[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-3635]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 17, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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