlled by the 

Department of Defense (DoD), or 

designated for its use, that are subject to 

an integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation. No 

DoD lands with a completed INRMP are 

within the critical habitat designation. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if we determine that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless we 

determine, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making the determination to 

exclude a particular area, the statute on 

its face, as well as the legislative history, 

are clear that the Secretary has broad 

discretion regarding which factor(s) to 

use and how much weight to give to any 

factor. On December 18, 2020, we 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register (85 FR 82376) revising portions 

of our regulations pertaining to 

exclusions of critical habitat. These final 

regulations became effective on January 

19, 2021, and apply to critical habitat 

rules for which a proposed rule was 

published after January 19, 2021. 

Consequently, these new regulations do 

not apply to this final rule. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

may exclude an area from designated 

critical habitat based on economic 

impacts, impacts on national security, 

or any other relevant impacts. 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 discretion to 

exclude the area only if such exclusion 

would not result in the extinction of the 

species. We describe below the process 

that we undertook for taking into 

consideration each category of impacts 

and our analyses of the relevant 

impacts. 

Consideration of Economic Impacts 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. In order to consider economic 

impacts, we prepared an incremental 

effects memorandum (IEM) and 

screening analysis which, together with 

our narrative and interpretation of 

effects we consider our draft economic 

analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical 

habitat designation and related factors 

(Industrial Economics, Incorporated 

(IEc) 2020, entire). The analysis, dated 

April 14, 2020, was made available for 

public review from September 23, 2020, 

through November 16, 2020 (IEc 2020, 

entire). The DEA addressed probable 

economic impacts of critical habitat 

designation for the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders. Following the close 

of the comment period, we reviewed 

and evaluated all information submitted 

during the comment period that may 

pertain to our consideration of the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

of this critical habitat designation. 

Additional information relevant to the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

of critical habitat designation for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders is 

summarized below and available in the 

screening analysis for the Georgetown 

and Salado salamanders (IEc 2021, 

entire), available at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

We received public comment on our 

DEA during the public comment period 

and updated the analysis based on 

public comment. The economic analysis 

now acknowledges ‘‘The designation of 

critical habitat may cause developers to 

perceive that private lands will be 

subject to use restrictions or litigation 

from third parties, resulting in costs. 

Data limitations prevent quantification 

of the possible incremental reduction in 

property values’’ (IEc 2021, p. 2 & 12– 

13). The updates made to the DEA did 

not change the overall conclusions of 

the analysis. As part of our screening 

analysis, we considered the types of 

economic activities that are likely to 

occur within the areas likely affected by 

the critical habitat designation. In our 

evaluation of the probable incremental 

economic impacts that may result from 

the designation of critical habitat for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders, 

first we identified, in the IEM dated 

April 14, 2020, probable incremental 

economic impacts associated with the 

following categories of activities: (1) 

Future stream/river crossings and bridge 

replacements and maintenance; (2) 

pipeline construction, replacement, 

maintenance, or removal; (3) electrical 

transmission line construction; (4) 

stream restoration activities for habitat 

improvement; (5) herbicide and 

pesticide use along stream banks; (6) 

irrigation and water supply system 

installations; (7) livestock management 

and livestock facilities construction; (8) 

bank stabilization projects; (9) disaster 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46558 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

debris removal; (10) repairs to existing 

and damaged roads, bridges, utilities, 

and parks; (11) construction of tornado 

safe rooms, and demolition of floodprone structures; (12) return of land to 

open space in perpetuity; and (13) 

removal of hazardous fuels in wildland 

urban interface to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic wildfire. We considered 

each industry or category individually. 

Additionally, we considered whether 

their activities may have any Federal 

involvement. Critical habitat 

designation generally will not affect 

activities that do not have any Federal 

involvement; under the Act, designation 

of critical habitat only affects activities 

conducted, funded, permitted, or 

authorized by Federal agencies. In areas 

where the Georgetown or Salado 

salamander are present, Federal 

agencies already are required to consult 

with the Service under section 7 of the 

Act on activities they fund, permit, or 

implement that may affect the species. 

When this critical habitat designation is 

effective (see DATES, above), 

consultations to avoid the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

will be incorporated into the existing 

consultation process. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

result from the species being listed and 

those attributable to the critical habitat 

designation (i.e., difference between the 

jeopardy and adverse modification 

standards) for the Georgetown and 

Salado salamander’s critical habitat. 

Because all of the units we are 

designating as critical habitat for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders are 

occupied, we do not expect that the 

critical habitat designation will result in 

any additional consultations above and 

beyond those caused by the species’ 

listing. The conservation 

recommendations provided to address 

impacts to the occupied critical habitat 

will be the same as those recommended 

to address impacts to the species 

because the habitat tolerances of the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders are 

inextricably linked to the health, 

growth, and reproduction of the 

salamanders, which are present and 

confined year-round in their occupied 

critical habitat. Furthermore, because 

the designated critical habitat and the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders’ 

known range are identical, the results of 

consultation under adverse modification 

are not likely to differ from the results 

of consultation under jeopardy. In the 

event of an adverse modification 

determination, we expect that 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid jeopardy to the species will also 

avoid adverse modification of the 

critical habitat. The only incremental 

impact of critical habitat designation 

that we anticipate is the small (not 

expected to exceed $38,500 per year) 

administrative effort required during 

section 7 consultation to document 

effects on the physical and biological 

features of the critical habitat and 

whether the action appreciably 

diminishes the value of critical habitat 

as a whole for the conservation of the 

listed species (IEc 2021). 

The critical habitat designations for 

the Georgetown and Salado salamanders 

amount to a total of approximately 1,315 

ac (538 ha) in Bell and Williamson 

Counties, Texas. In these areas, any 

actions that may affect the species or its 

habitat will also affect designated 

critical habitat, and it is unlikely that 

any additional conservation efforts will 

be recommended to address the adverse 

modification standard over and above 

those recommended as necessary to 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the Georgetown and Salado 

salamanders. While this additional 

analysis will require time and resources 

by both the Federal action agency and 

the Service, it is believed that, in most 

circumstances, these costs will 

predominantly be administrative in 

nature and will not be significant. 

Incremental costs are likely to be 

minor and primarily limited to 

administrative efforts that consider 

adverse modification in consultation. 

This finding is based on these factors: 

(1) All activities with a Federal nexus 

occurring within the critical habitat 

designations will be subject to section 7 

consultation requirements regardless of 

critical habitat designation due to the 

presence of listed species; and (2) since 

the Service predicts that the majority of 

project modifications avoiding jeopardy 

and adverse modification overlap, there 

will only be a limited number of project 

modification requests that are solely 

caused by a critical habitat designation 

(IEc 2020). The estimated $38,500 per 

year of incremental costs associated 

with the designation of critical habitat is 

well below $100 million and, therefore, 

is unlikely to trigger additional 

requirements under State or local 

regulations. Further, while some 

perceptional effects may arise, they are 

not expected to result in substantial 

costs. 

Consideration of Impacts on National 

Security and Homeland Security 

The Service must consider impacts on 

national security, including homeland 

security, under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) and 

on those DoD lands or areas not covered 

by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), because section 

4(b)(2) requires the Service to consider 

those impacts whenever it designates 

critical habitat. Accordingly, if DoD, 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), or another Federal agency has 

requested exclusion based on an 

assertion of national-security or 

homeland-security concerns, or we have 

otherwise identified national-security or 

homeland-security impacts from 

designating particular areas as critical 

habitat, we generally have reason to 

consider excluding those areas. We did 

not identify any national security or 

homeland security impacts, nor did we 

receive any requests for exclusion based 

on national or homeland security. 

Consideration of Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security discussed 

above. Other relevant impacts may 

include, but are not limited to, impacts 

to Tribes, States, local governments, 

public health and safety, community 

interests, the environment (such as 

increased risk of wildfire or pest and 

invasive species management), Federal 

lands, and conservation plans, 

agreements, or partnerships. To identify 

other relevant impacts that may affect 

the exclusion analysis, we consider a 

number of factors, including whether 

there are permitted conservation plans 

covering the species in the area—such 

as HCPs, safe harbor agreements (SHAs), 

or candidate conservation agreements 

with assurances (CCAAs)—or whether 

there are non-permitted conservation 

agreements and partnerships that may 

be impaired by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at whether Tribal 

conservation plans or partnerships, 

Tribal resources, or government-togovernment relationships of the United 

States with Tribal entities may be 

affected by the designation. We also 

consider any State, local, public-health, 

community-interest, environmental, or 

social impacts that might occur because 

of the designation. 

Exclusions 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

The Service considered the economic 

impacts of the critical habitat 

designation as described above. Based 

on this information, the Secretary has 

determined not to exercise her 

discretion to exclude any areas from this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Georgetown or Salado salamander based 

on economic impacts. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46559 

Exclusions Based on Impacts on 

National Security and Homeland 

Security 

In preparing this rule, we have 

determined that the lands within the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders are 

not owned or managed by DoD or the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

Therefore, we anticipate no impact on 

national security or homeland security. 

Based on this information, the Secretary 

has determined not to exercise her 

discretion to exclude any areas from this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Georgetown or Salado salamander based 

on impacts on national security or 

homeland security. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

When analyzing other relevant 

impacts of including a particular area in 

a designation of critical habitat, we 

weigh those impacts relative to the 

conservation value of the particular 

area. To determine the conservation 

value of designating a particular area, 

we consider a number of factors, 

including, but not limited to, the 

additional regulatory benefits that the 

area would receive due to the protection 

from destruction or adverse 

modification 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. 

In the case of the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders, the benefits of 

critical habitat include public awareness 

of the presence of the two species and 

the importance of habitat protection, 

and, where a Federal nexus exists, 

increased habitat protection for the two 

species due to protection from 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Continued 

implementation of an ongoing 

management plan that provides 

conservation equal to or more than the 

protections that result from a critical 

habitat designation would reduce those 

benefits of including that specific area 

in the critical habitat designation. 

We evaluate the existence of a 

conservation plan when considering the 

benefits of inclusion. We consider a 

variety of factors, including, but not 

limited to, whether the plan is finalized; 

how it provides for the conservation of 

the essential physical or biological 

features; whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions 

contained in a management plan will be 

implemented into the future; whether 

the conservation strategies in the plan 

are likely to be effective; and whether 

the plan contains a monitoring program 

or adaptive management to ensure that 

the conservation measures are effective 

and can be adapted in the future in 

response to new information. 

After identifying the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

evaluate whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. 

If our analysis indicates that the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, we then determine whether 

exclusion would result in extinction of 

the species. 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, any 

additional public comments we 

received, and the best scientific data 

available, we evaluated whether certain 

lands in the proposed critical habitat 

designation were appropriate for 

exclusion from this final designation 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If our 

analysis indicated that the benefits of 

excluding lands from the final 

designation outweighed the benefits of 

designating those lands as critical 

habitat, then we identified those areas 

for the Secretary to exercise her 

discretion to exclude those lands from 

the final designation, unless exclusion 

would result in extinction. 

In the paragraphs below, we provide 

a detailed balancing analysis of the 

areas being excluded under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. Table 3 below 

provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of 

lands that meet the definition of critical 

habitat but that we are excluding from 

this final critical habitat designation 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

TABLE 3—AREAS EXCLUDED BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT FOR THE SALADO SALAMANDER

Critical habitat unit 

Proposed 

critical habitat 

(ac (ha)) 

Area excluded 

(ac (ha)) 

Final critical 

habitat 

(ac (ha)) 

1. Hog Hollow Spring Unit ........................................................................................................... 68 (28) 68 (28) 0 

2. Solana Spring Unit .................................................................................................................. 68 (28) 68 (28) 0 

3. Cistern Spring Unit .................................................................................................................. 68 (28) 68 (28) 0 

Private or Other Non-Federal 

Conservation Plans or Agreements and 

Partnerships, in General 

We sometimes exclude specific areas 

from critical habitat designations based 

in part on the existence of private or 

other non-Federal conservation plans or 

agreements and their attendant 

partnerships. A conservation plan or 

agreement describes actions that are 

designed to provide for the conservation 

needs of a species and its habitat, and 

may include actions to reduce or 

mitigate negative effects on the species 

caused by activities on or adjacent to the 

area covered by the plan. Conservation 

plans or agreements can be developed 

by private entities with no Service 

involvement, or in partnership with the 

Service, sometimes through the 

permitting process under Section 10 of 

the Act. 

When we undertake a discretionary 

section 4(b)(2) analysis, we evaluate a 

variety of factors to determine how the 

benefits of any exclusion and the 

benefits of inclusion are affected by the 

existence of private or other non-Federal 

conservation plans or agreements and 

their attendant partnerships. A nonexhaustive list of factors that we will 

consider for non-permitted plans or 

agreements is shown below. These 

factors are not required elements of 

plans or agreements, and some elements 

may not apply to a particular plan or 

agreement. 

(i) The degree to which the plan or 

agreement provides for the conservation 

of the species or the essential physical 

or biological features (if present) for the 

species. 

(ii) Whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions 

contained in a management plan or 

agreement will be implemented. 

(iii) The demonstrated 

implementation and success of the 

chosen conservation measures. 

(iv) The degree to which the record of 

the plan supports a conclusion that a 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46560 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

critical habitat designation would 

impair the realization of benefits 

expected from the plan, agreement, or 

partnership. 

(v) The extent of public participation 

in the development of the conservation 

plan. 

(vi) The degree to which there has 

been agency review and required 

determinations (e.g., State regulatory 

requirements), as necessary and 

appropriate. 

(vii) Whether National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) compliance was required. 

(viii) Whether the plan or agreement 

contains a monitoring program and 

adaptive management to ensure that the 

conservation measures are effective and 

can be modified in the future in 

response to new information. 

Salado Salamander Units 1, 2, and 3— 

Solana Ranch Preserve 

In 2013, the Texas Chapter of The 

Nature Conservancy was awarded 

funding through a Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department non-traditional 

section 6 grant (Solana Ranch Recovery 

Land Acquisition, Grant TX E–154–RL– 

1) to obtain a conservation easement on 

256 ac (104 ha) of the privately owned 

Solana Ranch in Bell County, Texas. 

The Nature Conservancy acquired the 

conservation easement in perpetuity 

from the landowner, Michaux Holdings 

Ltd., on June 29, 2016. That portion of 

the Solana Ranch included in the 

conservation easement, Solana Ranch 

Preserve, encompasses three spring 

outlets (i.e., Cistern, Hog Hollow, and 

Solana Springs) occupied by the Salado 

salamander (Francell 2012, p. 3) and the 

upstream lands surrounding these 

springs. The springs comprise the 

following critical habitat units for the 

Salado salamander: Hog Hollow Spring 

(Unit 1; 68 ac (28 ha)), Solana Spring 

(Unit 2; 68 ac (28 ha)), and Cistern 

Spring (Unit 3; 68 ac (28 ha)). The 

springs are located on a tributary to 

Rumsey Creek in the Salado Creek 

drainage and are upstream of other 

springs occupied by the Salado 

salamander along Salado Creek to the 

northeast. All three springs are 

considered high-quality habitat for the 

Salado salamander (Gluesenkamp 

2011b, TPWD, pers. comm.). The Solana 

Ranch Preserve conservation easement 

establishes that these lands are 

protected and managed for the benefit of 

the Salado salamander. Management 

activities include: (1) Protection of the 

site from development or encroachment, 

(2) maintenance of the site as permanent 

open space that has been left in its 

natural vegetative state, (3) maintenance 

and repair of existing enclosure fences 

around springs, and (4) research 

approved by the landowner. Grazing, 

hunting, and other recreational 

activities will be allowed. 

The perpetual Solana Ranch Preserve 

conservation easement will result in 

long-term protection of the three springs 

located on Solana Ranch, including 

areas immediately upstream of the 

springs to maintain water quality. By 

protecting the springs and their 

surrounding areas, occupied Salado 

salamander habitat will be protected 

from development and other threats. 

Based on the actions to benefit the 

Salado salamander, we considered 

excluding a total of 204 ha (84 ac) of 

critical habitat within Solana Ranch 

Preserve lands, specifically Hog Hollow 

Spring (Unit 1; 68 ac (28 ha)), Solana 

Spring (Unit 2; 68 ac (28 ha)), and 

Cistern Spring (Unit 3; 68 ac (28 ha)), 

from this final Salado salamander 

critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Benefits of Inclusion—Solana Ranch 

Preserve: 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. 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 Salado salamanderon 

lands covered under the Solana Ranch 

Preserve conservation easement 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 Salado 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 find that the benefits 

of inclusion of 204 ha (84 ac) lands 

within the Solana Ranch Preserve 

conservation easement 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 for the 

Salado salamander and its habitat. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Solana Ranch 

Preserve: The benefits of excluding 204 

ha (84 ac) of land within the Solana 

Ranch Preserve, under a perpetual 

conservation easement held by The 

Nature Conservancy, from the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Salado salamander are substantial and 

include: (1) Continuance and 

strengthening of our effective working 

relationship with private landowners to 

promote voluntary, proactive 

conservation of the Salado salamander 

and its habitat as opposed to reactive 

regulation; (2) allowance for continued 

meaningful collaboration and 

cooperation in working toward species 

recovery, including conservation 

benefits that might not otherwise occur; 

and (3) encouragement of developing 

additional conservation easements and 

other conservation and management 

plans in the future for other federally 

listed and sensitive species. 

Many landowners perceive critical 

habitat as an unfair and unnecessary 

regulatory burden. According to some, 

the designation of critical habitat on 

private lands significantly reduces the 

likelihood that landowners will support 

and carry out conservation actions 

(Main et al.1999, p. 1,263; Bean 2002, p. 

2). The magnitude of this negative 

outcome is greatly amplified in 

situations where active management 

measures (such as reintroduction, fire 

management, and control of invasive 

species) are necessary for species 

conservation (Bean 2002, pp. 3–4). We 

find that the judicious exclusion of 

specific areas of non-federally owned 

lands from critical habitat designations 

can contribute to species recovery and 

provide a superior level of conservation 

than critical habitat alone. We find that, 

where consistent with the discretion 

provided by the Act, it is necessary to 

implement policies that provide 

positive incentives to private 

landowners to voluntarily conserve 

natural resources and that remove or 

reduce disincentives to conservation 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46561 

(Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 1–15; Bean 

2002, pp. 1–7). 

Partnerships with non-Federal 

landowners are vital to the conservation 

of listed species, especially on nonFederal lands; therefore, the Service is 

committed to supporting and 

encouraging such partnerships through 

the recognition of positive conservation 

contributions. In the case considered 

here, excluding these areas from critical 

habitat will help foster the partnerships 

the landowners and land managers in 

question have developed with Federal 

and State agencies and local 

conservation organizations; will 

encourage the continued 

implementation of voluntary 

conservation actions for the benefit 

ofthe Salado salamander and its habitat 

on these lands; and may also serve as a 

model and aid in fostering future 

cooperative relationships with other 

parties here and in other locations for 

the benefit of other endangered or 

threatened species. We find that the 

judicious exclusion of specific areas of 

non-federally owned lands from critical 

habitat designation can contribute to 

species recovery and provide a superior 

level of conservation than critical 

habitat. Therefore, we consider the 

positive effect of excluding active 

conservation partners from critical 

habitat to be a significant benefit of 

exclusion. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion—Solana Ranch 

Preserve: We evaluated the exclusion of 

204 ha (84 ac) of private land within the 

boundaries of the 256 ac (104 ha) Solana 

Ranch under a perpetual conservation 

easement with The Nature Conservancy, 

from our designation of critical habitat, 

and we determined the benefits of 

excluding these lands outweigh the 

benefits of including them as critical 

habitat for the Salado salamander. 

We conclude that the additional 

regulatory and educational benefits of 

including these lands as critical habitat 

are relatively small, because of the 

unlikelihood of a Federal nexus on 

these private lands. These benefits are 

further reduced by the existence of a 

256-ac (104-ha) conservation easement 

on the Solana Ranch that contains 204 

ha (84 ac) of proposed critical habitat. 

We anticipate that there will be little 

additional Federal regulatory benefit to 

the taxon on private land because there 

is a low likelihood that those parcels 

will be negatively affected to any 

significant degree by Federal activities 

requiring section 7 consultation, and 

ongoing management activities indicate 

there would be no additional 

requirements pursuant to a consultation 

that addresses critical habitat. 

Furthermore, the potential 

educational and informational benefits 

of critical habitat designation on lands 

containing the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Salado salamander would be 

minimal, because the landowners and 

land managers under consideration have 

demonstrated their knowledge of the 

species and its habitat needs in the 

process of developing their partnerships 

with the Service. Additionally, the 

current active conservation efforts on 

some of these lands contribute to our 

knowledge of the species through 

monitoring and scientific research. 

In contrast, the benefits derived from 

excluding these owners and enhancing 

our partnership with these landowners 

and land managers is significant. 

Because voluntary conservation efforts 

for the benefit of listed species on nonFederal lands are so valuable, the 

Service considers the maintenance and 

encouragement of conservation 

partnerships to be a significant benefit 

of exclusion. The development and 

maintenance of effective working 

partnerships with non-Federal 

landowners for the conservation of 

listed species is particularly important 

in areas such as Texas, a State with 

relatively little Federal landownership 

but many species of conservation 

concern. Excluding these areas from 

critical habitat will help foster the 

partnerships the landowners and land 

managers in question have developed 

with Federal and State agencies and 

local conservation organizations, and 

will encourage the continued 

implementation of voluntary 

conservation actions for the benefit of 

the Salado salamander and its habitat on 

these lands. In addition, these 

partnerships not only provide a benefit 

for the conservation of these species, but 

may also serve as a model and aid in 

fostering future cooperative 

relationships with other parties in this 

area of Texas and in other locations for 

the benefit of other endangered or 

threatened species. 

We find that excluding areas from 

critical habitat that are receiving both 

long-term conservation and 

management for the purpose of 

protecting the habitat that supports the 

Salado salamander will preserve our 

partnership with the Solana Ranch 

owner and operator and will encourage 

future collaboration towards 

conservation and recovery of listed 

species. The partnership benefits are 

significant and outweigh the small 

potential regulatory, educational, and 

ancillary benefits of including the land 

in the final critical habitat designation 

for the Salado salamander. Therefore, 

the Solana Ranch Preserve conservation 

easement provides greater protection of 

habitat for the Salado salamander than 

could be gained through the project-byproject analysis of a critical habitat 

designation. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species—Solana 

Ranch Preserve: We determined that the 

exclusion of 204 ha (84 ac) of land 

within the boundaries of the Solana 

Ranch Preserve conservation easement 

held by The Nature Conservancy in 

perpetuity will not result in extinction 

of the taxon. Protections afforded the 

taxon and its habitat by the conservation 

easement provide assurances that the 

taxon will not go extinct as a result of 

excluding these lands from the critical 

habitat designation. 

An important consideration as we 

evaluate these exclusions and their 

potential effect on the species in 

question is that critical habitat does not 

carry with it a regulatory requirement to 

restore or actively manage habitat for 

the benefit of listed species; the 

regulatory effect of critical habitat is 

only the avoidance of destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

should an action with a Federal nexus 

occur. It is, therefore, advantageous for 

the conservation of the species to 

support the proactive efforts of nonFederal landowners who are 

contributing to the enhancement of 

essential habitat features for listed 

species through exclusion. The jeopardy 

standard of section 7 of the Act will also 

provide protection in these occupied 

areas when there is a Federal nexus. 

Therefore, based on the above 

discussion, the Secretary is exercising 

her discretion to exclude 204 ha (84 ac) 

of land from the designation of critical 

habitat for the Salado salamander. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget will review all 

significant rules. OIRA has determined 

that this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order (E.O.) 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46562 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

whether potential economic impacts to 

these small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

Under the RFA, as amended, and as 

understood in light of recent court 

decisions, Federal agencies are required 

to evaluate only the potential 

incremental impacts of rulemaking on 

those entities directly regulated by the 

rulemaking itself; in other words, the 

RFA does not require agencies to 

evaluate the potential impacts to 

indirectly regulated entities. The 

regulatory mechanism through which 

critical habitat protections are realized 

is section 7 of the Act, which requires 

Federal agencies, in consultation with 

the Service, to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under section 7, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

the specific regulatory requirement 

(avoiding destruction and adverse 

modification) imposed by critical 

habitat designation. Consequently, it is 

our position that only Federal action 

agencies will be directly regulated by 

this designation. The RFA does not 

require evaluation of the potential 

impacts to entities not directly 

regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies 

are not small entities. Therefore, 

because no small entities will be 

directly regulated by this rulemaking, 

the Service certifies that this critical 

habitat designation 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. We 

do not find that this critical habitat 

designation will significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use, as 

the areas identified as critical habitat are 

along riparian corridors in mostly 

remote areas with little energy supplies, 

distribution, or infrastructure in place. 

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) 

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 nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We have determined that this rule 

will not significantly or uniquely affect 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46563 

small governments because it will not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year; that is, it 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. The designation of critical habitat 

imposes no obligations on State or local 

governments. By definition, Federal 

agencies are not considered small 

entities, although the activities they 

fund or permit may be proposed or 

carried out by small entities. 

Consequently, we have determined that 

this critical habitat designation will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

government entities. As such, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the 

Georgetown and Salado salamanders in 

a takings implications assessment. The 

Act does not authorize the Service to 

regulate private actions on private lands 

or confiscate private property as a result 

of critical habitat designation. 

Designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership, or establish any 

closures, or restrictions on use of or 

access to the designated areas. 

Furthermore, the designation of critical 

habitat does not affect landowner 

actions that do not require Federal 

funding or permits, nor does it preclude 

development of habitat conservation 

programs or issuance of incidental take 

permits to permit actions that do require 

Federal funding or permits to go 

forward. However, Federal agencies are 

prohibited from carrying out, funding, 

or authorizing actions that would 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. A takings implications 

assessment has been completed and 

concludes that this designation of 

critical habitat for the Georgetown and 

Salado salamanders does not pose 

significant takings implications for 

lands within or affected by the 

designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this rule does not have 

significant Federalism effects. A 

federalism summary impact statement is 

not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of the critical 

habitat designation with, the 

appropriate State resource agencies. We 

did not receive comments from the 

State. From a federalism perspective, 

the designation of critical habitat 

directly affects only the responsibilities 

of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no 

other duties with respect to critical 

habitat, either for States and local 

governments, or for anyone else. As a 

result, the rule does not have substantial 

direct effects either on the State, or on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the State, or on the 

distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The designation 

may have some benefit to these 

governments because the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical or 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary 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 these local 

governments in long-range planning 

because these local governments no 

longer have to wait for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur. 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) will be required. 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We are designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. To assist the 

public in understanding the habitat 

needs of the species, this rule identifies 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 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 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. 

We may not conduct or sponsor and you 

are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with designating 

critical habitat under the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). This position was upheld by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 

F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 

516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have identified no Tribal interests 

that will be affected by this rule. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Austin 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46564 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

the staff members of the Service’s 

Austin Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

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—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11 in paragraph (h) by 

revising the entries for ‘‘Salamander, 

Georgetown’’ and ‘‘Salamander, Salado’’ 

in the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife under 

‘‘AMPHIBIANS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

*******

AMPHIBIANS

* * * * * * * 

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

CFR 17.95(d).CH

* * * * * * * 

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

*******

■ 3. Amend § 17.95 in paragraph (d) by 

adding entries for ‘‘Georgetown 

Salamander (Eurycea naufragia)’’ and 

‘‘Salado Salamander (Eurycea 

chisholmensis)’’ in the same order that 

these species appear in the table at 

§ 17.11(h) to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

Georgetown Salamander (Eurycea 

naufragia) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Williamson County, Texas, on the 

maps in this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Georgetown salamander 

consist of the following components: 

(i) For surface habitat: 

(A) Water from the Northern Segment 

of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater 

issuing to the surface from the 

underlying aquifer is similar to natural 

aquifer conditions as it discharges from 

natural spring outlets. Concentrations of 

water quality constituents and 

contaminants should be below levels 

that could exert direct lethal or 

sublethal effects (such as effects to 

reproduction, growth, development, or 

metabolic processes), or indirect effects 

(such as effects to the Georgetown 

salamander’s prey base). Hydrologic 

regimes similar to the historical pattern 

of the specific sites are present, with at 

least some surface flow during the year. 

The water chemistry of aquatic surface 

habitats is similar to natural aquifer 

conditions, with temperatures from 61 

to 84 °F (16 to 29 °C), dissolved oxygen 

concentrations from 5 to 13 milligrams 

per liter (mg/L), and specific water 

conductance from 317 to 814 microSiemens per centimeter (mS/cm). 

(B) Rocky substrate with interstitial 

spaces. Rocks in the substrate of the 

salamander’s surface aquatic habitat are 

large enough to provide salamanders 

with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. 

The substrate and interstitial spaces 

have minimal sedimentation. 

(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The 

spring environment supports a diverse 

aquatic invertebrate community that 

includes crustaceans, insects, and 

aquatic snails. 

(D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to 

the subsurface water table exists to 

provide shelter, protection, and space 

for reproduction. This access can occur 

in the form of large conduits that carry 

water to the spring outlet or porous 

voids between rocks in the streambed 

that extend down into the water table. 

(ii) For subsurface habitat: 

(A) Water from the Northern Segment 

of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater 

quality is similar to natural aquifer 

conditions. Concentrations of water 

quality constituents and contaminants 

should be below levels that could exert 

direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as 

effects to reproduction, growth, 

development, or metabolic processes), 

or indirect effects (such as effects to the 

Georgetown salamander’s prey base). 

Hydrologic regimes similar to the 

historical pattern of the specific sites are 

present, with continuous flow. The 

water chemistry is similar to natural 

aquifer conditions, with temperatures 

from 61 to 84 °F (16 to 29 °C), dissolved 

oxygen concentrations from 5 to 13 mg/ 

L, and specific water conductance from 

317 to 814 mS/cm. 

(B) Subsurface spaces. Voids between 

rocks underground are large enough to 

provide salamanders with cover, shelter, 

and foraging habitat. These spaces have 

minimal sedimentation. 

(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The 

habitat supports an aquatic invertebrate 

community that includes crustaceans, 

insects, and aquatic snails. 

(3) Surface critical habitat includes 

the spring outlets and outflow up to the 

high-water line and 262 feet (ft) (80 

meters (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 

September 17, 2021; 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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46565 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created using a geographic 

information system (GIS), which 

included species locations, roads, 

property boundaries, 2011 aerial 

photography, and U.S. Geological 

Survey 7.5′ quadrangles. Points were 

placed on the GIS. We delineated 

critical habitat unit boundaries by 

starting with the cave or spring point 

locations that are occupied by the 

salamander. 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 estimate 

the salamander populations exist 

through underground conduits. The 

polygons were then simplified to reduce 

the number of vertices, but still retain 

the overall shape and extent. 

Subsequently, polygons that were 

within 98 ft (30 m) of each other were 

merged together. Each new merged 

polygon was then revised to remove 

extraneous divots or protrusions that 

resulted from the merge process. The 

maps in this entry, as modified by any 

accompanying regulatory text, establish 

the boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. The coordinates or plot 

points or both on which each map is 

based are available to the public at the 

Service’s internet site at http://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ 

AustinTexas/, at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Note: Index map follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

(6) Unit 1: Water Tank Cave Unit, 

Williamson County, Texas. 

(i) Unit 1 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of 

private land in west-central Williamson 

County. A golf course crosses the unit 

from northwest to southeast, and there 

are several roads in the eastern part of 

the unit. A secondary road crosses the 

extreme southern portion of the unit, 

and there are residences in the 

northwestern, southwestern, and westcentral portions of the unit. 

(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2ER18AU21.155</GPH>

Index Map: Georgetown Salamander Critical Habitat 

•Critical Habitat Unit B.oundaries 

':..":.12-digit Watersh.ed Boundaries 

-Highways 

4 ------==========::::iMff~ 0 2 

----c::::======iKilometars 

2 4 
46566 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(7) Unit 2: Hogg Hollow Spring Unit, 

Williamson County, Texas. 

(i) Unit 2 consists of approximately 

122 ac (49 ha) of U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers land and private land in 

Williamson County, Texas. The unit is 

located south of Lake Georgetown and is 

mostly undeveloped. The northwestern 

part of the unit includes Sawyer Park, 

part of the Lake Georgetown recreation 

area. 

(ii) Map of Units 2 and 3 follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2ER18AU21.156</GPH>

l 

I 

__ , 

) '-, j' 

' 

--\...,l.. 

Texas 

I.._,,-----.,_...,.' 

I 

I ,,..r-./ 

/ ' ,, r 

I 

) 

( 

\ 

I 

( 

I 

l 

Georgetown Salamander 

Critical Habitat Unit 1 

{ 

\ 

I 

I 

I 

\ 

\ 

\ 

I 

,,.---~'-

\ \ 

i= ( '\ Ja I 

( '\. :f ' ~ I 3 I ( 

I 

Z?.i Subsurface Critical --- Rivers 

Habitat Unit Boundary - Highways 

,,. ,,~" Cl County Boundaries =streets 

• Detailed 

Area 

~l;amson County W+E 

O 1

,ooo 

2,000 

Feet 

S O 300 

Meters 

600 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46567 

(8) Unit 3: Cedar Hollow Spring Unit, 

Williamson County, Texas. 

(i) Unit 3 consists of approximately 68 

ac (28 ha) of private land in west-central 

Williamson County, Texas. A secondary 

road crosses the extreme southern 

portion of the unit, and there are 

residences in the northwestern, 

southwestern, and west-central portions 

of the unit. 

(ii) Map of Unit 3 is provided at 

paragraph (7)(ii) of this entry. 

(9) Unit 4: Lake Georgetown Unit, 

Williamson County, Texas. 

(i) Unit 4 consists of approximately 

134 ac (54 ha) of Federal and private 

land in west-central Williamson County, 

Texas. Part of the unit is the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers’ Lake Georgetown 

property. There are currently no plans 

to develop the property. There is some 

control of public access. Unpaved roads 

are found in the western portion of the 

unit, and a trail begins in the central 

part of the unit and leaves the northeast 

corner. A secondary road crosses the 

extreme southern portion of the unit, 

and there are residences in the 

northwestern, southwestern, and westcentral portions of the unit. A large 

quarry is located a short distance 

southeast of the unit. 

(ii) Map of Units 4, 5, 6, and 7 

follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2ER18AU21.157</GPH>

,r' 

I 

/ 

J 

/ 

r 

Georgetown Salamander 

Critical Habitat Units 2 and 3 

• Surface Critical --- Rivers 

Habitat Unit Boundary = Streets 

~ Subsurface Critical 

Habitat Uhit Bouhdary 

2,000 

----===:=:::::::iFeet 

0 1,000 

----=====:::::::iMeters 

0 300 {)00 
46568 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(10) Unit 5: Buford Hollow Spring 

Unit, Williamson County, Texas. 

(i) Unit 5 consists of approximately 68 

ac (28 ha) of Federal and private land in 

west-central Williamson County, Texas. 

The unit is located just below the 

spillway for Lake Georgetown. The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers owns most of 

this unit as part of Lake Georgetown. 

The D.B. Wood Road, a major 

thoroughfare, crosses the eastern part of 

the unit. 

(ii) Map of Unit 5 is provided at 

paragraph (9)(ii) of this entry. 

(11) Unit 6: Swinbank Spring Unit, 

Williamson County, Texas. 

(i) Unit 6 consists of approximately 68 

ac (28 ha) of City and private land in 

west-central Williamson County, Texas. 

The unit is located near River Road 

south of Melanie Lane. The northern 

part of the unit is primarily in 

residential development, while the 

southern part of this unit is primarily 

undeveloped. 

(ii) Map of Unit 6 is provided at 

paragraph (9)(ii) of this entry. 

(12) Unit 7: Avant Spring Unit, 

Williamson County, Texas. 

(i) Unit 7 consists of approximately 68 

ac (28 ha) of private land in west-central 

Williamson County, Texas. The 

northern part of a large quarry is along 

the southwestern edge of the unit. The 

rest of the unit is undeveloped. 

(ii) Map of Unit 7 is provided at 

paragraph (9)(ii) of this entry. 

(13) Unit 8: Shadow Canyon Spring 

Unit, Williamson County, Texas. 

(i) Unit 8 consists of approximately 68 

ac (28 ha) of City and private land in 

west-central Williamson County, Texas. 

The unit is located just south of State 

Highway 29. This unit contains Shadow 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2ER18AU21.158</GPH>

Georgetown Salamander 

Critical Habitat Units 4, 5, 6, and 7 

• Surface Critical -·- Rivers 

Habitat Unit Boundary =streets 

l3⁄4i Subsurface Critical 

Habitat Unit Boundary 

0 2,000 4,000 

---r::::====3Feet 

---===:::::::iMeters 

0 500 1,000 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46569 

Canyon Spring, which is occupied by 

the Georgetown salamander. 

(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows: 

(14) Unit 9: Garey Ranch Spring Unit, 

Williamson County, Texas. 

(i) Unit 9 consists of approximately 68 

ac (28 ha) of private land in Williamson 

County, Texas. The unit is located north 

of RM 2243. The unit is mostly 

undeveloped. A small amount of 

residential development enters the 

southern and eastern parts of the unit. 

(ii) Map of Unit 9 follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2ER18AU21.159</GPH>

Texas 

Georgetown Salamander 

Critical Habitat Unit 8 

Williamson County 

I 

I 

I 

I 

l 

\ 

• Surface Critical --- Rivers 

Habitat Unit Boundary - Highways 

2Zii Subsurface Critical = Streets 

Habitat Unit Boundary 

2,000 ----=======i .. Feet 

0 1,000 

---c:::=::=iMeters 

0 250 500 
46570 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

Salado Salamander (Eurycea 

chisholmensis) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Bell and Williamson Counties, 

Texas, on the maps in this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Salado salamander 

consist of the following components: 

(i) For surface habitat: 

(A) Water from the Northern Segment 

of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater 

quality issuing to the surface from the 

underlying aquifer is similar to natural 

aquifer conditions as it discharges from 

natural spring outlets. Concentrations of 

water quality constituents and 

contaminants are below levels that 

could exert direct lethal or sublethal 

effects (such as effects to reproduction, 

growth, development, or metabolic 

processes), or indirect effects (such as 

effects to the Salado salamander’s prey 

base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the 

historical pattern of the specific sites are 

present, with at least some surface flow 

during the year. The water chemistry of 

aquatic surface habitats is similar to 

natural aquifer conditions, with 

temperatures from 61 to 84 °F (16 to 29 

°C), dissolved oxygen concentrations 

from 5 to 13 milligrams per liter (mg/L), 

and specific water conductance from 

317 to 814 micro-Siemens per 

centimeter (mS/cm). 

(B) Rocky substrate with interstitial 

spaces. Rocks in the substrate of the 

salamander’s surface aquatic habitat are 

large enough to provide salamanders 

with cover, shelter, and foraging habitat. 

The substrate and interstitial spaces 

have minimal sedimentation. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2ER18AU21.160</GPH>

Georgetown Salamander 

Critical Habitat Unit 9 

• Surface Critical --- Rivers 

Habitat Unit Boundary =streets 

2z.i Subsurface Critical 

Habitat Unit Boundary 

0 1,000 2,000 

----=====:::::JFeet ---i=:==::::J Meters 

0 250 500 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46571 

(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The 

spring environment is capable of 

supporting a diverse aquatic 

invertebrate community that includes 

crustaceans, insects, and aquatic snails. 

(D) Subterranean aquifer. Access to 

the subsurface water table exists to 

provide shelter, protection, and space 

for reproduction. This access can occur 

in the form of large conduits that carry 

water to the spring outlet or porous 

voids between rocks in the streambed 

that extend down into the water table. 

(ii) For subsurface habitat: 

(A) Water from the Northern Segment 

of the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater 

quality is similar to natural aquifer 

conditions. Concentrations of water 

quality constituents and contaminants 

are below levels that could exert direct 

lethal or sublethal effects (such as 

effects to reproduction, growth, 

development, or metabolic processes), 

or indirect effects (such as effects to the 

Salado salamander’s prey base). 

Hydrologic regimes similar to the 

historical pattern of the specific sites are 

present, with continuous flow. The 

water chemistry is similar to natural 

aquifer conditions, with temperatures 

from 61 to 84 °F (16 to 29 °C), dissolved 

oxygen concentrations from 5 to 13 mg/ 

L, and specific water conductance from 

317 to 814 mS/cm. 

(B) Subsurface spaces. Voids between 

rocks underground are large enough to 

provide salamanders with cover, shelter, 

and foraging habitat. These spaces have 

minimal sedimentation. 

(C) Aquatic invertebrates for food. The 

habitat is capable of supporting an 

aquatic invertebrate community that 

includes crustaceans, insects, and 

aquatic snails. 

(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 September 17, 2021; 

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) Data layers defining map units 

were created using a geographic 

information system (GIS), which 

included species locations, roads, 

property boundaries, 2011 aerial 

photography, and U.S. Geological 

Survey 7.5′ quadrangles. Points were 

placed on the GIS. We delineated 

critical habitat unit boundaries by 

starting with the cave or spring point 

locations that are occupied by the 

salamanders. From these cave or springs 

points, we delineated a 984-ft (300-m) 

buffer to create the polygons that 

capture the extent to which we estimate 

the salamander populations exist 

through underground conduits. The 

polygons were then simplified to reduce 

the number of vertices, but still retain 

the overall shape and extent. 

Subsequently, polygons that were 

within 98 ft (30 m) of each other were 

merged together. Each new merged 

polygon was then revised to remove 

extraneous divots or protrusions that 

resulted from the merge process. The 

maps in this entry, as modified by any 

accompanying regulatory text, establish 

the boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. The coordinates or plot 

points or both on which each map is 

based are available to the public at the 

Service’s internet site at http://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ 

AustinTexas/, at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2020–0048, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Note: Index map follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2
46572 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Unit 4: IH–35 Unit. 

(i) Unit 4 consists of approximately 

175 ac (71 ha) of private, State, and City 

of Salado land located in southwestern 

Bell County, Texas, in the southern part 

of the Village of Salado. The unit 

extends along Salado Creek on both 

sides of Interstate Highway 35 (IH 35). 

The IH 35 right-of-way crosses Salado 

Creek and is owned by the Texas 

Department of Transportation. The unit 

is a mixture of residential and 

commercial properties on its eastern 

portion, with some undeveloped ranch 

land in the western part west of IH–35. 

(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2ER18AU21.161</GPH>

Index Map: Salado Salamander 

Critical Habitat 

## 

---

"', \ ,, 

' ( 

( 

, .. > 

I 

Bell and Williamson 

Counttes 

Buttermilk 

Creek-Salado 

Creek Watershed 

.. 

I, 

' J 

I 

I. 

Mustang 

Creek-5alado 

Creek 

watershed 

r .... " 

) J 

I I 

I I 

\ / i 

\(I I 

-Critieal Habitat Unit Boundaries 

,._.,12-dlgit Watershed Boundaries 

C:,County Boundary 

-Highways 

2 4 

Miles 

••== Kilometers 2 4 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46573 

(7) Unit 5: King’s Garden Main Spring 

Unit. 

(i) Unit 5 consists of approximately 68 

ac (28 ha) of private land in northern 

Williamson County, Texas. The unit is 

undeveloped land. 

(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2ER18AU21.162</GPH>

Salado Salamander 

Critical Habitat Unit 4 

- Surface Critical Habitat Unit Boundary - Highways 

2:i'?.. Subsurface.Crltk:al Habitat Unit Boundary = Streets 

__ ©_ -~iled --- Rivers 

Area 

-----~- W+E 

Bell County S 

2,000 ----==:::::::::::::::::i Feet 0 1,000 

----=:::::::::::::::i Meters 

0 300 600 
46574 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(8) Unit 6: Cobbs Spring Unit. 

(i) Unit 6 consists of approximately 68 

ac (28 ha) of private land located in 

northwestern Williamson County, 

Texas. The unit is undeveloped land. 

(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2ER18AU21.163</GPH>

Salado Salamander 

Critical Habitat Unit 5 

Bell County 

- Surface Critical Habllat Unit Boundary --- Rivers 

~ Subsurface Critical Habitat Unit Boundary = Streets 

c::I County Boundary 

0 1,000 2,000 --c::==::i Feet 

--c==:::iMeters 

0 300 600 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46575 

(9) Unit 7: Cowan Creek Spring Unit. 

(i) Unit 7 consists of approximately 68 

ac (28 ha) of private land located in 

west-central Williamson County, Texas. 

The northern portion of the unit is 

residential development; the remainder 

is undeveloped. 

(ii) Map of Unit 7 follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2ER18AU21.164</GPH>

Texas 

Salado Salamander 

Critical Habitat Unit 6 

I 

/ 

\ 

) 

l 

I 

✓ 

I 

I 

-Highways 

~ subsurface Critical Habitat Unit Boundary = Streets 

--- Rivers 

0 1,000 2,000 

--c:==::::JFeet 

--c:==::i Meters 

0 300 600 
46576 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(10) Unit 8: Walnut Spring Unit. 

(i) Unit 8 consists of approximately 68 

ac (28 ha) of private and Williamson 

County land located in west-central 

Williamson County, Texas. The western, 

eastern, and northeastern portions of the 

unit contain low-density residential 

development; the southern and northcentral portions are undeveloped. The 

extreme southeastern corner of the unit 

is part of Williamson County 

Conservation Foundation’s Twin 

Springs Preserve. 

(ii) Map of Units 8 and 9 follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2ER18AU21.165</GPH>

Texas 

Salado Salamander 

Critical Habitat Unit 7 

- Surface Critical Habitat Unit Boundary --- Rivers 

--~-- =Streets • W Subsurface Critical Habitat Unit Boundary 

=iled N o 500 1,000 + Feet --- W E 

Williamson County s --150c===::::i30~eters 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 46577 

(11) Unit 9: Twin Springs Unit. 

(i) Unit 9 consists of approximately 68 

ac (28 ha) of private and Williamson 

County land located in west-central 

Williamson County, Texas. The 

northern portion of the unit contains 

low-density residential development; 

the remainder of the unit is 

undeveloped. The majority of the unit is 

part of Williamson County Conservation 

Foundation’s Twin Springs Preserve. 

(ii) Map of Unit 9 is provided at 

paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry. 

(12) Unit 10: Bat Well Cave Unit. 

(i) Unit 10 consists of approximately 

68 ac (28 ha) of private land located in 

west-central Williamson County, Texas. 

The western, northern, and southern 

portion of the unit contains residential 

development. 

(ii) Map of Unit 10 follows: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2ER18AU21.166</GPH>

Texas 

Salado Salamander 

Critical Habitat Units 8 and 9 

- Surface Critical Habitat Unit Bounda,y --- Rivers 

~ subsurface Oitical Habitat Unit Boundary = Streets 

,,.~"'. • Detailed N o 500 1,000 

_ _ Area + --c::==iFeet - W E 

Williamson County --c:::::J Meters 

S O 150 300 
46578 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17600 Filed 8–17–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES2ER18AU21.167</GPH>

\ 

\ 

I 

l 

Texas 

Salado Salamander 

Critical Habitat Unit 10 

( 

I 

I 

I 

) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

J 

/ 

I 

I 

I 

/ 

P-0 Subsurface Critical Habitat Unit Boundary 

--- Rivers 

=Streets 

0 1,000 --.:====::i Feet 500 

--.:====:::J Meters 

0 150 300