Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule 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; Withdrawal of

Proposed Rule To List the Barton Springs Salamander as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) withdraws the February

17, 1994, proposed rule (59 FR 7968) to list the Barton Springs

salamander (Eurycea sosorum) as an endangered species under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The Service finds that

information now available, discussed below, justifies withdrawal of the

proposed listing of this species as endangered. Various agencies of the

State of Texas have committed to expedite developing and implementing

conservation measures needed for the species and the Barton Springs

segment of the Edwards Aquifer supporting its spring habitat, as set

forth in the ``Barton Springs Salamander Conservation Agreement and

Strategy'' (Agreement), signed August 13, 1996. The Texas Parks and

Wildlife Department, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission,

the Texas Department of Transportation, and the Service are signatories

to the Agreement. The cooperative Agreement addresses risks to the

survival and recovery of the Barton Springs salamander through a

combination of measures. These measures include: revision, adoption,

and implementation of regulations to protect water quality in the

Barton Springs watershed and the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards

Aquifer from degradation; development and implementation of Best

Management Practices to address point source contaminants; refinement

and enforcement of storage and disposal of hazardous waste protocols;

increased commitment to compliance enforcement, monitoring, and

reporting; and development and implementation of local management plans

to prevent degradation of surface and springhead habitat. The Agreement

contains measures to address potential water quantity concerns and to

establish captive refugia to prevent extinction in case of catastrophic

or chronic events. Because the commitment by the State of Texas to

fully implement the cooperative Agreement significantly reduces the

risks to the species, the Service concludes that listing is no longer

warranted.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,

by appointment, during normal business hours at the Ecological Services

Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite

200, Austin, Texas 78758.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Helfert, Field Supervisor (see

ADDRESSES section) (512/490-0057; facsimile 512/490-0974).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Service withdraws the proposal to designate the Barton Springs

salamander (Eurycea sosorum) as endangered, under the authority of the

Endangered Species Act (Act) (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) and depends on a constant supply of

clean, flowing water from Barton Springs. Adults attain an average

length of 6.35 cm (2.5 in). 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. 1993a).

The Barton Springs salamander was first collected from Barton

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

1993a,b). 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). Based on Sweet's work and

genetic studies conducted by the University of Texas and Chippindale et

al. (1990, 1992, 1993b), the Barton Springs salamander was formally

described in June 1993 (Chippindale et al. 1993a). An adult male (based

on external examination only) collected from Barton Springs Pool in

November 1992, was selected to be the holotype (Chippindale et al.

1993a).

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''). Barton Springs is the fourth largest

spring in Texas, exceeded only by Comal, San Marcos, and San Felipe

springs (Brune 1981). The Barton Springs salamander is found near three

of four hydrologically connected spring outlets that collectively make

up Barton Springs. These three spring outlets are known as Parthenia

(=Main), Eliza (=Concession, =Elk's), and Sunken Garden (=Old Mill,

=Walsh) springs, and they 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 (Chippindale et al. 1993a,b; Sweet, pers. comm., 1993;

Hansen, in litt., 1995a; William Russell, Texas Speleological Survey,

in litt. 1995). 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 also are retained by

concrete structures, forming small pools located on either side of

Barton Springs Pool. The salamander has been observed at depths of

about 0.1 to 5 m (0.3 to 16 ft) of water under gravel and small rocks,

submerged leaves, and algae; among aquatic vegetation; and buried in

organic debris. It is generally not found on exposed limestone surfaces

or in silted areas (Sweet 1978; Dr. Charles Sexton, City of Austin, in

litt., 1992; Chippindale et al. 1993a,b; Jim Collett, Robert Hansen,

and Mateo Scoggins, City of Austin, pers. comms., 1994-1995; O'Donnell,

pers. obs., 1996).

``Dozens or hundreds'' of individuals were estimated to occur among

sunken leaves in Eliza Pool during the 1970's (Chippindale et al.

1993a,b), while fewer than 15, and occasionally no individuals, were

observed during surveys conducted in Eliza Pool between 1987 and 1992

(Chippindale et al. 1993a, b). Fifteen salamanders were observed on

November 16, 1992 (Chippindale et al. 1993a,b). No salamanders were

observed at this location between December 1993 and

[[Page 46609]]

May 1995 (Paul Chippindale, University of Texas at Arlington, Collett,

Hansen, and Scoggins; pers. comms., 1994-1995; Hansen in litt. 1995b).

Numbers ranged from 0 to 28 between June 1995 and July 1996. Dead

salamanders also have been found (O'Donnell, unpubl. data, 1995-1996).

The Barton Springs salamander was reportedly abundant among the

aquatic vegetation in the deep end of Barton Springs Pool when

salamanders were collected there in 1946 (Hillis and Chippindale 1992;

Chippindale et al. 1993a,b). Between 1989 and 1991, Sexton (in litt.,

1992) reported finding salamanders under rock rubble immediately

adjacent to the main spring outflows on ``about one out of four

[snorkeling] dives.'' On July 28, 1992, at least 50 salamanders (David

Hillis, University of Texas at Austin, pers. comm., 1993) were found

over an area of roughly 400 sq. m (4,300 sq. ft) near the spring

outflows in Barton Springs Pool, about 3 to 5 m (10 to 15 ft) below the

water (Chippindale et al. 1993a,b). Following reports of a fish kill on

September 28, 1992, which was attributed to the improper application of

chlorine to clean Barton Springs Pool, only 10 to 11 salamanders were

observed and could only be found in an area of about 5 sq. m (54 sq.

ft) in the immediate vicinity of the Parthenia Spring outflows

(Chippindale et al. 1993a,b). At least 80 individuals were observed

during the first comprehensive survey effort conducted in Barton

Springs Pool on November 16, 1992, and about 150 individuals were seen

on November 24, 1992 (Chippindale et al. 1993a,b). A comprehensive

survey conducted immediately following an October 1994 flood event

found a total of 16 salamanders. A total of 10 salamanders were counted

in March 1995 (Hansen, in litt. 1995c).

The City of Austin initiated monthly transect surveys in June 1993

to provide more consistent data concerning the range and size of the

Barton Springs salamander population in Barton Springs Pool. Survey

counts ranged from 1 to 27 individuals (mean=13) between July 1993 and

March 1995. The highest survey counts (27 individuals) were reported in

November 1993 and May 1994. The lowest counts (ranging from 1 to 6

individuals) occurred during a five-month period following the October

1994 flood event (Hansen, in litt. 1995c). Survey counts between April

1995 and April 1996 ranged from 3 to 45 salamanders (City of Austin,

unpubl. data).

The salamander was first observed at Sunken Garden Springs on

January 12, 1993 (Chippindale et al. 1993b). Less than 20 individuals

have been sighted on any given visit to that outlet (Chippindale 1993b;

Hansen, pers. comm., 1995). Because it is part of the Barton Springs

complex and is hydrologically connected to Parthenia Springs,

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 make searching for salamanders

difficult at Sunken Garden Springs (Chippindale et al. 1993b;

O'Donnell, pers. obs., 1995).

No evidence exists that the species' range extends beyond the

immediate vicinity of Barton Springs. Despite survey efforts and

searches at other spring outlets (including the spring outlet

immediately above Barton Springs Pool), caves, and uncased wells in the

Barton Springs segment, no other locations of the Barton Springs

salamander have been found (Chippindale et al. 1993a,b; Russell, in

litt. 1995; Russell 1996; Hillis; Andy Price, Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department; Sweet; pers. comms., 1993; Hansen, in litt. 1995a). No

other species of Eurycea is known to occur in this portion of the

aquifer. Although the extent to which the Barton Springs salamander

occurs in the aquifer is unknown, it is likely concentrated near the

spring openings where light is available for photosynthesis and food

supplies are abundant, water chemistry and temperatures are relatively

constant, and where the salamander has immediate access to both surface

and subsurface habitats. Barton Springs is also the main discharge

point for the entire Barton Springs segment, and is one of the few

perennial springs in the area.

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

entirely of amphipods (Hyallela azteca) and other small invertebrates

(James Reddell, Texas Memorial Museum, University of Texas at Austin,

pers. comm., 1993; Hillis and Chippindale 1992; Chippindale et al.

1993a,b). Primary predators of the Barton Springs salamander are

believed to be fish and crayfish (Chippindale et al. 1993a,b; Collett,

Hansen, and Scoggins, pers. comms., 1995). Observations of larvae and

females with eggs indicate breeding occurs year-round (Chippindale,

pers. comm., 1993; Collett, Hansen, and Scoggins, pers. comms., 1994-

1995). The Barton Springs salamander's eggs are white (Lynn Ables and

Streett Coale, Dallas Aquarium; Jim Dwyer, Midwest Science Center;

pers. comms., 1996) and have never been observed in the wild

(Chippindale, Hillis, and Price, pers. comms. 1993; Collett, Hansen,

and Scoggins, pers. comms., 1994-1995; O'Donnell, pers. obs., 1995-

1996), and thus oviposition likely occurs in subsurface habitat.

Captive propagation of the Barton Springs salamander has been

initiated at the Dallas Aquarium in Texas and at the National

Biological Service's Midwest Science Center in Missouri. Although each

facility has had one successful spawning, hatching success was less

than 8 percent (Ables, Coale, and Dwyer, pers. comms., 1996).

The Barton Springs segment covers roughly 400 sq. km (155 sq. mi)

from southern Travis County to northern Hays County, Texas, and has a

storage capacity of over 37,000 hectare-meters (300,000 acre-feet)

(Slade et al. 1985, 1986). The approximate boundaries are the ``bad-

water'' line to the east (where dissolved solids are less than 1,000

milligrams/liter (mg/l) (1,000 parts per million (ppm)) 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 (Slade et al. 1985,

1986); 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. Significant 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, water in the aquifer moves toward

Barton Springs (Slade et al. 1985, 1986; Stein 1995). 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 sq. m (3 to 47,000 sq. ft) per day and tend to increase as one

moves northward toward the springs (Slade et al. 1985, 1986).

Barton Springs drains about 391 sq. km (151 sq. mi) of the Barton

Springs segment. The remaining 10 sq. km (4 sq. mi) discharge at Cold

and Deep Eddy springs and are believed to be hydrologically distinct

from the area discharging from 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.

These intermittent springs flow only about 30

[[Page 46610]]

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 1,415 l/s (50 cfs), ranging from 283 l/s (10 cfs) to

4,700 l/s (166 cfs) (Andrews et al. 1984; Slade et al. 1985, 1986). The

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

1992). Depending on flow conditions and whether the pool is full or

drained, about 55 to 82 percent of the total springflow from Barton

Springs exits the main springs into Barton Springs Pool (Slade et al.

1986).

The Barton Springs segment is divided into the recharge and

artesian zones. 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 sq. km (90 sq. mi)) 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 (Andrews et al. 1984; Slade et

al. 1985, 1986).

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

zone span about 684 sq. km (264 sq. mi). This area is referred to as

the contributing zone and includes portions of Travis, Hays, and Blanco

counties. The recharge and contributing zones (hereafter referred to

collectively as the ``Barton Springs watershed'') make up the total

area that provides water to the aquifer, which equals about 917 sq. km

(354 sq. mi). 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 (Andrews et al. 1984; Slade et al. 1985, 1986). The total

maximum instantaneous recharge for the creeks has been estimated at

10,000 to 11,000 l/s (350 to 400 cfs), above which runoff does not

infiltrate into the aquifer. Water flowing downstream off the recharge

zone is runoff that has been rejected (Slade et al. 1985).

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. 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. 1985, 1986).

Although some development has occurred along Barton Creek near Barton

Springs, these waters are diluted by recharge waters from more rural

watersheds, such as Onion Creek. Although farthest from the springs,

Onion Creek provides a significant amount of recharge and thus makes an

important contribution to the water quality at Barton Springs (Andrews

et al. 1984; Slade et al. 1985, 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. Since 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.

The potential of the Edwards Aquifer and other karst aquifers to

rapidly transmit large volumes of water with little filtration makes

them highly susceptible to pollution (Slade et al. 1986; Texas Water

Commission (TWC) 1989; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990; City

of Austin 1991; Margaret Hart, TWC, in litt. 1991; Ford and Williams

1994; Notenboom et al. 1994). Major potential sources of groundwater

contamination have been attributed to construction activities, leaking

underground storage tanks, pipelines, septic tanks, accidental spills,

and pesticide and fertilizer use (EPA 1990, TWC 1989). Pollutants

entering the creeks or other recharge features may then be rapidly

transported into the aquifer. Once in a karst aquifer, treatment of

water-borne contaminants is generally ineffective because: (1) Few

materials (such as sand, gravel, and organic matter) are present to

filter out pollutants; (2) little evaporation occurs, which is

important in eliminating highly volatile organic compounds; (3) little

filtration occurs through thin karst soils; (4) water is transported

rapidly through a conduit system with little or no filtration (EPA

1990; TWC 1989; Slade et al. 1986; Ford and Williams 1994; Notenboom et

al. 1994); and (5) some contaminants (such as nitrates and petroleum

hydrocarbons) tend to be highly insoluble and mobile in water and may

not adsorb onto karst substrates (TWC 1989).

Because of the characteristics of karst aquifers, Barton Springs is

believed to be heavily influenced by the quality and quantity of

runoff, particularly in the recharge zone (City of Austin 1991, Slade

et al. 1986). Thus, 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 (now known

as the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC))

identified the Edwards Aquifer as being one of the most sensitive

aquifers in Texas to groundwater pollution (TWC 1989; Hart, in litt.,

1991; TNRCC 1994).

Previous Federal Action

The Barton Springs salamander was a Category 2 candidate species on

the Service's candidate notices of review from 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) until publication of the proposed rule

to list the species as endangered (59 FR 7968). Dr. Mark Kirkpatrick

and Ms. Barbara Mahler petitioned the Service to list the Barton

Springs salamander on January 22, 1992, and on December 11, 1992 (57 FR

58779), the Service published a notice in the Federal Register that the

petitioner presented substantial information that the requested action

may be warranted. A proposed rule to list the Barton Springs salamander

was published in the Federal Register on February 17, 1994 (59 FR

7968). The Service held a public hearing on June 16, 1994, in Austin,

Texas (59 FR 27257). On March 10, 1995, the Service published a notice

extending the 1-year deadline for final action on the proposed rule

until August 17, 1995, and reopened the public comment period (59 FR

27257). Reasons for the 6-month extension are provided in the March 10,

1995, Federal Register notice.

On April 10, 1995, Congress enacted a moratorium prohibiting work

on listing actions (Public Law 104-6) and eliminated funding for the

Service to conduct final listing actions. On November 27, 1995, in

response to a lawsuit from the Save Our Springs Legal Defense Fund

(Save Our Springs Legal Defense Fund, Inc., et al., v. Bruce Babbitt),

a U.S. District Court invalidated the Service's March 10, 1995, notice

of extension and ruled that the Service had to make a final

determination on whether to list the Barton Springs salamander within

14 days of the court order. The court

[[Page 46611]]

granted a stay pending the Service's appeal of the order, on the

grounds that the moratorium and lack of funding prohibited the Service

from making a final listing determination. The moratorium was lifted on

April 26, 1996, by means of a Presidential waiver, at which time

limited funding for listing actions was made available through the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law No. 104-134, 100

Stat. 1321, 1996). The Service published guidance for restarting the

listing program on May 16, 1996 (61 FR 24722). Due to the potential for

new information during the lapse between the reinstatement of the

listing program and the close of the last comment period (May 17,

1995), the Service reopened the public comment period on June 24, 1996,

for 30 days. That comment period closed July 10, 1996, by U.S. District

Court order.

Development of Conservation Agreement

Following the Service's decision to propose the species for listing

as endangered, the City of Austin and the Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department (TPWD) formed the Aquatic Biological Assessment Team (ABAT)

to conduct independent peer review of the listing proposal and to

address salamander issues. The ABAT concluded that important

information gaps exist that prevent a conclusive scientific assessment

regarding the biology of the salamander. The ABAT also noted that both

short-term and long-term threats to the viability of the species exist.

On September 20, 1995, the ABAT issued a report detailing its

recommendations for further study of the Barton Springs salamander so

that improved scientific understanding could lead to the development of

factually based conservation measures for the species. Those

recommendations led to the ``Barton Springs Salamander Conservation

Agreement and Strategy'' (Agreement) signed by the State agencies on

August 13, 1996.

In order to meet the objectives of the Agreement, agencies of the

State of Texas will implement five conservation actions. These actions

are: (1) Enforcement and monitoring of compliance with existing

regulations and adoption, implementation, and enforcement of currently

proposed regulations; (2) prevention of catastrophic contaminant

releases into the spring waters; (3) prevention of degradation of the

springhead habitat; (4) establishment of a captive breeding program;

and (5) development of a better biological understanding of the

salamander population. In addition, the State will effect four general

administrative actions: (1) Coordination of conservation activities;

(2) implementation of the conservation schedule; (3) funding of

conservation actions; and (4) assessment of the conservation progress.

The actions listed above are adequate to reduce risks to the

salamander. But, if in the future, the adequacy is questioned, the

Barton Springs Salamander Conservation Team (Conservation Team) will

assess such issues for follow up on conservation actions.

The Conservation Team was formed under the Agreement to administer

and revise the Agreement as needed, based on new biological information

on the species. Such information will include the results of a TPWD-

sponsored population and habitat study, which may lead to a population

viability and habitat analysis (PVHA) workshop. The Conservation Team

will coordinate conservation activities and monitor conservation

actions taken by the signatories of the Agreement. The Service

understands that the Conservation Team will review the current and

proposed regulatory programs that contribute to conserving the Barton

Springs salamander, its habitat and the ecosystem, the Barton Springs

segment of the Edwards Aquifer.

The Service believes that the Agreement ensures the implementation

of conservation measures that will reduce the threats to the salamander

to the point that it does not warrant listing. The Service therefore

withdraws the proposal to list the Barton Springs salamander as

endangered.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

In the February 17, 1994, proposed rule (59 FR 7968) and associated

Federal Register notices, including notification of a public hearing

(59 FR 27257) and each of the five comment periods (February 17 to

April 18, 1994 (59 FR 7968); May 26 to July 1, 1994 (47 FR 13105); July

8 to July 29, 1994 (59 FR 35089); March 10 to May 17, 1995 (47 FR

13105); and June 24 to July 10, 1996 (61 FR 32414)), all interested

parties were requested to submit factual reports or information to be

considered in making a final listing determination. Appropriate Federal

and State agencies, local governments, scientific organizations, and

other interested parties were contacted and asked to comment. Legal

notices of the public hearing which invited general public comment were

published in the Dripping Springs Century News and Austin-American

Statesman on June 8, 1994, in the Drippings Springs Dispatch on June 9,

1994, and in the Austin Chronicle on June 10, 1994.

The Service received 657 written and oral comments, 8 videotapes, 5

petitions, and 2 resolutions from individuals and agencies. Of the 657

comments, 524 supported the proposed action, 123 opposed it, and 10

stated neither support nor opposition. Four petitions totaling over

1,800 signatures and one resolution from the City of Austin supported

listing, and one petition containing 29 signatures and one resolution

from the city of Dripping Springs opposed the listing.

The Service held a public hearing in two sessions on June 16, 1994,

at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Auditorium at the University of Texas at

Austin. Over 160 people attended the public hearing, and 74 individuals

provided oral testimony.

Written and oral comments are incorporated into this withdrawal

notice where appropriate. Most of the comments were directly related to

listing the salamander as endangered. Many of the comments supporting

listing provided substantive factual information that documented risks

to the Barton Springs salamander. Those comments were considered, and

listing appeared warranted prior to the signing of the Agreement.

Conversely, substantive comments opposing listing generally discussed

the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms then in place to protect

the salamander. Since development of the Agreement, commitment to

conservation of the species has been insured, rendering most of the

comments on this action moot, outdated, or otherwise irrelevant to this

withdrawal notice. The Service carefully considered all comments

submitted relevant to the decision to withdraw the proposed listing.

Comments submitted are available for review at the Service's Austin

Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

The Service must consider five factors described in section 4(a)(1)

of the Act when determining whether to list a species. These factors,

and their application to the Service's decision to withdraw the

proposal to list the Barton Springs salamander, are as follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

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

Springs salamander and its habitat, which the Service identified in its

proposal to list the species (59 FR 7968), are degradation of water

quality and

[[Page 46612]]

quantity resulting from urban expansion over the Barton Springs

watershed (including roadway, residential, commercial, and industrial

development). The Service identified cumulative degradation,

catastrophic spills (such as hazardous materials), and increased water

withdrawals from the aquifer (compounded by drought) as factors

contributing to declining water quality and quantity in the portion of

the Edwards Aquifer upon which the species depends. Other concerns

identified by the Service are potential impacts to the salamander's

surface habitat in Barton Springs pool caused by pool maintenance and

cleaning activities.

The Agreement includes a State commitment to implement specific

conservation measures to protect the salamander, its habitat and the

ecosystem, the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer. The

Agreement addresses these risks to the Barton Springs salamander

through a combination of measures. They are: (1) Revision, adoption,

and implementation of regulations to protect water quality in the

Barton Springs watershed and the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards

Aquifer from degradation; (2) development and implementation of Best

Management Practices (BMPs) to address point source contaminants; (3)

refinement and enforcement of storage and disposal of hazardous waste

protocols; (4) increased commitment to compliance enforcement,

monitoring, and reporting; and (5) development of local management

plans to prevent degradation of surface and springhead habitat.

The Agreement includes specific responsibilities to be implemented

immediately and in Fiscal Year 1997 by the lead State agencies. Those

responsibilities for the TPWD include: provide the team leader for the

Conservation Team (formed in the Agreement); assist the City of Austin

in Barton Springs pool maintenance; assist other State and local

agencies in evaluating existing and proposed conservation actions that

benefit the Barton Springs salamander; sponsor a salamander population

and habitat study and follow up on a population viability and habitat

analysis (PVHA) workshop; serve as the responsible State agency for

protection and conservation of the salamander and its unique ecosystem;

serve as the responsible State agency for enforcement of the Act; and

serve as the responsible lead for establishing a captive breeding/

refugium program. The responsibilities of the TNRCC include: evaluate

existing and proposed water quality regulations for State and local

agencies and private development compliance in the protection and

conservation of Barton Springs, the Barton Springs segment of the

Edwards Aquifer, and the recharge zone and contributing streams and

watersheds; serve as the responsible State agency for ensuring water

quality compliance and monitoring; and serve as the responsible State

agency for coordinating State/regional/local response and remediation

on hazardous materials spills and contingency plans and operations.

Commitments by The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) include:

serve as the responsible State agency for ensuring that all

transportation projects over the recharge zone are developed with BMPs

that will minimize or prevent the degradation of recharging waters to

Barton Springs; serve as responsible State agency for the design,

construction and maintenance of permanent structural controls (e.g.,

hazardous materials traps, detention ponds, filtration basins, etc.) on

transportation projects over the recharge zone; serve as the

responsible State agency for ensuring that transportation projects are

constructed in a manner to minimize water quality impacts in accordance

with State law and regulations; and work with TPWD on conservation

issues related to transportation activities in accordance with the

Memorandum of Understanding between the two State agencies. The Service

is responsible for: serving on the Conservation Team and providing

technical assistance to all State agencies, regional and local agencies

and cooperators; and providing technical input to State, regional and

local agencies and cooperating interests concerning the conservation of

the salamander.

The Agreement includes measures to address potential water quantity

concerns and to minimize chances of a catastrophic event, however the

Agreement establishes captive refugia to prevent extinction in case of

catastrophic or chronic events. The Barton Springs salamander is still

considered rare and potentially vulnerable; however, the commitment by

the State of Texas to implement the cooperative Agreement reduces the

imminence and severity of threats to the species so that listing is no

longer considered warranted.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. No threat from overutilization of this species is

known at this time.

C. Disease or predation. The Service is not aware of diseases or

parasites of the Barton Springs salamander. Primary predators of the

Barton Springs salamander are believed to be predatory 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. The

conservation and recovery of this species is tied to the protection of

water quality and quantity through regulatory mechanisms for Barton

Springs, the Barton Creek watershed, and the Barton Springs segment of

the Edwards Aquifer. The Service evaluated existing State and local

regulatory mechanisms and BMPs prior to preparing the proposed rule for

listing the species. The Service found evidence of inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms in 1994 and published the proposed rule

with information on this factor. Several commentors, including the

State of Texas, presented information on the issue of existing

regulatory programs. The Service reopened the comment period on June

24, 1996, in part due to the potential for new information on proposed

regulatory protection under State authorities and disagreement

concerning data on existing regulatory mechanisms that would conserve

the species. The State of Texas developed the Agreement specifically to

implement conservation measures using existing and proposed regulatory

mechanisms in a comprehensive program for the conservation of the

Barton Springs salamander.

The Service recognizes that the Agreement reduces the threats to

the salamander. The Agreement addresses the issue of reducing threats

by charging the Conservation Team to review the adequacy of those

regulatory mechanisms, rules, regulations, and State agency policies

for conserving the species and its habitat. This review will ensure

that revisions or changes will be developed cooperatively and

implemented expeditiously through State government mechanisms to

conserve the salamander and its ecosystem. As team leader, TPWD is

charged with ensuring that these conservation measures are implemented.

The Service serves on the team, but if the team's recommendations to

State agencies are not implemented, the Service may withdraw from the

Agreement and will consider the use of the full range of its listing

authority, including emergency listing, to protect the species.

The signatories of the Agreement are those agencies with the

responsibility, authority, and funding mechanisms to implement the

provisions of the Agreement. The signatories include the

[[Page 46613]]

TPWD, the TNRCC, the TXDOT, and the Service. Other parties may be

included as additional measures are added to the Agreement. The

Agreement follows the recommendations presented by the ABAT report

(1995), using an ecosystem approach to conserve the Barton Springs

salamander population by maintaining the high quality spring ecosystem

within which the salamander exists.

The Agreement focuses on two objectives. The main objective is to

eliminate or significantly reduce the threats to the species. This

includes eliminating risk of catastrophic events. In case this does not

work, the Agreement establishes a captive breeding/refugium program in

order to avoid extinction of the species should any potential threats

actually cause the species to disappear in the wild. These objectives

will be reached through implementation of the Agreement for the

species.

The TNRCC has implemented a comprehensive water quality protection

program for the Edwards Aquifer and related surface waters. This

program covers the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer that

yields flow to Barton Springs and provides the most stringent

groundwater quality protection measures in the State.

The Federal Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection

Agency's (EPA) rules require each State to develop and implement an

anti-degradation policy, as a part of its water quality standards (40

CFR 131.6). Such standards, including the anti-degradation policy, must

be approved by the EPA. The TNRCC's policy, which has been approved by

EPA, is contained in 30 TAC 307.5 and adopts the language used by the

EPA in its anti-degradation policy (40 CFR 131.12).

The Tier II Anti-degradation Policy contained in section 307.5 of

the TNRCC's rules is currently applicable to the Barton Creek

watershed. This policy provides that no activities subject to

regulatory action which would cause degradation of waters which exceed

fishable/swimmable quality will be allowed, unless it can be shown that

the lowering of the water quality is necessary for important economic

or social development. Degradation is defined as a lowering of water

quality beyond a de minimus extent, to the extent that an existing use

is impaired. Fishable/swimmable waters are waters which have quality

sufficient to support propagation of indigenous fish, shellfish and

wildlife, as well as recreation in and on the water. Water quality

sufficient to protect existing uses is to be maintained. The

Conservation Team will assess the potential impact to the salamander of

the anti-degradation policy exception (important economic or social

development) that could lead to degradation of the salamander's

habitat. The policy exception would require careful assessment and

recommended action to alleviate the threat to the salamander, its

habitat and the ecosystem, the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards

Aquifer. If the Conservation Team's recommended action is not

implemented, the Service may withdraw from the Agreement and will

consider the use of the full range of its listing authority, including

emergency listing, to protect the species.

The TNRCC's rules seek to maintain and protect the water quality

standards and related aquatic life uses designated for the Barton Creek

watershed. The regulation of point discharges and effluent on and

upstream of the recharge zone (section 313.6), as well as the design,

installation, and removal of petroleum storage tanks (PSTs) (sections

313.10 and 313.11) and on-site sewage systems (section 285.9) are the

most stringent in the State and are summarized in the TNRCC's July 1,

1996, memo entitled ``Protecting Water Quality in the Edwards

Aquifer.'' No new or increased discharges are allowed in the recharge

zone. Additionally, no confined animal operations may be located in the

recharge zone (section 313.10).

In addition to the more broadly applicable chapter 313 TNRCC's

rules, for which revisions are currently proposed, under State Senate

Bill 1017 (codified as section 26.179, Texas Water Code), special water

quality protection plans are being developed and implemented in the

Barton Creek watershed within the contributing zone of the Edwards

Aquifer. This legislation applies to property of 200 hectares (500

acres) or more within the City of Austin's extraterritorial

jurisdiction where a designated water quality protection zone and a

water quality protection plan are subject to review and approval by the

TNRCC. The legislation provides a non-degradation water quality goal by

providing that development on the property may not result in exceeding

background water quality. The quality of runoff water must be

comparable to those levels that existed prior to new development.

Proposed rules under 30 TAC chapter 216 (relating to Water Quality

Protection Zones) that implement this legislation were published in the

Texas Register on April 14, 1996, for public comment. Adoption of these

rules by the TNRCC is expected in October 1996. If not adopted in a

timely manner, the Service would withdraw from the Agreement and re-

propose the salamander for listing.

The TNRCC proposed a new Edwards Aquifer rule as a new chapter 213

to streamline and consolidate the existing chapter 313 Edwards Aquifer

rule, which are also expected to be adopted in October, 1996. The

proposed rule would also update the current day-to-day operations of

the agency relating to the protection of the water quality of the

Edwards Aquifer and make the administration of the Edwards Aquifer

Protection Program more efficient and effective. The proposed rule also

provides: new or revised definitions for regulated activity, BMP,

aboveground and underground storage tank facilities, commencement of

construction, geologic or manmade feature, sensitive feature, and site.

The rule consolidates into one section the requirement for filing and

processing an Edwards Aquifer protection plan, details how the plan

will be processed by the agency; prohibits the commencement of

construction of any regulated activity until a plan has been approved

by the agency; and provides that the term of approval of a plan will

expire two years after the initial issuance unless commencement of

construction has occurred. The rule also consolidates the description

of activities that require an Edwards Aquifer protection plan, the

contents of various plans, notification and inspection requirements,

and exemptions from submitting a plan.

Five new requirements for the technical report submitted as part of

an Edwards Aquifer protection plan are proposed under the new rule in

chapter 213. The report must include a description of measures to be

taken to avoid or minimize instream erosion from water flowing off the

site. Measures that would decrease instream erosion will protect water

quality. The report must include a description of the BMPs and measures

that will be taken to prevent pollutants from entering the aquifer

while, to the extent practicable, maintaining flow to sensitive

features identified in either the assessment of area geology or during

excavation, blasting, or construction. The report must include a plan

for inspection of BMPs and measures and their maintenance and repair.

The existing rule requires measures to prevent pollution of stormwater

flowing onto and off a site. The submission of this plan will formalize

maintenance and repair as part of an Edwards Aquifer protection plan.

The requirement for a downgradient assessment of area geology has been

changed from one mile to one-half mile. A geological assessment will be

performed 15 m (50

[[Page 46614]]

feet) on either side of the path of a proposed sewer line, allowing for

pre-planning to address sensitive features. The rule prohibits

construction on either the recharge or transition zone of new municipal

solid waste landfill activities and restricts further the construction

and use of underground and aboveground storage tanks and facilities.

Prior to commencement of construction, a developer of a project on

the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone must submit a Water Pollution

Abatement Plan (WPAP) to the TNRCC for review and approval. The

developer must propose in the plan measures and practices that will

prevent pollution of stormwater entering the site, on-site, and leaving

the site. Pollution is defined in the rule as the alteration of the

physical, chemical or biological quality of, or the contamination of,

any water in the State that renders the water harmful, detrimental or

injurious to humans, animal life, vegetation or property, or to public

health, safety or welfare, or impairs the usefulness of the public

enjoyment of the waters for any lawful or reasonable purpose. The plans

must meet this performance goal of water quality protection. Under the

proposed new rule in chapter 213, BMPs must be included and implemented

as part of the WPAP.

The TNRCC is responsible for compliance monitoring of water

pollution abatement plans for the Barton Creek watershed. The TNRCC's

staff perform pre-construction onsite inspections prior to approval of

WPAPs. This includes inspection to verify that all recharge features

have been identified on the site. The TNRCC's staff conduct a follow-up

inspection for each site during construction to ensure that all

pollution prevention measures are in place, maintained properly and

working as required. A reporting requirement in all approved plans is

the immediate notification by the permittee to the TNRCC of any

previously unidentified recharge feature discovered during

construction. If such a feature is found, construction must stop until

the TNRCC's staff can inspect the feature and approve the proposed

measures to prevent pollution from entering the feature. The TNRCC

conducts inspections before, during, and after construction of all

TxDOT road and highway projects as well as commercial developments. The

TNRCC also inspects any non-State road development project (e.g., city)

to ensure that water quality protection under permitted WPAPs is

enforced. During Fiscal Year 1996, TNRCC Austin field staff conducted

182 initial site assessments and 289 follow-up inspections. Almost all

non-compliances (typically failure to properly maintain a BMP such as a

sediment control fence or other structure) were remedied immediately

during these inspections. The remainder were remedied after receipt of

a ``Notice of Violation'' letter. In only one instance during Fiscal

Year 1996 was it necessary for the field staff to refer a violation for

formal enforcement in order to achieve compliance.

Statewide rules for the protection of water quality have been

applied to the Barton Springs area since their inception. This includes

requirements for PSTs, spill response and remediation, hazardous waste

control, and point and non-point source pollution prevention programs.

The Edwards Aquifer rules contained in chapter 313 were extended to

Travis County beginning in 1990. Chapter 313 provides that if

construction on a project has not commenced within two years of

application approval, a new application must be submitted for review

and approval. However, rules in effect at the time of resubmission of

the initial application shall apply to the new application.

Pursuant to the TNRCC's authority to protect the water quality of

the Edwards Aquifer, the TNRCC's rules contained in section

313.4(b)(4)(D) provide that a water pollution abatement plan must

contain a description of the measures that will be taken to prevent

pollutants from entering recharge features ``while maintaining or

enhancing the quantity of water entering the recharge features. * * *''

This language is also contained in the proposed amendments to these

rules and more clearly states that the sealing of a recharge feature

may not be an acceptable measure to prevent contaminants from entering

the aquifer unless there is no reasonable, practicable alternative.

The Edwards Aquifer/Barton Springs Conservation District controls

the withdrawal and use of the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards

Aquifer. The District's rules require users to implement water

conservation measures and mandate reduction measures during a drought.

When fully implemented, the District's drought contingency plan is set

up to prevent the aquifer from dropping below historically low levels

and thus conserve springflow at Barton Springs.

Full implementation of spill contingency plans and hazardous

materials storage, transportation, and use during construction is a key

component of protection of the waters supporting Barton Springs and the

salamander. In particular, the potential for catastrophic spills from a

highway over the recharge zone is a major risk to the species. In order

to eliminate the risk, the TNRCC works with the TxDOT to address both

potential contamination issues surrounding the construction of highways

and the placement of hazardous materials traps (HMTs) to capture

accidental spills resulting from accidents.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulates the

transportation of hazardous materials. The requirements for driver

training, shipping papers, insurance, placarding and container

integrity and labeling are established by the USDOT pursuant to the

Hazardous Materials Uniform Transportation Safety Act. The TNRCC

imposes additional regulations on the transportation of hazardous

wastes, which call for tracking of shipments to ensure that they reach

their intended destination. The Texas Department of Public Safety

provides enforcement of both the USDOT and TNRCC transporter

regulations.

The TxDOT began implementing stormwater runoff controls on projects

over the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone in

1991. These controls include facilities to capture spills of hazardous

material occurring on roadways that contribute runoff to creeks and

streams in the recharge zone. To date, the TxDOT has constructed 44

HMTs at a cost of over $15 million at outfalls over the recharge zone

on three major projects: Loop 1, State Highway (SH) 45, and U.S.

Highway 290. These outfalls discharge to the watersheds of Slaughter,

Williamson, and Barton creeks, all of which contribute to the recharge

of the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer. All new and

retrofit TxDOT project plans incorporate stormwater runoff controls and

HMTs where needed for water quality protection.

The HMT is a concrete-lined basin located at the end of the storm

drainage system just prior to discharging to the natural drainageway.

The HMT is designed to hold 38,000 l (10,000 gallons), the capacity of

a large tanker truck. The HMTs operate as stand-alone structures or

work in combination with other stormwater runoff controls such as

detention ponds or filtration basins. Routine maintenance procedures

for HMTs include regular inspections by TxDOT personnel. The HMTs are

inspected at least monthly and/or after each rainfall event. Based on

these inspections, the HMTs are cleaned, drained or otherwise repaired

as necessary.

The TNRCC is authorized by statute to conduct emergency spill

response and

[[Page 46615]]

cleanup activities statewide pursuant to section 26.264 of the Texas

Water Code. This includes spills occurring on the recharge zone, within

the transition zone and in the contributing watershed of the Edwards

Aquifer. The TNRCC is the lead State agency for response to all

hazardous substance spills into State waters. The TNRCC works with

State, regional and local entities to carry out a comprehensive,

coordinated plan that can be implemented in the event of a crisis. The

TNRCC works closely with the TxDOT by implementing a contractual

agreement (statute requirement) whereby personnel, equipment and

materials under TxDOT control may be diverted and utilized for spill

and discharge cleanup. The TNRCC works closely with the Edwards

Aquifer/Barton Springs Conservation District in spill response and

cleanup planning and action for the Barton Springs segment of the

Edwards Aquifer. The TNRCC, the District and the TxDOT conduct joint

training exercises to respond to simulated spills. The TNRCC works with

local fire departments and county emergency services districts to

develop and implement spill response plans, such as in the Barton Creek

watershed with the Oak Hill Fire Department and Travis County Services

District Number 3.

The TNRCC prohibits the storage of hazardous materials and waste in

the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer. Hazardous waste storage

facilities, waster piles or landfills containing hazardous waste may

not be located in the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer unless

secondary containment is provided to preclude migration to groundwater

from spills, leaks or discharges. Approximately 70 to 80 percent of the

recharge to the Edwards Aquifer comes from surface streams. Protection

of water quality is provided in these affected riparian areas in the

recharge zone as well as in the contributory watershed.

Wetlands are a major contributor of surface water to groundwater

recharge and serve a vital water quality protection function. They trap

sediments, filter contaminants, and help prevent flooding and increased

soil erosion. The State regulates the location of hazardous material

storage facilities in wetlands. Protected wetlands include those that

may provide recharge to the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards

Aquifer and serve a water quality protection function for the aquifer

and related springs. Transition zones, areas of downgradient of the

recharge zone but where faults and fractures may occur, provide

additional recharge to the Edwards Aquifer. Waster disposal wells and

disposal are also prohibited in the transition zone.

The Barton Springs pool is an on-channel impoundment on Barton

Creek and constitutes a State water under the TNRCC's water quality

rules and statutes. Any pool maintenance activity carried out by the

City of Austin must have prior TNRCC review and approval. The TPWD and

the Service have been working with the City to develop and implement

BMPs for Barton Springs pool maintenance. The City of Austin is

continuing to review and revise as necessary its pool maintenance

practices in order to protect the salamander and its habitat while

considering human recreational needs. The maintenance plan is designed

to avoid impacting the salamander and maintain the highest possible

level of water quality. The TPWD will work with the City of Austin to

continue to improve the BMPs for the Barton Springs pool. The Service

believes that current pool maintenance BMPs are sufficient to reduce

threats to the salamander.

The Baron Spring salamander's limited geographic distribution,

small population size, and presumed delayed reproductive strategy

contribute to the recommendation for a captive breeding program for the

species. Such a program may prevent extinction of the species should

any of the potential threats previously described cause the salamander

to disappear at Barton Springs. Small breeding populations are

currently maintained at the Dallas Aquarium and at the Midwest Science

Center of the National Biological Service in Columbia, Missouri. Both

of these captive programs will continue and could serve as refugia in

the event of a catastrophe. The Agreement commits to a third more local

captive breeding/refugium program, to be established when sufficient

founding stock are available. Local facilities may be available at

either the national fish center at San Marcos, Texas, or the TPWD fish

hatchery in San Marcos.

The Service believes that the actions noted above are sufficient to

reduce the risks to the salamander. But uncertainty exists on the

biological information on the species. Therefore, the Agreement makes

the TPWD responsible for providing population monitoring studies for

the Barton Springs salamander . These studies will include surveys of

population numbers and observations on distribution, body sizes, stages

of development, and habitat. Surveys will include times immediately

following storm events, during periods of low spring flow, and during

recovery periods from abnormal events such as prolonged drought or

contamination events. Surveys will be conducted at all three springs.

The TPWD will sponsor a Barton Springs salamander PVHA workshop based

upon these studies and other information concerning the salamander.

By protecting the water quality and quantity at Barton Springs and

in the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer, the involved

agencies will reduce the threats to the species to the point that it

does not warrant listing. The Service will closely monitor the

implementation of the Agreement and, if the Agreement is not

accomplishing its purpose the Service will consider the use of the full

range of its listing authority, including emergency listing, to protect

the species.

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 cumulative

groundwater contamination. As described above, the threat to the

salamander due to limited distribution, along with catastrophic spills

and drought-related effects on the salamander through groundwater use

of the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer are factors that

are addressed in the Agreement. The signatories of the Agreement will

conduct a salamander population and habitat study, including sponsoring

a PVHA workshop; develop a captive breeding/refugium program; and work

with other agencies, local water conservation districts, local

communities and private landowners to protect water quality in the

Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer.

Finding and Withdrawal

The Barton Springs salamander is known only from the immediate

vicinity of the three spring outlets that are collectively known as

Barton Springs in Zilker Park, Austin, Travis County, Texas. The waters

at Barton Springs originate from a 920 sq. km (354 sq. mile) area,

which consists of the recharge zone of the Barton Springs segment of

the Edwards Aquifer and its contributing zone. The Barton Springs

segment is a designated sole source of water for over 35,000 people in

a three-county area. The Barton Springs watershed occurs in Blanco,

Hays and Travis counties.

The proposed rule identified degradation of water quality and

quantity of Barton Springs, resulting from urban expansion over the

Barton Springs watershed, as the primary threat to the Barton Springs

salamander.

[[Page 46616]]

Reasons for this degradation were listed as: chronic degradation,

catastrophic spills, and increasing water withdrawals from the Barton

Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer. Following the Service's

publication of the proposed rule, the City of Austin and the TPWD

initiated an effort to develop an independent peer review process to

address salamander issues. The resulting Aquatic Biological Assessment

Team (ABAT) concluded that both short-term and long-term threats to the

viability of the salamander exist. The ABAT concluded that important

information gaps exist that prevent a conclusive scientific assessment

regarding the biology of the salamander. The ABAT report included

conservation recommendations that emphasize an ecosystem approach to

conservation and recovery of the Barton Springs salamander. Through its

signatory agencies, the state of Texas developed the ``Barton Springs

Salamander Conservation Agreement and Strategy'' (Agreement) to

expedite conservation measures recommended by the ABAT. The signatory

State agencies have committed to implement those conservation measures

using existing and proposed regulatory mechanisms in a comprehensive

program for the conservation of the salamander.

One function of the implemented Agreement is for the Barton Springs

Salamander Conservation Team (Conservation Team) to review the adequacy

of those regulatory mechanisms, rules, regulations, and State agency

policies to ensure that revisions or changes can be developed

cooperatively and implemented expeditiously through State

responsibility for conservation of the salamander and its ecosystem.

The goal of the Agreement is to conserve the Barton Springs salamander

by protecting the high quality spring ecosystem within which the

salamander exists.

The agreement focuses on two objectives. The primary objective is

to eliminate or significantly reduce the threats to the species and to

minimize chances of a catastrophic event. The Agreement establish a

captive breeding/refugium program in order to avoid extinction of the

species should any potential threats cause the species to disappear in

the wild. These objectives will be reached through implementing the

five management actions: (1) Enforce and monitor compliance with

existing regulations and adopt, implement, and enforce currently

proposed regulations to protect the Barton Springs recharge zone; (2)

prevent catastrophic contaminant releases into spring waters; (3)

prevent degradation of springhead habitat; (4) establish a captive

breeding/refugium program; and (5) study the salamander population. In

addition, four administrative actions will be implemented: (1)

Coordinate conservation activities; (2) implement the conservation

schedule; (3) fund conservation actions; and (4) assess conservation

progress. The Agreement establishes the Conservation Team to ensure

that the coordination and assessment roles are carried out under the

team leadership of the TPWD. The Agreement will provide for

conservation and recovery of the Barton Springs salamander by

establishing a framework for interagency cooperation, State and local

community leadership, and coordination on conservation efforts, setting

recovery priorities, and assessing existing, proposed and future

regulatory programs to ensure that the threats are reduced. By

protecting water quality at Barton Springs and in the Barton Springs

segment of the Edwards Aquifer and conserving water quantity, this

Agreement reduces the threats to the species to the point that the

Service no longer believes the species warrants listing. The Service

will closely monitor the implementation of the Agreement and, if the

Agreement is not accomplishing its purpose, the Service may list the

salamander on an emergency basis if appropriate and re-propose it for

permanent listing.

After a thorough review and consideration of all information

available, including the development and implementation of the

Agreement, the Service has determined that listing the Barton Springs

salamander as endangered or threatened is no longer warranted. The

Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial

information available in the development of this withdrawal notice.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author

The primary author of this proposed rule is Steve Helfert, Austin

Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Authority: The authority for this action is section

4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

Dated: August 28, 1996.

John G. Rogers,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 96-22503 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P