Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal To List the Barton Springs Salamander as Endangered

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC22

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal To List

the Barton Springs Salamander as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to determine

endangered status for the Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum),

known only from Barton Springs in Zilker Park, Austin, Travis County,

Texas. The primary threat to this species is contamination of the

waters that feed Barton Springs due to the potential for catastrophic

events (such as petroleum or chemical spills) and chronic degradation

resulting from urban activities. Also of concern are disturbances to

the salamander's surface habitat (the waters in Barton Springs, Eliza

Pool, and Sunken Garden Springs) and reduced groundwater supplies

resulting from increased groundwater withdrawal. This proposal, if made

final, would implement Federal protection provided by the Act for the

Barton Springs salamander.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by April

18, 1994. Public hearing requests must be received by April 4, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be

sent to the State Administrator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 611

East 6th Street, room 407, Austin, Texas 78701. Comments and materials

received will be available for public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa O'Donnell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Biologist (see ADDRESSES section) (512/482-5436).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Service proposes to list as endangered the Barton Springs

salamander (Eurycea sosorum), under the authority of the Endangered

Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.). The

Barton Springs salamander is entirely aquatic and neotenic, meaning it

does not metamorphose into a terrestrial form and retains its bright

red external gills throughout life. Adults attain an average length of

6.35 centimeters (2.5 inches). This species is slender, with slightly

elongate limbs and reduced eyes. Dorsal coloration varies from pale

purplish-brown or gray to yellowish-cream. Irregular spacing of dorsal

pigments and pigment gaps results in a mottled, ``salt and pepper''

pattern (Sweet 1978, Chippindale et al. 1993).

The Barton Springs salamander was first collected from Barton

Springs Pool in 1946 by Bryce Brown and Alvin Flury (Chippindale et al.

1993, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 1993). Although he did

not publish a formal description, Dr. Samuel Sweet (University of

California at Santa Barbara) was the first to recognize the Barton

Springs salamander as distinct from other central Texas Eurycea

salamanders based on its restricted distribution and unique

morphological and skeletal characteristics (such as its reduced eyes,

elongate limbs, dorsal coloration, and reduced number of presacral

vertebrae) (Sweet 1978, 1984). Formal description of the Barton Springs

salamander, based on Sweet's work and genetic studies conducted by the

University of Texas and TPWD (TPWD 1989, 1990, 1992), was published in

June, 1993 (Chippindale et al. 1993). An adult male, collected from

Barton Springs Pool in November, 1992, was selected to be the holotype.

The Barton Springs salamander is found near three of four

hydrologically connected spring outlets collectively known as Barton

Springs (Brune 1981). These three spring outlets are known as

Parthenia, Eliza, and Sunken Garden springs and occur in Zilker Park,

which is owned and operated by the City of Austin. No salamanders have

been found at the fourth spring outlet, which is in Barton Creek

immediately above Barton Springs Pool (Paul Chippindale and Dr. David

Hillis, University of Texas at Austin; Dr. Andrew Price, TPWD; Sweet;

pers. comms., 1993). The area around the main spring outlet (Parthenia

Springs) was impounded in the late 1920's to create Barton Springs

Pool. Flows from Eliza and Sunken Garden springs are also retained by

concrete structures, forming small pools located on either side of

Barton Springs Pool. The salamander has been observed under gravel and

small rocks, submerged leaves, and algae; among aquatic vegetation; and

buried in organic debris, at depths of about 0.1 to 5 meters (0.3 to 16

feet) of water (Chippindale et al. 1993, TPWD 1993). It generally does

not occur on bare limestone surfaces or in silted areas (Dr. Charles

Sexton, City of Austin, Environmental Conservation Services Department,

unpublished data).

Hundreds of individuals were estimated to occur in Eliza Pool

during the 1970's (James Reddell, University of Texas at Austin, pers.

comm. in Chippindale et al. 1993). The numbers apparently declined over

the next decade. Fewer than a dozen and occasionally no individuals

were observed during surveys conducted in Eliza Pool between 1987 and

1992 (Chippindale et al. 1993; TPWD 1993; Price, unpubl. data).

The Barton Springs salamander was reportedly abundant among the

aquatic vegetation in the deep end of Barton Springs Pool in 1946

(Chippindale et al. 1993, TPWD 1993). Between 1989 and 1991, Sexton (in

litt., 1992) reported finding salamanders on ``about one out of four

[snorkeling] dives'' under rock rubble immediately adjacent to the main

spring outflows. On July 28, 1992, at least 50 salamanders (Hillis,

pers. comm., 1993) were found over an area of roughly 400 square meters

(4,300 square feet) near the spring outflows in Barton Springs Pool

(TPWD 1993). Following reports of a fish kill at Barton Springs Pool on

September 28, 1992 (Austin American Statesman, October 2, 1992; Daily

Texan, October 13, 1992), only 10 to 11 salamanders were observed and

could only be found in an area of about 5 square meters (54 square

feet) in the immediate vicinity of the Parthenia Spring outflows

(Chippindale et al. 1993, TPWD 1993). Since that event, the salamander

appears to be recolonizing Barton Springs Pool, which has been

attributed to recent changes in pool cleaning operations (see further

discussion under Factor A). At least 80 individuals were observed

during a November 16, 1992, survey and about 150 individuals were seen

on November 24, 1992 (Chippindale et al. 1993, TPWD 1993).

The salamander was first observed at Sunken Garden Springs on

January 12, 1993 (TPWD 1993). Five or fewer individuals have been

sighted on any given visit to this outlet (Chippindale, pers. comm.,

1993). Biologists had speculated that the salamander occurred at Sunken

Garden Springs; however, no salamanders were observed during previous

surveys conducted at this location between 1987 and 1992. Low water

levels and the presence of large rocks and sediment in the pool

reportedly make searching for salamanders difficult at this location

(TPWD 1993).

The extent to which the salamander occurs in the aquifer is

unknown. However, there is currently no evidence indicating that the

species' range extends beyond the immediate vicinity of Barton Springs.

Surveys of other spring outlets (including the spring outlet

immediately above Barton Springs Pool) in the Barton Springs segment

and other portions of the Edwards Aquifer have failed to locate

additional populations (Chippindale et al. 1993; William Russell,

speleologist; Hillis; Price; Sweet; pers. comms., 1993). No other

species of Eurycea is known to occur in this portion of the aquifer.

The Barton Springs salamander's diet is believed to consist almost

entirely of amphipods (Chippindale et al. 1993). Primary predators are

believed to be fish and crayfish (Chippindale, Hillis, Price, pers.

comm., 1993). Observations of larvae and females with eggs (Chippindale

et al. 1993) indicate successful breeding is occurring. The species may

breed year-round (Chippindale, pers. comm., 1993).

The water that discharges at Barton Springs originates from the

Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer (hereafter referred to as

the ``Barton Springs segment''). The Barton Springs segment covers

roughly 400 square kilometers (155 square miles) from southern Travis

County to northern Hays County, Texas. The approximate boundaries are

the ``bad water'' line to the east (where dissolved solids are less

than 1,000 milligrams/l (mg/l) (1,000 parts per million) in the

aquifer, but greater than this to the east); the Colorado River to the

north; the geologic divide between contiguous Edwards limestones

overlying the aquifer and the Glen Rose limestones to the west; and a

groundwater divide occurring roughly between the Onion Creek and Blanco

River watersheds to the south. The area south of the southern boundary

is known as the San Antonio segment of the Edwards Aquifer and drains

toward San Marcos Springs. Groundwater movement from the San Antonio

segment northward to the Barton Springs segment is believed to occur

only during extreme drought conditions. North of the southern boundary,

the water in the aquifer moves toward Barton Springs (Slade et al.

1986).

Barton Springs drains about 391 square kilometers (151 square

miles) of the Barton Springs segment. The remaining 10 square

kilometers (4 square miles) discharge at Cold and Deep Eddy Springs and

are believed to be hydrologically distinct from the area discharging to

Barton Springs. Cold and Deep Eddy Springs are recharged by Dry Creek

and a portion of Barton Creek. About 96 percent of all springflow from

the aquifer discharges through Barton Springs. The remaining 4 percent

exits through intermittent springs, most of which are located in Barton

Creek between Loop 360 and Barton Springs. These springs flow only

about 30 percent of the time and discharge up to 170 liters per second

(l/s) (6 cubic feet per second (cfs)). The long-term mean discharge

from Barton Springs is about 1,400 l/s (50 cfs), ranging from 283 l/s

(10 cfs) to 4,700 l/s (166 cfs) (Slade et al. 1986). The mean water

temperature is 20 deg.C (68 deg.F) (Martyn-Baker et al. 1992).

The Barton Springs segment is divided into two major zones, the

recharge zone and artesian zone. The recharge zone is that portion of

the aquifer where Edwards limestones are exposed at the surface, and

covers the western 79 percent (about 233 square kilometers (90 square

miles)) of the aquifer. The artesian zone is confined by an impermeable

layer of Del Rio clay and covers the eastern 21 percent of the aquifer.

About 85 percent of all recharge is through sinkholes, fractures, and

other openings in the beds of six major creeks that cross the recharge

zone, including (from north to south) Barton, Williamson, Slaughter,

Bear, Little Bear, and Onion creeks. The remaining 15 percent of

recharge is through tributaries and direct infiltration between the

creeks (Slade et al. 1986).

The watersheds of the six creeks upstream (west) of the recharge

zone span about 684 square kilometers (264 square miles). This area is

referred to as the contributing zone and includes portions of Travis,

Hays, and Blanco counties. The recharge and contributing zones make up

the total area that provides water to the aquifer, which equals about

917 square kilometers (354 square miles) (Slade et al. 1986).

Based on streamflow studies, Onion Creek and Barton Creek

contribute the greatest percentages of total recharge to the aquifer

(34 percent and 28 percent, respectively). Williamson, Slaughter, Bear,

and Little Bear creeks each contribute 12 percent or less to total

recharge. Owing to the amount of recharge contributed by Barton Creek

and its proximity to Barton Springs, this creek has a greater impact on

the water quality at the springs than any other recharge source in the

Barton Springs segment (Slade et al. 1986).

The potential of the Edwards Aquifer to rapidly transmit large

volumes of water with little filtration makes it highly susceptible to

pollution (Slade et al. 1986). The Edwards Aquifer is a ``karst''

aquifer, characterized by subsurface features such as caves, sinkholes,

and other conduits. The aquifer is made up of limestones that have high

localized permeability and porosity. Dissolution of calcium carbonate

along faults and fractures in the bedrock forms solution channels

similar to an underground network of pipes. Because these subsurface

``pipes'' are not uniformly distributed, groundwater movement in the

aquifer is highly variable, being rapid in areas where the ``pipes''

are large and extensive and slow where permeability and porosity are

low. Transmissivity (the rate at which groundwater is transmitted

through the aquifer) values for the Barton Springs segment have been

estimated at 0.3 to 4,000 square meters (3 to 47,000 square feet) per

day and tend to increase as one moves northward toward the springs

(Slade et al. 1985).

Karst aquifers are also more prone to pollution than other aquifers

because few materials (such as sand, gravel, and organic matter) are

present to filter out pollutants (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) 1990). Furthermore, waters entering from the surface receive

little filtration from the typically thin soils overlying the aquifer

(Slade et al. 1986). As a result, increasing urban development over the

area supplying recharge waters to the Barton Springs segment can

threaten water quality within the aquifer. The Texas Water Commission

(TWC) has identified the Edwards Aquifer as being one of the most

sensitive aquifers in Texas to groundwater pollution (TWC 1989;

Margaret Hart, TWC, in litt., 1991).

The Barton Springs salamander has been a Category 2 candidate

species on the Service's candidate notices of review since December 30,

1982 (47 FR 58454; September 18, 1985-50 FR 37958; January 6, 1989-54

FR 554; and November 21, 1991-56 FR 58804), meaning that information

then available indicated that a proposal to determine endangered or

threatened status was possibly appropriate, but conclusive data on

biological vulnerability and threats were not then available to support

such a proposal. Through publication of the candidate notices, the

Service requests any additional status information that may be

available. On January 22, 1992, the Service received a petition from

Dr. Mark Kirkpatrick and Ms. Barbara Mahler to list the Barton Springs

salamander. The Service evaluated this petition and on November 25,

1992, determined that the petition presented information on threats

indicating that the requested action may be warranted. A notice of that

finding was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 1992 (57

FR 58779). The Service continued its status review of the species and

solicited information regarding the status of the salamander. Although

the Federal Register notice requested that comments be submitted by

January 11, 1993, the Service sent out numerous notification letters

indicating that it recognized additional time may be needed and

requesting that pertinent information be submitted by February 10,

1993. This proposed rule constitutes the final finding on the

petitioned action for the Barton Springs salamander.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

The Service received 205 letters from individuals and agencies

providing information and comments on the petition and the 90-day

finding. Of the letters received, 104 were form letters stating

opposition to listing, 80 were other letters opposing listing, 14

supported listing, and 7 were neutral. Some of the letters provided

additional new, substantive information, which was considered in making

a final determination on the petition. Major comments of a similar

nature or point are grouped into a number of general issues and are

presented and discussed here.

Issue 1: Several commenters requested that the Service delay or

preclude listing the Barton Springs salamander because too little is

known about the salamander's biology, including factors such as its

range, population size and status, dietary needs, predators, longevity,

reproductive success, and sensitivity to contaminants and other water

quality constituents.

Response: The known range of the Barton Springs salamander is based

on the most recent information available, including status surveys

conducted by the University of Texas at Austin and TPWD pursuant to

section 6 of the Act, and through personal communication with

biologists who conducted surveys at other springs in central Texas. No

new information was provided to contradict the finding that the

salamander is endemic to the immediate vicinity of Barton Springs.

Regarding other aspects of the species' biology, such as its population

status, the Act requires a species to be determined endangered or

threatened if one or more of the five factors described in section

4(a)(1) causes it to qualify under the Act's definition. Absolute

population number may not be as significant in determining whether a

species is endangered or threatened as knowledge that the species'

entire range is threatened and cannot be preserved (see Factor A, ``The

present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its

habitat or range,'' and Factor D, ``The inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms''). Although there are still biological questions

regarding the Barton Springs salamander, the Service believes that the

available scientific information is sufficient for status determination

and strongly supports the need to designate the salamander as an

endangered species. The data that support this conclusion are presented

and discussed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species''

section of this rule, particularly under Factor A (loss of habitat).

Available information on the sensitivity of the salamander and its prey

base (amphipods) to water quality deterioration is discussed under

Factors A and E (``Other natural or manmade factors affecting its

continued existence''). Once a species becomes listed as threatened or

endangered, section 4(f) of the Act directs the Service to develop and

implement a recovery plan for that species. Recovery is the process by

which the decline of a listed species is arrested or reversed, and

threats to its survival are eliminated or neutralized, so that its

long-term survival in nature can be ensured. Further research is very

often an essential component of recovery plans. The Service envisions

that conducting research on the salamander's biology and other factors,

such as those mentioned in this comment, will be an important part of

the recovery process for this species (see Available Conservation

Measures).

Issue 2: Several individuals questioned the taxonomic status of the

salamander, asserting that it is still an undescribed species and may

be part of the central Texas salamander (Eurycea neotenes) complex.

Response: Formal description of the salamander as a distinct

species has withstood peer-review and was published in June, 1993 (see

discussion in the Background section).

Issue 3: Several commenters stated that water quality data at

Barton Springs show no demonstrable deterioration, despite development

immediately upstream from the springs, much of which occurred prior to

implementation of water quality controls.

Response: The Service recognizes that, other than high levels of

fecal-group bacteria and turbidity immediately following storm events,

water quality at Barton Springs is considered to be very good. However,

only about 3 to 4 percent of the recharge and contributing zones is

currently developed. As urban development over the recharge and

contributing zones increases, the threat of water quality degradation

from point-source and non-point-source pollution will increase. The

threat of increased urbanization over these areas and impacts on water

quality in the aquifer and at Barton Springs are discussed in Factor A.

Issue 4: Most commenters opposed to the listing stated that

existing State and local rules and regulations are adequate to protect

the salamander and its habitat from groundwater degradation and

depletion.

Response: This issue is presented and discussed in Factor D. The

Service recognizes that there are several rules and regulations aimed

at protecting water quality and quantity within the aquifer, and that

these rules and regulations will provide some benefits to the Barton

Springs salamander if adequately enforced. However, no information was

presented to show that these existing rules and regulations will ensure

long-term protection of water quality and quantity at Barton Springs

and will be adequate to protect the salamander and its habitat.

Furthermore, there are no assurances that the existing rules and

regulations will remain in place and be enforced. Regarding water

quantity, the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District (BS/

EACD) has limited enforcement authority and does not regulate 30 to 40

percent of the total volume that is pumped from the Barton Springs

segment.

Issue 5: Several individuals expressed concern that listing the

salamander could impose restrictions on the recreational use of Barton

Springs Pool.

Response: This issue is discussed under Factor B (``Overutilization

for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes'').

There is currently no evidence suggesting that swimming in Barton

Springs Pool will adversely impact the Barton Springs salamander. The

Service maintains the position that if pool maintenance activities are

conducted in such a way as to avoid impacting the salamander and its

habitat (such as avoiding the application of chemicals and the use of

high pressure fire hoses to clean areas inhabited by salamanders), then

activities associated with swimming at Barton Springs Pool should not

disturb the salamander.

Issue 6: The salamander has persisted despite past droughts, low

springflows, and pollution events over the aquifer and its contributing

zone and at Barton Springs (elevated fecal coliform bacteria and

turbidity).

Response: The Service acknowledges that these events have occurred

and that the frequency of such events is likely to increase with

increasing development over the aquifer and its contributing zone.

Although the salamander has survived these past events, the point at

which declining water quality and quantity would cause extinction of

the salamander is uncertain. Amphibians in general are highly sensitive

to changes in water chemistry, and the salamander's restricted range

makes it especially vulnerable to water quality deterioration. A major

pollution event has the potential of eliminating the entire species

and/or its prey base. Amphipods, which comprise most of the

salamander's diet, are especially sensitive to water pollution (see

discussion in Factor E).

Issue 7: A few commenters stated that the threat of declining

aquifer levels is not substantial at Barton Springs and, in any event,

no demonstrable evidence exists that lowered aquifer levels will cause

a threat to the continued existence of the salamander.

Response: This issue is addressed in Factor A. Although the Service

recognizes that cessation of flows is not likely at Barton Springs in

the near future, increased groundwater withdrawal and resulting reduced

flows are expected due to increasing urbanization over the aquifer.

Reduced aquifer levels may lead to the encroachment of the ``bad

water'' line and increased concentrations of pollutants in the aquifer.

Issue 8: Many individuals opposed listing of the salamander on the

grounds that listing would undermine the success of the Balcones

Canyonlands Conservation Plan (BCCP).

Response: The BCCP currently proposes to acquire land in the Barton

Creek watershed, which will provide some benefits to the salamander by

preserving the natural integrity of the landscape and positively

contributing to water quality in Barton Creek and Barton Springs. The

BCCP participants are currently working toward providing additional

water quality protection for the Barton Springs salamander, including

retrofitting of existing developments with non-point-source pollution

control structures and protecting the aquifer and Barton Springs from

catastrophic pollution events (see discussion in Factor D).

Issue 9: Some commenters expressed concern regarding economic

impacts of listing the salamander and stated that economic impacts

should be considered.

Response: Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the listing process

must be based solely on the best scientific information available, and

economic considerations are not applicable. The legislative history of

the Act clearly states the intent of Congress to ``ensure'' that

listing decisions are ``based solely upon biological criteria and to

prevent non-biological considerations from affecting such decisions''

(H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 97-835 for the 1982 amendments). Because the

Service is specifically precluded from considering economic impacts in

the listing process, the Service has not addressed such impacts in

proposing to list this species.

Issue 10: The Service received one comment letter requesting that

the Barton Springs salamander be emergency listed.

Response: In accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the Act, a species

may be listed as threatened or endangered on an emergency basis if a

significant risk to the well-being of the species is identified.

Although the Service has determined that multiple threats to the

salamander exist (see discussion in ``Summary of Factors'' section),

the Service is not able to justify an emergency determination since

these threats are not of such an immediate nature that the delay during

the period between this proposed rule and any final rule might pose a

significant risk to the well-being of the species.

Issue 11: A few commenters questioned the validity of the

information and findings presented in several reports prepared by the

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (including Slade et al. 1985 and 1986,

Veenhuis and Slade 1990).

Response: The Service has reviewed the USGS reports used in

preparation of this rule and has determined that the data were gathered

and analyzed in accordance with sound scientific principles. The

Service accepts these reports as valid and relevant scientific

information and accepts their findings.

Issue 12: A few individuals cited a 1922 report stating that

elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria have been documented at

Barton Springs since 1922 (T.U. Taylor, Austin City Water Survey, in

litt., 1922).

Response: According to the City of Austin's review of the 1922

report, the method used to measure bacterial counts at the time the

report was prepared is different from that used today, and thus ``the

bacterial counts are not directly comparable to * * * current

sampling'' techniques (Austin Librach, City of Austin Environmental

Conservation Services Department, in litt., 1991). Elevated counts

during the 1920's may have been due to ranching activities or poor

sanitary disposal of human wastes, as well as natural sources (Librach,

in litt., 1991).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act and regulations (50 CFR

part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act

set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A

species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due

to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These

factors and their application to the Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea

sosorum) are as follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. The primary threat to the Barton

Springs salamander is contamination of the waters that feed Barton

Springs. A discussion of some potential effects of contaminants on the

salamander and its prey base (amphipods) is provided in this section

and under Factor D. Potential factors contributing to contamination of

this portion of the Edwards Aquifer are catastrophic events (such as

hazardous material spills) and chronic degradation resulting from urban

activities. Water quality degradation can result from point-source and/

or non-point-source pollution. Point-source pollution originates from

identifiable areas, such as leaking pipelines. Non-point-source

pollution enters the water supply through diffuse sources, such as

runoff from urban areas. The EPA (1990) and TWC (1989) have identified

several major potential sources of groundwater contamination, including

leaking underground storage tanks, pipelines, septic tanks, and

pesticide and fertilizer use. Other threats to the salamander are

disturbances to its surface habitat and reduced groundwater supplies

owing to increased groundwater withdrawal.

Due to the Barton Springs salamander's restricted range, one or

more catastrophic spills has the potential to impact the entire species

and its habitat. Catastrophic spills may result from leaking

underground storage tanks, pipeline ruptures, transportation accidents,

and/or other sources. Spilled materials reported to the TWC for Travis

and Hays counties between 1986 and 1992 included oils, sewage,

pesticides, ammonia, sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, ferrous

sulfate, trichloroethane, and perchloroethene. About a third of the

spills involved gasoline or diesel fuel, most of which resulted from

underground storage tank leaks and transportation accidents. Leaking

underground storage tanks ``are considered to be one of the most

significant sources of groundwater contamination'' in Texas (TWC 1989).

The Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) (1987) has estimated that

thousands of underground storage tanks in Texas may be leaking.

According to the EPA (1990), ``a growing problem of substantial

potential consequences is leakage from underground storage tanks and

from pipelines leading to them * * * gasoline leakage has caused severe

hazardous difficulties throughout the nation.'' The EPA (in TWC 1989)

has estimated that at least 25 percent of the underground storage tanks

in Texas ``will ultimately be confirmed as leakers.''

According to the TWC (1989), ``substances spilled on the land

surface can be a serious threat if the surface and subsurface materials

are sufficiently permeable to permit downward movement'' and if spilled

materials are not promptly or adequately remediated. Transportation

accidents involving hazardous materials at bridge crossings are of

particular concern, since creek beds can transport spilled materials

directly into the aquifer. For example, if a contaminant spill occurred

at the Loop 360 bridge crossing over Barton Creek, less than 5

kilometers (3 miles) south of Barton Springs, the contaminant could

reach Barton Springs within hours. The Barton Springs Task Force report

to the TWC (City of Austin 1991) states that ``the major fault that

creates the discharge for Barton Springs crosses Barton Creek in the

vicinity of Loop 360 and appears to be a significant point of recharge

which may provide direct transmission, similar to pipe flow, to the

Springs.'' Loop 360 provides a major route for transportation of

petroleum and gasoline products to service stations in the Austin area.

Oil pipeline ruptures also represent a potential source of

groundwater contamination. Three oil pipelines run roughly parallel to

each other across the Barton Springs segment and its contributing zone

and cross Barton Creek near the Hays/Travis county line. Two of these

lines ruptured within the recharge zone during the 1980's, about 13

kilometers (8 miles) south of Barton Springs. These two spills

constitute the largest spills reported from Hays and Travis counties

between 1986 and 1992 (TWC, unpubl. data). The first major spill

occurred in 1986, about 270 meters (300 yards) from Slaughter Creek,

when an oil pipeline was severed during a construction operation and

released about 366,000 liters (96,600 gallons) of oil. The equipment

necessary to contain the spill was on-site at the time the spill

occurred (Russell 1987), and about 91 percent of the spill was

recovered (Rose 1986). The second pipeline break occurred in 1987 near

the first spill site and released over 185,000 liters (49,000 gallons)

of oil. According to the TWC database, more than 97 percent of this

spill was recovered (TWC, unpubl. data). Although the effects of these

two spills on the Barton Springs salamander are unknown, similar spills

that are not immediately remediated could adversely impact the

salamander and its habitat.

Peter Rose (1986), a geologist who has studied the effects of

pipeline oil spills on the Edwards Aquifer, has estimated that oil

spills of 160,000 liters (42,000 gallons) or more pose a ``reasonable

danger'' of entering and contaminating the Edwards Aquifer. ``Free oil

entering an unconfined aquifer would be expected to spread and travel

in the direction of water flow, emerging eventually at springs * * *''

(Rose 1986). Oil is highly toxic to aquatic life (Pyastolova and

Danilova 1987). A study of the effects of oil on the sharp-snouted frog

(Rana arvalis) showed that ``the presence of crude oil in an aquatic

environment, even in small amounts (0.05 ml/l) exerts an unfavorable

influence on both embryonic and larval development'' of the frog,

including increased mortality and appearance of deformities (Pyastolova

and Danilova 1987). Because of physiological similarities among

amphibian larvae, the Barton Springs salamander may exhibit similar or

possibly more severe reactions.

The conveyance and treatment of sewage in the watershed,

particularly in the recharge zone, may also result in the impairment of

local water quality and negative effects to the Barton Springs

salamander. In 1982, high levels of fecal coliform bacteria at Barton

Springs were attributed to a sewerline leak upstream from Barton

Springs Pool. While fecal coliform bacteria are believed to be

harmless, they may indicate the presence of other organisms that are

pathogenic to aquatic life (Slade et al. 1986), some of which may pose

a threat to salamanders and/or their prey base. The USGS has stated

that because ``there are many sewerlines near the springs, fecal

coliform contamination of the springs may be a recurring problem''

(Slade et al. 1986). There are over 145 kilometers (90 miles) of

wastewater lines in the recharge zone of the Barton Springs segment

(Maureen McReynolds, City of Austin Water and Wastewater Utility, pers.

comm., 1993).

Once an aquifer is contaminated, it can be very difficult to

remediate. TDA (1987) maintains that ``contaminated groundwater can be

extremely difficult and expensive, and in some cases even impossible,

to clean up. The only way to maintain groundwater quality is to prevent

contamination in the first place.'' Regarding the effects of oil

pipeline spills on the Edwards Aquifer, ``* * * for all practical

purposes, once spilled oil has been introduced into a cavernous

carbonate aquifer, only time and nature can take care of the cleanup

job'' (Rose 1986).

Major contaminant spills that are not quickly remediated could

enter the aquifer and contaminate the waters feeding Barton Springs.

Response times to hazardous materials spills vary, depending on several

factors, including detection capability, location and size of the

spill, weather conditions, whether or not the spill is reported, and

the party performing the cleanup. Generally, cleanup is initiated

within several hours following detection of a spill, but many weeks may

be necessary to complete the effort. In some cases in Travis County,

cleanup of leaking storage tanks was not initiated until two months

following leak detection (Philip Winsborough, TWC, pers. comm., 1993).

In other cases, such as the oil pipeline ruptures that occurred within

the recharge zone, cleanup was initiated the same day the spill was

detected and completed the following day.

Chronic water quality degradation of the aquifer resulting from

increasing urban activities (including roadway, residential,

commercial, and industrial development) may also lead to contamination

of the waters feeding Barton Springs (see also discussion under Factor

D). Because of the characteristics of karst aquifers discussed in the

Background section, Barton Springs is believed to be ``heavily

influenced by the quality and quantity of runoff,'' particularly in the

recharge zone (City of Austin 1991). A report by USGS (Veenhuis and

Slade 1990) on the relationship between urbanization and surface water

quality in several streams throughout the Austin area (10 of 18 sample

sites were along streams in the Barton Springs segment and its

contributing zone) demonstrates that increases in impervious cover can

lead to large increases in pollutant runoff. This is indicated in

several streams with increased levels of suspended solids, biochemical

oxygen demand, total organic carbon, total nitrogen, total phosphorus,

fecal-group bacteria, inorganic trace elements, and synthetic

compounds. A preliminary review of water quality data for 15 wells in

the Barton Springs segment also suggests that increasing impervious

cover has resulted in increased concentrations of certain water quality

constituents in the groundwater, including total nitrogen and total

phosphorus (USGS 1992). These changes in groundwater quality may

indicate future water quality changes at Barton Springs as development

increases across the recharge and contributing zones.

Of the six creeks providing recharge to Barton Springs, Barton

Creek has received the most intense development. The TWC has identified

nutrients, fecal coliform bacteria, sediment, oil, and grease in Barton

Creek, originating from rangeland, golf course runoff, highway

construction, and highway runoff (Barbara Britton, TWC, in litt.,

1992). Increases in fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients (nitrogen and

phosphorus), turbidity, and algal growth have been documented along

Barton Creek between Highway 71 and Loop 360 and are primarily due to

sewage effluent irrigation and construction activities in this area

(City of Austin 1991; Librach, in litt., 1990). Changes in the aquatic

invertebrate community along this portion of Barton Creek have also

been attributed to golf course runoff (Librach, in litt., 1990) and

insecticide use (Dr. Chris Durden, Texas Memorial Museum, in litt.,

1991). These reported changes are significant because water quality at

Barton Springs responds rapidly to changes in the quality of water

contributed by Barton Creek. Groundwater originating from Barton Creek

remains in the aquifer for short periods before discharging at the

springs. Thus, there is little time for dilution or chemical breakdown

of pollutants before discharging at Barton Springs (Slade et al. 1986).

Existing land use in the recharge and contributing zones has

resulted in recurring fecal-group bacteria contamination and high

turbidity (a measure of suspended solids or sediment) at Barton Springs

(Slade et al. 1986). Data suggest that bacteria and turbidity at Barton

Springs increase significantly during storm events. Stormwater runoff

has been identified as the major source of fecal coliform pollution at

Barton Springs (City of Austin 1991). The level of nitrates at Barton

Springs has also increased slightly from about 1.0 mg/l (measured as

nitrate nitrogen) prior to 1955 to the current level of about 1.5 mg/l

(Slade et al. 1986). Increased nutrients may promote the growth of

bacteria, algae, and nuisance aquatic plants (Slade et al. 1986), which

could reduce the dissolved oxygen available to the salamander. In

Barton Springs Pool, the routine cleaning procedure necessary to remove

algal growth may itself adversely impact the salamander and its habitat

(see further discussion later in this section).

High turbidity at Barton Springs has been attributed to

construction activity in the Barton Springs segment (Slade et al. 1986,

City of Austin 1991). Sources of turbidity are believed to be

``primarily limited to 126 square miles [326 square kilometers] of the

Barton Creek and immediately adjacent watersheds in the recharge zone''

(City of Austin 1991). Sediments have been observed emanating directly

from the spring outlets in Barton Springs Pool (Doyle Mosier, LCRA;

Debbie Dorsey, City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department; pers.

comms., 1993). Potential problems resulting from increased sediment

loads include (1) reduction of the salamander's habitat by covering

substrates on which salamanders, their prey, and/or certain aquatic

plants occur; (2) clogging of the salamander's gills, causing

asphyxiation (Garton 1977), and smothering of eggs; (3) filling and

blocking of underground conduits, restricting groundwater availability

and movement; and (4) exposure of aquatic life to certain heavy metals

and other toxins that readily bind to sediments. Contaminants that

adsorb to the surface of sediments may be transported through the

aquifer and later be released back into the water column.

Aside from high levels of fecal-group bacteria and turbidity

immediately following storm events, the water quality at Barton Springs

is considered to be very good (Slade et al. 1986, City of Austin 1991).

However, only about 3 to 4 percent of the recharge and contributing

zones is currently developed (USGS 1992), and both of these areas are

under increasing pressure from urbanization (City of Austin 1988,

Veenhuis and Slade 1990). The City of Austin has projected that the

Austin metropolitan area will support a population of about 1.9 million

by the year 2020, up from 577,000 in 1982 (City of Austin Planning

Department, in Veenhuis and Slade 1990). Further development or

urbanization in the recharge and contributing zones of the Barton

Springs segment is likely to increase the chance of a major pollution

event as well as chronic water quality decline in this area and thus

increase the levels of pollutants reaching Barton Creek, other creeks

serving as recharge paths, and Barton Springs (see also discussion

under Factor D). The USGS (1992) has stated that ``much development is

projected for the source area of Barton Springs * * *. [Thus] changes

in water quality of Barton Springs * * * [are] possible in the near

future.''

Water quality is highly variable throughout the Barton Springs

segment and waters flowing from Barton Springs represent a mixture of

these waters, originating primarily from the six streams crossing the

recharge zone. Although much development has occurred along Barton

Creek near Barton Springs, these waters are diluted by recharge waters

from less developed watersheds, such as Onion Creek. Little development

has occurred along Onion Creek, which, although farthest from the

springs, contributes about 34 percent of the recharge waters (Slade et

al. 1986). According to the Capital Area Planning Council (CAPCO), Hays

County experienced ``tremendous growth'' in the 1980's and has the

second highest growth rate in the 10-county CAPCO region. Dripping

Springs, which is located in the contributing zone between Onion Creek

and Barton Creek, ``will likely continue to experience a high rate of

growth as development continues along U.S. 290 from the Oak Hill area

westward'' (CAPCO 1990). As development across these watersheds

increases, the ability of the aquifer to dilute pollutants will

continue to decrease. This decreased ability will likely be further

compounded by increased pumping and/or drought conditions.

Another threat to the salamander is the degradation of its surface

habitat, particularly at Barton Springs Pool and Eliza Pool. Following

reports of a fish kill in Barton Springs Pool on September 28, 1992

(Austin American Statesman, October 2, 1992; Daily Texan, October 13,

1992), the salamander's surface range contracted from about a 400

square meter (4,300 square foot) area to about a 5 square meter (50

square foot) area immediately around the outflow of the spring (see

discussion in Background). The fish kill has been attributed to the

improper application of chlorine used to clean Barton Springs Pool

(Chippindale et al. 1993, TPWD 1993). Previous fish kills, although

rare events, have also occurred at Barton Springs Pool (Robert

Sapronyi, City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department, pers. comm.,

1992). Other cleaning procedures and park operations that may have had

adverse impacts on the salamander and its surface habitat include

lowering the water levels in Barton Springs Pool and Eliza Pool for

cleaning, use of high pressure fire hoses in areas where salamanders

are found, and removal of aquatic vegetation from Eliza Pool. Runoff

from the area above Eliza Pool, which includes a maintenance area and

concession stand for the Zilker Eagle train, may also have contributed

to the decline in numbers of salamanders found at this location.

Following the September 28 fish kill, the City of Austin

discontinued the use of chlorine to clean Barton Springs Pool and Eliza

Pool. The City of Austin is continuing to revise its pool maintenance

practices in order to protect the salamander and its habitat, as well

as maintain a safe environment for swimmers (Camille Barnett, City of

Austin, in litt., 1993). Cleaning practices at Eliza Pool and other

park operations near this pool are also being reevaluated.

Another change that has been observed at Barton Springs is the loss

of aquatic vascular plants in Barton Springs Pool, where salamanders

were reportedly abundant in 1946. The plants disappeared during the

late 1980's (Chippindale et al. 1993). The cause of the disappearance

is unknown and may be due to changes in water quality originating

upstream (such as increased turbidity), certain pool maintenance

operations, and/or other factors. Aquatic plants are important because

they provide cover where salamanders can hide from predators. Amphipods

and other invertebrates that form the diet of salamanders also depend

on aquatic vegetation (Hillis and Chippindale 1992).

Reduced water levels in the Barton Springs segment could also

adversely impact the Barton Springs salamander. The volume of

springflow is self-regulated by the level of water in the aquifer.

Discharge decreases as water storage in the aquifer drops, which

historically has been due primarily to the lack of recharging rains

rather than groundwater withdrawal for public consumption (Slade et al.

1986). Reduced aquifer levels may lead to the movement of water with

high levels of total dissolved solids from the ``bad water'' zone to

the freshwater zone of the Barton Springs segment, including Barton

Springs (Slade et al. 1986). The increased concentration of dissolved

solids resulting from this encroachment of ``bad water'' could have

negative impacts on the plants and animals associated with Barton

Springs. Reduced groundwater levels would also increase the

concentration of pollutants in the aquifer.

The potential for ``bad water'' encroachment is increased with (a)

pumpage of the aquifer and (b) extended low recharge or low flow

conditions (Slade et al. 1986). Barton Springs lies near the ``bad

water'' line. Under low flow conditions, Barton Springs and a well near

the ``bad water'' line (YD-58-50-216) show increased dissolved solid

concentrations, particularly sodium and chloride, indicating that some

encroachment of ``bad water'' has occurred at Barton Springs in the

past (Slade et al. 1986).

According to the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation

District (BS/EACD) (1990), pumpage from the aquifer has increased in

recent years, resulting in decreased discharges from Barton Springs.

The USGS has stated that groundwater withdrawal in the area is expected

to increase because of further urbanization in outlying areas of

Austin. Currently, discharge from the Barton Springs segment

(withdrawal plus springflow) is roughly equal to recharge. Thus, an

increase in groundwater withdrawal is likely to cause a decrease in the

quantity of water in the aquifer and discharge from Barton Springs

(Slade et al. 1986). Based on the current population projection, water

demands could almost double by the year 2000 (from about 470 hectare-

meters/year (3,800 acre-feet/year) in 1982 to about 760 hectare-meters/

year (6,200 acre-feet/year)) (Slade et al. 1986).

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. No threat from overutilization of this species is

known to exist at this time. Several citizens have expressed concern

over impacts to the salamander from recreational use of Barton Springs

Pool for swimming. However, no evidence exists to indicate that

swimming in Barton Springs Pool poses a threat to the salamander

population. Provided that pool maintenance activities do not adversely

impact the salamander and its habitat (see discussion under Factor A),

swimming at Barton Springs Pool is not likely to disturb the

salamander.

C. Disease or predation. Certain naturally occurring populations as

well as captive individuals of Eurycea neotenes have shown symptoms of

redleg, a bacterial (Aeromonas sp.) infection (Sweet 1978). The Barton

Springs salamander may also be susceptible to this disease, although no

diseases or parasites of the Barton Springs salamander have been

reported. Primary predators of the Barton Springs salamander are

believed to be fish and crayfish; however, no information exists to

indicate that predation poses a major threat to this species.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. No existing

rules or regulations specifically require protection of the Barton

Springs salamander or its habitat. The salamander is not included on

the TPWD's list of threatened and endangered species, and thus the

species is not afforded protection by that agency. Several individuals

who provided comments on the 90-day finding stated that existing state

and local regulations are sufficient to mitigate potential water

quality threats resulting from development activities in the Barton

Springs segment and contributing zone. However, while there are many

existing rules and regulations in place that will likely contribute

positively to water quality and quantity, there are no assurances that

they are adequate to protect the salamander and its habitat.

Furthermore, whether the existing rules and regulations can provide

long-term protection of the quality and quantity of the waters feeding

Barton Springs is unknown.

There are few measures in place to prevent the risk of hazardous

material spills across the recharge and contributing zones. No

regulations prohibit the transportation of hazardous materials across

the Barton Springs segment (Tom Word, Texas Department of

Transportation (TxDOT), pers. comm., 1993), and few existing roads have

water quality control structures (such as hazardous materials traps,

sediment basins, and filters) to protect against non-point-source

pollution and chemical spills (Shyra Darr, Travis County Public

Improvements and Transportation Department (PITD), in litt., 1993;

Barnett, in litt., 1993; Roland Gamble, TxDOT, in litt., 1993). Travis

County and TxDOT have agreed to install water quality devices on new

State and county roadway construction projects in the recharge zone

(Barnett, in litt., 1993; David Pimentel, PITD, in litt., 1993; Gamble,

in litt., 1993). However, no program is currently in place to retrofit

these water quality control structures on existing roadways in the

Barton Springs segment (Barnett, in litt., 1993). In addition, the

effectiveness of these water quality control structures has not yet

been determined (Gamble, in litt., 1993).

The major regulations affecting water quality in the Barton Springs

segment include the Edwards Rules (31 Texas Administrative Code,

Chapter 313), which are promulgated and enforced by the TWC, and the

City of Austin's water quality protective ordinances (Williamson Creek

Ordinance (1980), Barton Creek Watershed Ordinance (1981), Lower

Watersheds Ordinance (1981), Comprehensive Watersheds Ordinance (1986),

``Composite Ordinance'' (1991), and the ``Save Our Springs'' (``SOS'')

Ordinance (1992)). These ordinances are only implemented within

Austin's city limits and five-mile extra-territorial jurisdiction,

which is about a third of the entire area affecting Barton Springs.

Each ordinance includes impervious cover limitations, development

setbacks from water quality zones, erosion control measures, restricted

or prohibited development on steep slopes, and other water quality

protective measures. However, none of the ordinances include retrofit

provisions for existing developments or land use regulations (Barnett,

in litt., 1993). Furthermore, the ordinances can be rendered

ineffective by variance provisions and exemptions. The SOS Ordinance

requires greater impervious cover limitations, further development

restrictions in the water quality zones of Barton Creek, and

limitations of exemptions from the ordinance provisions, and will

attempt to reduce the risk of accidental contamination (Barnett, in

litt., 1993).

The Edwards Rules regulate construction-related activities on the

recharge zone that may ``alter or disturb the topographic, geologic, or

existing recharge characteristics of a site'' as well as any other

activity ``which may pose a potential for contaminating the Edwards

Aquifer,'' including sewage collection systems and hazardous materials

storage tanks. The Edwards Rules regulate construction activities

through review of Water Pollution Abatement Plans (WPAPs). The WPAPs do

not require site-specific water quality performance standards for

developments over the recharge zone nor do they address land use,

impervious cover limitations, or retrofitting for developments existing

prior to the implementation of the Rules. (Travis County was not

incorporated into the Rules until March, 1990; Hays County was

incorporated in 1984.) The WPAPs also do not regulate development

activities in the aquifer's contributing zone. As yet, the Edwards

Rules do not include a comprehensive plan to address the effects of

cumulative impacts on water quality in the aquifer.

The long-term success of the watershed ordinances and the Edwards

Rules in protecting water quality is unknown. Based on the water

quality data and changes observed in Barton Creek (see discussion under

Factor A), some level of water quality degradation in this area has

already occurred (City of Austin 1991; Librach, in litt., 1990). Even

if the Edwards Rules and the watershed ordinances are determined to be

effective at protecting water quality, about 50 percent of the area

(most of which occurs in Hays County) affecting the waters of the

aquifer and Barton Springs is not covered by these City and State rules

and regulations. Hays County recently filed a lawsuit against the City

of Austin to remove Hays County from the city's extra-territorial

jurisdiction, which would further reduce the area covered by the

watershed ordinances.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the SOS Ordinance or any of

the preceding ordinances will remain in effect. A lawsuit has been

filed to invalidate the SOS Ordinance. Several bills have also been

proposed in the Texas Legislature aimed at restricting local

environmental regulatory powers, and could prevent the City of Austin

and other local governments from implementing water quality protection

ordinances such as the SOS ordinance.

The Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan (BCCP) is being

developed for Travis County to obtain a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit

allowing incidental taking of certain endangered species. Parties

involved in the preparation of the BCCP are TPWD, City of Austin,

Travis County, and Lower Colorado River Authority. The current draft

regional plan does not explicitly provide for conservation of the

Barton Springs salamander (City of Austin et al. 1993). Proposals to

acquire land within the Barton Creek watershed will provide benefits to

the salamander by preserving the natural integrity of the landscape and

positively contributing to water quality in Barton Creek and Barton

Springs. The BCCP participants are currently working toward providing

additional surface and groundwater quality protection, including

retrofitting existing developments with non-point pollution controls

and protecting the aquifer and Barton Springs from catastrophic

pollution events. The BCCP has not yet been completed or approved and

applies only to Travis County. The BCCP does not remove threats from

development activities in Hays County.

While the City of Austin has voluntarily committed to revising pool

cleaning and other maintenance operations in Zilker Park to assist in

protecting the salamander and its surface habitat, no legal agreement

or other incentive is in place to ensure that these efforts will

continue for the long term.

To protect water quantity in the Barton Springs segment, the BS/

EACD has developed a Drought Contingency Plan. Barton Springs has

always flowed during recorded history and one of the BS/EACD's goals is

to assure Barton Springs springflow ``does not fall appreciably below

historic low levels'' (BS/EACD 1990). The BS/EACD regulates municipal

and industrial wells that pump more than 10,000 gallons per day (about

60-70 percent of the total volume that is pumped from the Barton

Springs segment) and has the ability to limit development of new wells,

impose water conservation measures, and curtail pumpage from these

wells during drought conditions. According to the BS/EACD (Bill Couch,

BS/EACD, pers. comm., 1992), water well production in the higher

elevations of the Barton Springs segment has been limited during

periods of lower aquifer levels in recent years. However, the ability

of the BS/EACD to ensure the plan's success is limited, since it has

limited enforcement authority and does not regulate 30 to 40 percent of

the total volume that is pumped from the Barton Springs segment.

Furthermore, the BS/EACD is not authorized to curtail groundwater

withdrawal specifically for the protection of the Barton Springs

salamander and its habitat.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. The very restricted range of the Barton Springs salamander

makes this species especially vulnerable to acute and/or chronic

groundwater contamination. Since the salamander is an aquatic species,

there is no possibility for escape from contamination or other threats

to its habitat. A single incident (such as a contaminant spill) has the

potential to eliminate the entire species and/or its prey base.

Crustaceans, particularly amphipods, on which the salamander feeds, are

especially sensitive to water pollution (Mayer and Ellersieck 1986).

Based on acute static toxicity data for 63 species tested against 174

chemicals, the Service (Mayer and Ellersieck 1986) has identified

amphipods as being the third most sensitive taxonomic group tested.

The effects of environmental contaminants on amphibians has not

been well documented, and the toxic effects of most chemicals is

unknown. However, current research indicates that amphibians,

particularly their eggs and larvae, are sensitive to many of the

pollutants that have been tested, such as heavy metals; certain

insecticides, particularly cyclodienes (endosulfan, endrin, toxaphene,

and dieldrin) and certain organophosphates (parathion, malathion);

nitrite; salts; and oil (Harfenist et al. 1989). Regarding pesticides,

Christine Bishop (Canadian Wildlife Service) states that ``the health

of amphibians can suffer from exposure to pesticides (Harfenist et al.

1989). Because of their semipermeable skin, the development of their

eggs and larvae in water, and their position in the food web,

amphibians can be exposed to waterborne and airborne pollutants in

their breeding and foraging habitats * * * [Furthermore] pesticides

probably change the quality and quantity of amphibian food and

habitat'' (Bishop and Pettit 1992). Toxic effects to amphibians from

pollutants may include morphological and developmental aberrations,

lowered reproduction and survival, and changes in behavior and certain

biochemical processes.

Available information on the effects of contaminants on central

Texas Eurycea salamanders indicates that these species are very

sensitive to changes in water quality. Captive Eurycea species,

including the Barton Springs salamander, appear to be especially

sensitive to changes in water quality and are ``quite delicate and

difficult to keep alive'' (Sweet, in litt., 1993). Sweet reported that

captive individuals exhibit toxic reactions to plastic containers, aged

tapwater, and detergent residues. The water in which these salamanders

are kept also requires frequent changing. The lack of success in

attempts at captive propagation of the Barton Springs salamander

(Price, pers. comm., 1992) and the San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana)

(Janet Nelson, Southwest Texas State University, pers. comm., 1992) may

be due to these species' sensitivity to environmental stress. As

discussed under Factor A, the Barton Springs salamander also appears to

be sensitive to chlorine (Chippindale et al. 1993, TPWD 1993).

Recent contamination at Stillhouse Hollow Preserve also

demonstrates the sensitivity of Eurycea salamanders to changes in water

quality. This event appears to have resulted in the decline of a spring

population of another species of Eurycea found north of the Colorado

River (locally known as the ``Jollyville Plateau salamander''). The

preserve contains two spring outlets, the larger of which has supported

an abundant salamander population; a few individuals are typically

found at the smaller spring (Hillis and Price, pers. comms., 1993).

During a routine inspection of this property on November 19, 1992, a

City of Austin employee reported ``large amounts of foam'' emanating

from the larger spring outlet (Mike Kalender, City of Austin Parks and

Recreation Department, pers. comm., 1993). The type and source of the

contaminant is unknown (Chuck Lesniak, City of Austin Environmental and

Conservation Services Department, pers. comm., 1993). Despite repeated

search efforts following the incident, no salamanders were observed at

or below this spring outlet until over three months later (February 24,

1993), when two individuals were observed (Hillis, Kalender, and Price,

pers. comms., 1993).

The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available regarding the past, present, and

future threats faced by this species in determining to propose this

rule. The best scientific data indicate that the Barton Springs

salamander faces multiple threats from declining water quality and

quantity and therefore warrants listing. Based on this evaluation, the

preferred action is to list the Barton Springs salamander as

endangered. A decision to take no action would constitute failure to

properly classify this species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

and would exclude the salamander from protection provided by the Act. A

decision to propose threatened status would not adequately reflect its

restricted distribution, vulnerability of habitat, and multiplicity of

threats that confront it. For the reason given below, critical habitat

designation for the Barton Springs salamander is not being proposed.

Critical Habitat

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, requires that, to the

maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary propose critical

habitat at the time the species is proposed to be endangered or

threatened. The Service's listing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)

specify that designation of critical habitat is not prudent when such

designation would not be beneficial to the species. The Service finds

that designation of the springs occupied by the Barton Springs

salamander as critical habitat would not be prudent because it would

not provide a conservation benefit to the species, and would actually

be detrimental to the species by suggesting a misleadingly restricted

view of its true conservation needs.

Designation of Barton Springs as critical habitat would not provide

a conservation benefit to the Barton Springs salamander beyond benefits

provided by listing and the subsequent evaluation of activities under

section 7 of the Act for possible jeopardy to the species. In the

Service's section 7 regulations at 50 CFR 402, the definition of

``jeopardize the continuing existence'' includes ``to reduce

appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the

listed species,'' and ``adverse modification'' is defined as ``a direct

or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of

critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed

species.'' Because the species is endemic to such a highly localized

area, actions that appreciably diminish water quality and quantity at

Barton Springs would be fully evaluated for their effects on the

salamander through analysis of whether the actions would be likely to

jeopardize the continuing existence of the species. Any action that

would appreciably diminish the value, in quality or quantity, of flows

from Barton Springs would also reduce appreciably the likelihood of

survival and recovery of the Barton Springs salamander. The analysis

for possible jeopardy applied to the Barton Springs salamander would

therefore be identical to the section 7 analysis for determining

adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat; no distinction

between jeopardy and adverse modification for activities impacting the

waters of Barton Springs can be made at this time. Application of

section 7 relative to critical habitat would therefore not add

measurable protection to the species beyond what is achievable through

review for jeopardy.

Designation of the springs and their immediate environment as

critical habitat would actually be detrimental to conservation efforts

for the Barton Springs salamander, because it would promote the

misconception that the Barton Springs are the only areas important to

the conservation of the species. Conservation efforts for the species

must address a wide variety of federally funded or authorized

activities (summarized in the ``Available Conservation Measures''

section of this proposed rule) that affect the quality and quantity of

water available to the species through their effects on the recharge

sources and aquifer that supply water to the habitat of the salamander.

Nearly all of these activities will occur beyond the immediate vicinity

of Barton Springs, and some will occur several miles away. Designation

of Barton Springs as critical habitat would be misleading in implying

to federal agencies whose activities may affect the Barton Springs

salamander that the Service's concern for the species is limited only

to activities taking place at the springs occupied by the species.

Designation of Barton Springs as critical habitat would therefore not

be prudent.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in

conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups,

and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be

carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal

agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in

part, below.

Conservation and management of the Barton Springs salamander is

likely to involve removing threats to the survival of the salamander,

including (1) protecting the quality of springflow from Barton Springs

by implementing comprehensive programs to control and reduce point

sources and non-point sources of pollution throughout the Barton

Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer, (2) minimizing the likelihood

of pollution events that would affect groundwater quality, (3)

continuing to protect groundwater and springflow quantity by

implementing water conservation and drought contingency plans

throughout the Barton Springs segment, and (4) continuing to examine

and implement pool cleaning practices and other park operations that

protect and perpetuate the salamander's surface habitat and population.

It is also anticipated that listing will encourage research on the

Barton Springs salamander's distribution within the aquifer and

critical aspects of its biology (e.g., longevity, natality, sources of

mortality, feeding ecology, and sensitivity to contaminants and other

water quality constituents).

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to

evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or

listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical

habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR

part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the

Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or

adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to

ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to

destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action

may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible

Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.

Potential activities that may affect the salamander and its habitat

include (1) urban development over the recharge and contributing zones

that may lead to contamination of the species' water supply through one

or more accidental contaminant spills or chronic water quality

degradation, (2) increased groundwater withdrawal leading to reduced

groundwater levels and springflow (compounded if drought occurs), and

(3) certain pool maintenance practices or other activities that may

impact the salamander and its surface habitat (such as use of chemicals

and high pressure hoses in areas occupied by salamanders and removal of

substrates used for cover). Federal agency actions that may require

conference and/or consultation as described in the preceding paragraph

include Army Corps of Engineers involvement in projects such as the

construction of roads, bridges, and dredging projects subject to

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.) and section

10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.),

pipeline projects, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authorized

discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES), and Soil Conservation Service and U.S. Housing and Urban

Development projects.

The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set

forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all

endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for

any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take

(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,

capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export,

ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or

sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed

species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,

transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally.

Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.

Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23.

Such permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the

propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in

the course of otherwise lawful activities. This species is not in

trade, and such permit requests are not expected.

Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed wildlife

and inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed to

the Office of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

room 420C, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203 (703/358-

2104; FAX 703/358-2281).

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this

proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments

particularly are sought concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to the Barton Springs salamander;

(2) The location of any additional populations of this species and

the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be

critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;

(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and

population size of this species; and

(4) Current or planned activities in the Barton Springs segment of

the Edwards Aquifer, its contributing zone, and the area around Barton

Springs and possible impacts on this species resulting from these

activities.

Final promulgation of the regulations on this species will take

into consideration the comments and any additional information received

by the Service, and such communications may lead to a final regulation

that differs from this proposal.

The Endangered Species Act provides for one or more public hearings

on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45

days of the date of publication of the proposal in the Federal

Register. Such requests must be made in writing and be addressed to

State Administrator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES

section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental

Assessment and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be

prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section

4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice

outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in

the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request from the Austin Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author

The primary author of this proposed rule is Lisa O'Donnell, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section) (512/482-5436).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Sec. 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in

alphabetical order under Amphibians, to the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife, to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species Vertebrate population

---------------------------------------------------- Historic range where endangered or Status When Critical Special

Common name Scientific name threatened listed habitat rules

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

Amphibians

* * * * * * *

Salamander, Barton Eurycea sosorum ........ U.S.A. (TX)............. Entire.................. E ......... NA NA

Springs.

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: February 9, 1994.

Mollie H. Beattie,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 94-3635 Filed 2-16-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P