[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23377-23392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11194]



[[Page 23377]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC22


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines the Barton 
Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum) to be an endangered species 
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The 
Barton Springs salamander is known only from Barton Springs in Zilker 
Park, Austin, Travis County, Texas. The primary threats to this species 
are degradation of the quality and quantity of water that feeds Barton 
Springs due to urban expansion over the Barton Springs watershed. Also 
of concern is disturbance to the salamander's surface habitat in the 
pools where it occurs. This action implements Federal protection 
provided by the Act for the Barton Springs salamander.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 1997.

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: Lisa O'Donnell, Fish and Wildlife 
Biologist (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone: 512/490-0057; facsimile 
(512/490-0974)).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Service determines the Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea 
sosorum) to be an endangered species, 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 centimeters (cm) (2.5 inches (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 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; 
Robert Hansen, City of Austin, 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 are 
also 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 meters (m) (0.3 to 16 feet (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; Lisa O'Donnell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS), 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). No salamanders were observed at this 
location between December 1993 and 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, and dead salamanders 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 it was 
collected 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 square (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, 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 reported a total of 16 salamanders, and a 
total of 10 salamanders was counted in March 1995 (Hansen, in litt. 
1995c).
    The City of Austin initiated monthly transect surveys in June 1993 
to provide

[[Page 23378]]

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 reported 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, 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 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).
    The Barton Springs segment covers roughly 400 sq kilometers (km) 
(155 sq miles (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 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). A 
detailed description of the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards 
aquifer can be found in the Service's February 17, 1994, proposed rule 
(59 FR 7968). Porous limestone, karst aquifers, such as the Barton 
springs segment may transport pollutants rapidly once such materials 
enter the creeks or other recharge features (EPA 1990, TWC 1989, Slade 
et al.1986, Ford and Williams 1994, Notenboom et al. 1994)
    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; February 17, 1994). 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 petition 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 (60 FR 13105).
    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 or not to list the Barton Springs salamander within 14 days 
of the court order. The court 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 Appropriations Act (Pub. 
L. No. 104-134, 100 Stat. 1321, 1996). The Service published guidance 
for restarting the listing period 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 45-day 
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.

[[Page 23379]]

    On September 4, 1996 (61 FR 46608), the Service withdrew the 
proposed rule to list the Barton Springs salamander as endangered based 
on a conservation agreement signed by the Service and the TNRCC, Texas 
Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), and Texas Department of 
Transportation (TxDOT) on August 13, 1996. The goal of the Barton 
Springs Salamander Conservation Agreement and Strategy (Agreement) is 
to continue existing and initiate new management actions to protect the 
Barton Springs ecosystem and its watershed. The Agreement is 
administered by the Barton Springs Salamander Conservation Team 
(BSSCT), which includes representatives from each of the four signatory 
agencies. In deciding to withdraw the proposed listing rule, the 
Service found that the Agreement, by protecting water quality at Barton 
Springs and in the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards aquifer and by 
conserving water quantity, reduces the threats to the species to the 
point where listing is no longer warranted.
    On March 25, 1997, the U.S. District Court for the Western District 
of Texas found the Service's withdrawal invalid and ordered the Service 
to make a listing determination within 30 days. The court ordered the 
Service to ignore the Agreement in making the new decision. On April 8, 
1997, the Service requested the court to delay the due date for the new 
listing decision until July 23, 1997, so that the Service could reopen 
the comment period and consider information developed since July 10, 
1996, when the comment period on the proposed listing closed. The court 
denied this request on April 15, 1997. The Service is therefore not 
able to consider the following information in making a final listing 
determination: (1) The Agreement and the BSSCT's efforts to implement 
it, including public and technical input given as part of the BSSCT's 
March 1, 1997 public workshop; (2) updated salamander survey results; 
(3) the City of Austin's revised pool maintenance procedures designed 
to reduce salamander mortality; (4) the discovery of a new salamander 
location upstream from the Barton Springs Pool; (5) two additional 
ovipositioning events at the Dallas Aquarium; (6) reinstatement of the 
Save Our Springs (SOS) ordinance; (7) the Barton Creek Watershed 
Protection Initiative with private landowners and the Nature 
Conservancy of Texas; and (8) and adoption of TNRCC's chapters 313 and 
216 of the Texas Administrative Code (see discussion under Factor D 
below).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the February 17, 1994, proposed rule (59 FR 7968) and associated 
Federal Register notices, including notification of a public hearing 
(59 FR 27257; May 26, 1994) and each of the five comment periods 
(February 17 to April 18, 1994 (59 FR 7968); May 26 to July 1, 1994 (59 
FR 27257; May 26, 1994); July 8 to July 29, 1994 (59 FR 35089; July 8, 
1994); March 10 to May 17, 1995 (60 FR 13105; March 10, 1995); and June 
24 to July 10, 1996 (61 FR 32413; June 24, 1996)), 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.
    A public hearing was held 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 provided oral 
testimony.
    The Service solicited formal scientific peer review of the proposal 
from six individuals during the March 10 to May 17, 1995, comment 
period and received comments from three reviewers. The major comments 
from these peer reviewers are: the Barton Springs salamander is a 
distinct species restricted to Barton Springs; the salamander appears 
to be primarily a surface-dwelling species that retreats underground 
during unfavorable conditions (such as drought) and to lay eggs; the 
salamander is vulnerable to declining water quality and quantity and 
other forms of habitat modification; regulations are inadequate to 
protect the Barton Springs salamander; the Service should present more 
data that show increasing levels of pollutants in the groundwater; the 
Service should provide further explanation as to why the Barton Springs 
salamander is restricted to Barton Springs; and increased nutrient 
levels should not affect dissolved oxygen concentrations in the 
aquifer. The peer reviewers' comments are reflected in this final rule.
    Written and oral comments are incorporated into this final rule 
where appropriate. Comments not incorporated are addressed in the 
following summary. Comments of a similar nature or point are grouped 
and summarized. Where differing viewpoints on an issue were expressed, 
the Service briefly summarizes the general issue.
    1. Comment: Several commenters questioned whether information 
regarding threats to the Barton Springs salamander is adequate to 
support a listing decision. Some commenters stated that threats to the 
salamander are greater now than ever before.
    Service Response: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act states that species 
shall be listed as threatened or endangered provided that the continued 
existence of the species is threatened by one or more of the five 
factors discussed below in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species'' section of this rule. Under section 4(b)(1), the Service must 
make its listing decisions based on the best scientific and commercial 
data available. The Service has met these requirements in this listing 
decision.
    Over 50 percent of the water used by Texans comes from groundwater. 
The Barton Springs watershed provides the sole source of drinking water 
for more than 35,000 people living over the aquifer and contributes a 
significant supply of water to the Colorado River, which is the primary 
source of drinking water for the City of Austin. In addition to 
providing a reliable supply of safe drinking water that requires little 
or no treatment, many people depend on the Barton Springs watershed for 
other needs, including agriculture and recreational activities.
    Amphibians are known to be very sensitive to environmental 
contaminants (see Factor E below). Because the Barton Springs 
salamander lives at the main discharge point for the aquifer and is 
continuously exposed to the waters emanating from it, it is a primary 
indicator of the health of this natural resource. As an important 
indicator species, the Barton Springs salamander serves as an early 
warning sign of deteriorating water quality and quantity in the Barton 
Springs watershed, which affects the health and

[[Page 23380]]

well-being of the human population that depends on this resource.
    2. Comment: The Service received comments questioning the 
sensitivity of the Barton Springs salamander to changes in water 
quality and quantity, and asserting that since the salamander has 
survived past impacts, it appears to be hardy and resilient and able to 
withstand future impacts.
    Service Response: Although the Barton Springs salamander has 
survived past impacts, only 4 to 6 percent of the Barton Springs 
watershed is currently developed, and development is expected to 
continue. Furthermore, although the species as a whole has persisted to 
date, survey information indicates that individual salamanders have not 
survived certain impacts, and the species and its prey base are 
vulnerable to changes in water quality and quantity (see Factors A and 
E below). As discussed in Factor E, the difficulty in maintaining and 
propagating the Barton Springs salamander in captivity provides further 
evidence that this species is sensitive to environmental change. 
Toxicity data for the salamander's primary food source, Hyallela 
azteca, demonstrate the sensitivity of that amphipod to contaminants.
    3. Comment: Several people commented on the adequacy of the 
existing rules and regulations in protecting water quality and quantity 
in the Barton Springs watershed. One commenter specifically mentioned 
that, because only two oil pipeline spills have been recorded (see 
Factor A), regulations are apparently adequate to protect water 
quality.
    Service Response: The Act states that species shall be listed based 
on one or more of the five factors discussed in this final rule. The 
Service's analysis of the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
(Factor D) demonstrates that additional measures are needed to protect 
the Barton Springs salamander from extinction. Although certain rules 
and regulations provide some water quality and quantity benefits, they 
do not alleviate all of the identified threats to the Barton Springs 
salamander.
    4. Comment: Several inquiries were made regarding possible effects 
of listing the Barton Springs salamander on land use in the Barton 
Springs watershed and whether listing would infringe on private 
property rights. Other comments discussed possible economic impacts and 
benefits from listing.
    Service Response: While economic effects, private property rights, 
and related concerns, cannot be considered in listing decisions, such 
factors are considered in recovering listed species. By Federal 
Register notice on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), the Secretaries of 
Interior and Commerce set forth an interagency policy to minimize 
social and economic impacts consistent with timely recovery of listed 
species. Thus, it is the Service's desire that any recovery actions 
associated with the Barton Springs salamander minimize adverse social 
and economic impacts to the extent practicable.
    5. Comment: The Service received several comments on the status of 
the Barton Springs salamander's population size, stating that this 
information should be considered in making a listing determination.
    Service Response: Data from monthly surveys of the Barton Springs 
salamander are presented in the Background section and Factor A of this 
final rule. These survey data further support the need for listing. 
Although it may be an important listing consideration, the absolute 
population size does not need to be declining to warrant listing under 
the Act.
    6. Comment: The Service received several comments regarding whether 
the Barton Springs salamander is restricted to Barton Springs.
    Service Response: Survey information of other springs, caves, and 
wells in the Barton Springs segment provided since publication of the 
proposed rule further substantiate that the Barton Springs salamander's 
range is limited to the immediate vicinity of Barton Springs (see 
Background). Because Sunken Garden Springs is part of the Barton 
Springs complex and scientists assumed that the Barton Springs 
salamander occurred there, the presence of salamanders at this spring 
outlet does not indicate that the salamander's range has expanded, as 
some commenters asserted.
    7. Comment: Many people questioned whether recreational use of 
Barton Springs Pool is likely to impact the Barton Springs salamander.
    Service Response: The Service recognizes that swimming is a 
compatible activity with conservation of the salamander. The Service 
has provided additional discussion on recreation related issues in 
Factor E (``Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence'') of this final rule. The Service acknowledges in both the 
proposed and final rules that certain pool maintenance practices may 
impact the Barton Springs salamander, and that the City of Austin is 
continuing to seek solutions that benefit both the recreational aspect 
of Barton Springs Pool and the Barton Springs salamander (see Factor 
A).
    8. Comment: The Service received several comments regarding whether 
critical habitat should be designated for the Barton Springs 
salamander.
    Service Response: Critical habitat has not been proposed for the 
Barton Springs salamander (see Critical Habitat section below). The Act 
requires that critical habitat be designated for a species at the time 
it is listed unless designation is not prudent or not determinable. 
Listing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) provide that critical 
habitat is not prudent if no benefit to the species is derived from its 
designation. Designation of critical habitat benefits a listed species 
only when adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat could 
occur without the survival and recovery of the species also being 
jeopardized. Because the Barton Springs salamander is restricted to one 
area that discharges water from the entire Barton Springs watershed, 
any action that would result in adverse modification or destruction of 
the salamander's critical habitat would also jeopardize its continued 
survival and recovery. Designating critical habitat would therefore not 
provide a benefit to the species beyond the benefits already provided 
by listing and subsequent evaluation of activities under the jeopardy 
standard of section 7 of the Act. Because jeopardy to the species and 
adverse modification of its critical habitat are indistinguishable, the 
Service has determined that designation of critical habitat for the 
Barton Springs salamander is not prudent.
    9. Comment: A few commenters questioned whether the Barton Springs 
salamander represents a distinct species.
    Service Response: The Barton Springs salamander was first 
recognized as a distinct species in the 1970's (see Background). A 
formal description of the salamander was peer-reviewed and published in 
June 1993 (Chippindale et al. 1993a). Although the Barton Springs 
salamander may bear some morphological resemblance to other Eurycea 
salamander species, differences in its morphology, its isolation from 
other Eurycea populations, and genetic research provide sufficient 
evidence to support its designation as a distinct species.
    10. Comment: The Service received comments questioning whether a 
relationship exists between increasing urbanization and declining water 
quality and quantity.
    Service Response: A discussion of the relationship between 
increasing urbanization and declining water quality and quantity is 
presented in Factor A of this final rule.

[[Page 23381]]

    11. Comment: Some commenters questioned whether reduced aquifer 
levels and encroachment of the bad water line constitute threats to the 
Barton Springs salamander.
    Service Response: A discussion of this issue is presented in Factor 
A. Under the 1996 pumping and drought regime, springflows at Barton 
Springs reached historically low levels, and both Eliza Pool and Sunken 
Garden Springs drained completely dry during drawdown of Barton Springs 
Pool. Barton Springs is located near the bad water line, and 
encroachment of bad water to the springs has occurred historically 
under low flow conditions. During periods of low flows, Sunken Garden 
Springs measures high levels of total dissolved solids, indicating bad 
water encroachment.
    Factor A also presents information on the increasing number of new 
permitted wells in the Barton Springs segment and a discussion of 
groundwater pumpage. A substantial increase in groundwater withdrawals 
(compounded by drought) will increase the frequency, severity, and/or 
duration of low aquifer levels and springflows and the potential for 
movement of the bad water line toward Barton Springs. Increased pumpage 
may also increase leakage from the lower Trinity aquifer, which 
contains higher levels of total dissolved solids and fluoride than 
water in the Barton Springs segment, thus further lowering water 
quality.
    12. Comment: The Fish and Wildlife Service needs to implement its 
new directives from the Department of Interior and Commerce, including 
scientific peer review, minimization of social and economic impacts, 
greater predictability, the ecosystem approach, and State agency 
involvement.
    Service Response: The Service has followed its policy directives in 
preparing this final rule. During the reopening of the public comment 
period following the notice to extend the final listing decision (60 FR 
13105; March 10, 1995), the Service formally solicited peer review from 
six independent specialists to evaluate the information presented in 
the proposed rule. The beginning of this section (``Summary of Comments 
and Recommendations'') summarizes the opinions of the three individuals 
who provided peer review. Informal peer review was also solicited 
during the public hearing and each public comment period, during which 
the Service received over 650 letters of comment. The Service solicited 
information and expertise from Federal, State, and local agencies, 
including the U.S. Geological Survey, Texas Parks and Wildlife 
Department, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Barton 
Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District, and the City of Austin 
in preparing the proposed and final rules, and provided written 
notifications to these agencies of the 90-day finding and proposed 
rule.
    The Available Conservation Measures section of this final rule 
identifies specific activities that will not be affected by section 9 
of the Act regarding ``take'' of the Barton Springs salamander, and 
provides guidance and recommendations for avoiding impacts to the 
salamander. The recovery plan will be drafted to minimize social and 
economic impacts while ensuring the long-term survival and recovery of 
the Barton Springs salamander. Protecting the ecosystem upon which the 
salamander and people depend will be an important component in recovery 
planning.
    13. Comment: The Service refuses to acknowledge the benefits of 
existing regulations. The Service's unwillingness to enforce its own 
limited and inadequate requirements further contributes to the 
endangered status of the Barton Springs salamander.
    Service Response: As stated in the proposed rule, the Service 
acknowledges that the existing rules and regulations provide some 
benefits to water quality and quantity. However, the purpose of Factor 
D is to evaluate the inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms. 
The Service hopes that this evaluation will assist in identifying 
measures to strengthen efforts to protect water quality and quantity in 
the Barton Springs watershed and to promote the long-term survival of 
the Barton Springs salamander.
    14. Comment: The Service must consider spill response programs 
designed to remediate the contamination of groundwater resources by 
hazardous substance and hazardous waste releases.
    Service Response: The Service is unaware of any concerted, 
organized effort among the various Federal, State, and local agencies 
to implement a contingency plan for emergency spills in the Barton 
Springs watershed. Also, efforts to restore contaminated groundwater to 
its original purity may be technologically infeasible and/or cost-
prohibitive (see Factor A). Spill remediation is especially problematic 
for catastrophic spills that occur in proximity to Barton Springs or in 
areas that are difficult to access. Because remediation is not always 
effective or possible, prevention is needed to ensure the protection of 
water resources.
    15. Comment: Many of the references cited in the proposed rule are 
not studies or reports specific to Barton Springs, Austin, or even the 
Edwards aquifer, but instead describe general nationwide or statewide 
environmental management issues. These are general policy documents, 
which do not address the circumstances faced by the Barton Springs 
salamander.
    Service Response: Most of the reports and documents cited in this 
final rule specifically address the effects of urbanization on surface 
and groundwater, karst aquifers, the Barton Springs watershed, the 
Barton Springs salamander, and/or the salamander's primary food source, 
and thus are pertinent to evaluating threats to the Barton Springs 
salamander. The information presented in these reports is highly 
consistent with respect to the threat of urbanization on water 
resources.
    16. Comment: The Service cites a 1986 study by Slade et al. that 
projected a doubling of water demands from the year 1982 to 2000. Since 
we are more than halfway through the 18-year time period, are more 
recent data available?
    Service Response: The estimated total pumpage in 1982 was 470 
hectare-meters (3,800 acre-feet), at which time discharge from the 
Barton Springs segment (withdrawal plus springflow) was determined to 
be roughly equal to recharge. Slade et al. (1986) predicted that a 
substantial increase in groundwater withdrawal (compounded by drought) 
would cause a decrease in the quantity of water in the aquifer and 
discharge from Barton Springs. The Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer 
Conservation District estimated total pumpage for 1994 at 570 hectare-
meters (4,600 acre-feet). However, as stated in Factor A, the exact 
volume of water that is pumped from the aquifer is difficult to 
estimate, since meter reports are not required for non-permitted wells. 
Furthermore, groundwater pumpage varies considerably from year to year, 
influenced primarily by the amount of rainfall. The volume of pumpage 
increases and its effects on aquifer levels and springflows become more 
pronounced during dry spells, whereas periods of high rainfall can mask 
the effects of increased dependence on groundwater supplies.
    17. Comment: There appears to be no direct, quantifiable 
relationship between water quality in Barton Creek and water quality at 
Barton Springs.
    Service Response: The Background section and Factor A of this final 
rule discuss the hydrologic regime of the Barton Springs watershed. The 
surface and groundwaters of the Barton Springs watershed are integrally 
related, and all of the six creeks that cross the recharge

[[Page 23382]]

zone of the aquifer affect water quality at Barton Springs. Because of 
the karst characteristics of the aquifer and because Barton Springs is 
the main discharge point for the entire watershed, pollutants entering 
the watershed from any of the recharge sources may eventually reach 
Barton Springs. The USGS has clearly demonstrated that water quality in 
Barton Creek has the most immediate impact on water quality at Barton 
Springs of any recharge source in the Barton Springs watershed because 
of its recharge contribution and proximity to Barton Springs. Data show 
that contaminants in Barton Creek can enter the aquifer near Barton 
Springs and discharge from the springs within hours or days of storm 
events.
    18. Comment: The waters from the outlying areas of the contributing 
zone are not the cause of current degradation and will never 
significantly contribute to the degradation of the springs compared to 
the existing development around Barton Springs. Many existing land uses 
were constructed and operated under less stringent standards. 
Retrofitting existing development would result in far more improvement 
of water quality than would further restriction of new development.
    Service Response: The Service acknowledges that there is a 
relationship between current water quality and quantity degradation and 
existing development and considers retrofitting of these developments 
to be an important factor in protecting Barton Springs. However, water 
quality at Barton Springs is also influenced by the quality and 
quantity of water throughout the entire watershed (see Background and 
Factor A). Although water quality at Barton Springs responds most 
rapidly to changes in water quality in Barton Creek, Barton Springs 
represents a mixture of all of the recharge waters in the Barton 
Springs watershed. High-quality water in the undeveloped portions of 
the Barton Springs watershed helps disperse and dilute pollutants from 
the urbanized areas. Because of the karst characteristics of the 
aquifer, pollution can originate from anywhere within the Barton 
Springs watershed, especially pollutants that are relatively stable and 
mobile in water. Thus, as urbanization expands across the watershed, 
the ability of the aquifer to dilute and disperse increasing pollutant 
loads will decrease. While the Service concurs that retrofitting of 
existing development near Barton Springs may be important to protect 
water quality, measures are also needed to ensure continued protection 
of water quality and quantity throughout the remainder of the 
watershed. A report prepared for the City of Austin (1995) examines 
options for retrofitting developments to improve stormwater quality in 
the Barton Springs watershed.
    19. Comment: The proposed rule did not discuss other sources of 
water contributing to flows from Barton Springs, including the San 
Antonio segment of the Edwards aquifer and the Colorado River.
    Service Response: Independent studies (Slade et al. 1985, 1986; 
Stein 1995) conclude that most of the water discharging from Barton 
Springs originates from within the Barton Springs watershed (see 
Background section). However, under low flow conditions, the bad water 
zone of the San Antonio segment appears to flow northward toward Barton 
Springs. Upward leakage from the lower Trinity aquifer may also 
infiltrate the Barton Springs segment during low flows. Because these 
aquifers are high in total dissolved solids, their contribution affects 
the quality of water in the Barton Springs watershed and at Barton 
Springs.
    The Service is unaware of any reports or data indicating that the 
Colorado River contributes water to the Barton Springs watershed. 
However, Barton Springs does supply baseflow to the Colorado River, 
which may be substantial during dry periods.
    20. Comment: The Service must comply with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to listing the Barton Springs 
salamander as endangered. This would require the Service to study the 
social and environmental impacts of the proposed listing and prepare 
appropriate environmental documentation.
    Service Response: The Service has determined that Environmental 
Assessments 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).
    21. Comment: The statement that ``Loop 360 provides a major route 
for transportation of petroleum and gasoline products to service 
stations in the Austin area'' is unsupported by any data or citation of 
a study. What is the basis of this statement?
    Service Response: This statement was based on the fact that no 
designated hazardous materials routes exist for the Austin area, and 
thus all major roadways can be considered to be transportation routes 
for hazardous materials. Because Loop 360 supports a high volume of 
traffic, and many service stations exist in this part of the Austin 
area, it is considered to be a major transportation route. The 
Service's statement is also supported by the Hazardous Materials Water 
Contamination Risk study prepared for the City of Austin (1994).
    22. Comment: Both Hays County and Dripping Springs experienced high 
rates of growth in the 1980's, yet are still sparsely populated. The 
Service's statement in the proposed rule suggests these areas will soon 
be overrun with people at intensely urbanized levels, which is an 
unrealistic assumption.
    Service Response: The Service quoted a study (see Factor A) 
conducted by the Capital Area Planning Council. Additional information 
on population growth for the northern portion of Hays County is 
presented in this final rule.
    23. Comment: More of the recharge and contributing zones have been 
developed than the Service states in the proposed rule. Based on an 
analysis of historical trends in land development for the recharge zone 
of the Barton Springs segment, approximately 1,200 hectares (ha) (3,050 
acres (ac)) in the recharge zone had been developed in 1979. 
Approximately 3,000 ha (7,500 ac) had been developed by 1993, which 
represents approximately 13 percent of the entire recharge zone of the 
Barton Springs segment.
    Service Response: Factor A of the proposed rule states that ``* * * 
only about 3 to 4 percent of the recharge and contributing zones is 
currently developed,'' which was based on an estimate of impervious 
cover provided by the USGS. A report prepared for the City of Austin 
(1995) has estimated impervious cover over the Barton Springs watershed 
to be 6 percent (see Factor A). Assuming that the commenter's 
calculations of development are also equal to the amount of impervious 
cover, the commenter's assertion that about 13 percent of the recharge 
zone is developed does not appear to be inconsistent with the estimated 
3 to 6 percent impervious cover for the entire watershed.
    24. Comment: What evidence exists that demonstrates that sediments 
entering the pools where the salamander occurs actually settle in the 
salamander's habitat?
    Service Response: Biologists with the City of Austin have found 
that silt and sediments that are hosed from the shallow end into the 
deep end of Barton Springs Pool during cleaning reduce the

[[Page 23383]]

amount of available salamander habitat. Increased sediment influxes 
following major rain events also reduce habitat availability. Sediments 
cover much of the bottom of Eliza Pool and Sunken Garden Springs, and 
the Barton Springs salamander is typically found in silt-free areas 
near the spring outlets.
    25. Comment: A significant number of references cited in the 
proposed rule are not peer-reviewed scientific publications and thus 
should not be given the same level of credibility as those having a 
more rigorous review and approval process.
    Service Response: All official agency reports cited in the proposed 
rule have undergone extensive internal review, and some have solicited 
outside peer review. Articles cited from scientific journals have all 
received formal peer review. Although the Service relies primarily on 
final documents in making listing decisions, the best available 
information may also come from other sources such as written 
correspondence, factual information and data from draft documents, 
expert opinions, and personal communications. The Service strives to 
evaluate the accuracy of this ``gray literature'' before considering it 
in making a listing decision.
    26. Comment: Several individuals commented on the methods and 
results of certain reports used by the Service in the proposed rule, 
including three USGS reports (Slade et al. 1985, 1986; Veenhuis and 
Slade 1990) and a Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District 
(BS/EACD) report (Hauwert and Vickers 1994). The Service was also 
criticized for not making available for public review and comment the 
raw data upon which these and other reports cited by the Service are 
based.
    Service Response: The reports cited in the proposed rule and in 
this final rule present sufficient information and data needed to 
review and assess the methodologies used by the investigators, their 
study results and data analyses, and conclusions. The Service has 
reviewed these reports and determined that the data were gathered and 
analyzed in accordance with sound scientific principles, and accepts 
these reports as valid and relevant scientific information. 
Furthermore, the results and conclusions of independent studies 
consistently show similar trends regarding impacts of urbanization on 
water quality and quantity. The USGS and BS/EACD have both provided 
written responses to the criticisms of their reports (Raymond Slade, 
USGS, in litt. 1994; Nico Hauwert, BS/EACD in litt. 1995; Bill Couch, 
BS/EACD, in litt. 1996).
    27. Comment: The occurrence of turbidity, accumulation of 
sediments, and contaminants in Barton Springs watershed could be due to 
natural phenomena.
    Service Response: The volume of sediments observed in urbanizing 
portions of the Barton Springs watershed and increased turbidity during 
periods of major construction indicate that such activities influence 
these phenomena. As discussed in Factor A, the relationship between 
urban runoff and increased erosion and sedimentation is well 
documented. Increases in turbidity tend to coincide with land clearing 
and construction activities, and discharge of turbid runoff from 
construction projects has been observed entering receiving waters in 
the Barton Springs watershed.
    Research shows that the contaminants discussed in Factor A 
(including elevated levels of nutrients, heavy metals, petroleum 
hydrocarbons, and pesticides) are primarily associated with urban 
runoff. The Service is unaware of any natural sources in the Barton 
Springs watershed that could result in significant concentrations (or 
any detectable concentrations for manmade compounds such as pesticides) 
of these contaminants in water.
    28. Comment: A report by T.U. Taylor (in litt. 1922) states that 
elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria have been documented at 
Barton Springs since 1922. However, the Service stated in the proposed 
rule that the City of Austin determined that the method used to measure 
bacterial counts at the time of the report is different from that used 
today, and thus ``the bacterial counts are not directly comparable to * 
* * current sampling techniques'' (Austin Librach, City of Austin, in 
litt., 1991). The City of Austin's review of the report does not 
provide a basis for refuting its conclusions or excluding them from 
further consideration. The comparison of fecal coliform counts taken in 
the context of the standards of the time, to counts taken today and in 
the context of today's standards, is a valid comparison.
    Service Response: To date, the Service has only been provided a 
copy of a cover letter (dated August 28, 1922) to a supplementary 
report submitted by Mr. Taylor to the City of Austin. The letter states 
the need to filter Barton Springs water for human consumption due to 
contamination with ``B. coli.'' Because no report accompanied the 
letter, and the Service has been unable to obtain a copy of the report, 
the Service can draw no further conclusions regarding its findings.
    29. Comment: What is the basis for the Service's statement that 
``contaminants that adsorb to the surface of sediments may be 
transported through the aquifer and later be released back into the 
water column ''?
    Service Response: The Service based this statement on information 
presented in Schueler (1987), which states that once deposited, 
pollutants in ``enriched sediments can be remobilized under suitable 
environmental conditions posing a risk to benthic life'' (see Factor 
A).
    30. Comment: The Service received a comment letter that contained a 
document comparing the findings and conclusions of the proposed rule 
with those made in a report by the Aquatic Biological Advisory Team 
(ABAT), which concluded that insufficient information appears to exist 
to support a listing decision.
    Service Response: The City of Austin and Texas Parks and Wildlife 
Department formed the ABAT, which consisted of five nationally 
recognized specialists, to make research and management recommendations 
needed to conserve the Barton Springs and Bull Creek watersheds and 
their resident salamander populations (the Barton Springs and 
Jollyville Plateau salamanders). The ABAT members were specifically 
instructed not to make recommendations regarding listing nor to 
evaluate specific laws or regulations. The Service believes that 
substantial evidence exists to support a listing determination for the 
Barton Springs salamander, but also recognizes that additional research 
is important to assist in making sound management recommendations. The 
Service concurs with most of the ABAT's management recommendations, 
which could be incorporated into a regional management plan for the 
Barton Springs watershed, as well as a recovery plan for the Barton 
Springs salamander.
    31. Comment: The TNRCC and TxDOT provided information regarding 
existing and proposed rules and regulations, which they state are 
adequate to protect the Barton Springs salamander.
    Service Response: An evaluation of the existing rules and 
regulations is provided in Factor D of this final rule. The Service 
encourages State and local entities to identify proposed regulations 
and additional protective measures that can serve as a basis for a 
regional management plan for the Barton Springs watershed.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    After thorough review and consideration of all information 
available, the Service has determined

[[Page 23384]]

that the Barton Springs salamander should be classified as an 
endangered species. Procedures found at section 4 of the Act and 
regulations implementing the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 
424) were followed. A species may be determined to be endangered or 
threatened 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 Chippendale, Price, and Hillis) 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 degradation of the quality and quantity of water 
that feeds Barton Springs resulting from urban expansion over the 
Barton Springs watershed (including roadway, residential, commercial, 
and industrial development). A discussion of some potential effects of 
contaminants on the salamander and its prey base (amphipods) is 
provided in this section and under Factor E. Potential factors 
contributing to declining water quality and quantity in this portion of 
the Edwards aquifer include chronic degradation, catastrophic hazardous 
material spills and increased water withdrawals from the aquifer. Also 
of concern are impacts to the salamander's surface habitat.
    Urbanization can dramatically alter the normal hydrologic regime 
and water quality of an area. As areas are cleared of natural 
vegetation and topsoil and replaced with impervious cover (paved 
surfaces), rainfall no longer percolates through the ground but instead 
is rapidly converted to surface runoff. Creekflow shifts from 
predominantly baseflow, which is derived from natural filtration 
processes and discharges from local groundwater supplies, to 
predominantly stormwater runoff. The amount of stormwater runoff tends 
to increase in direct proportion to the amount of impervious cover. 
With increasing stormflows, the amount of baseflow available to sustain 
water supplies during drought cycles is diminished and the frequency 
and severity of flooding increases. The increased amount and velocity 
of runoff increases erosion and streambank destabilization, which in 
turn leads to increased sediment loadings, channel widening, and 
changes in the morphology and aquatic ecology of the affected creek 
(Schueler 1991). Sediment from soil erosion is ``by volume the greatest 
single pollutant of surface waters and is the potential carrier of most 
pollutants found in water'' (Menzer and Nelson 1980).
    Urbanization introduces many pollutants into an area, including 
suspended solids, nutrients, petroleum hydrocarbons, bacteria, heavy 
metals, volatile organic compounds, fertilizers, and pesticides (TWC 
1989; EPA 1990; Schueler 1991; Notenboom et al. 1994; Menzer and Nelson 
1980). Stormwater runoff is a primary source of water pollution. 
Pollutant loadings in receiving waters, particularly in areas that have 
little or no pollution controls, generally increase with increasing 
impervious cover (Schueler 1991). A report by the USGS on the 
relationship between urbanization and water quality in streams 
throughout the Austin area (9 of 18 sample sites were along streams in 
the Barton Springs segment and its contributing zone) demonstrated 
statistically significant increases in constituent concentrations with 
increasing impervious cover (Veenhuis and Slade 1990). Degradation of 
water quality in the Barton Springs watershed is also evidenced by 
algal blooms, erosion, trash and debris, and accumulations of sediments 
and toxics (City of Austin 1995).
    Water quality in the aquifer and at Barton Springs is directly 
affected by the quality of water in the six creeks that cross the 
recharge zone (see Background section). Of these creeks, water quality 
at Barton Springs responds most rapidly to changes in water quality in 
Barton Creek (Slade et al. 1986; City of Austin 1991). Data show that 
contaminants in Barton Creek can enter the aquifer near Barton Springs 
and discharge from the springs within hours or days of storm events 
(Slade et al. 1986; City of Austin 1991). Because groundwater 
originating from Barton Creek remains in the aquifer for short periods 
before discharging at the springs, there is little time for attenuation 
of pollutants before discharging at Barton Springs (Slade et al. 1986; 
City of Austin 1991). Increases in turbidity (a measure of suspended 
solids or sediment), algal growth, nutrients, and fecal-group bacteria 
have been documented along Barton Creek between SH 71 and Loop 360 and 
at Barton Springs, and have been largely attributed to construction 
activities and the conveyance and treatment of sewage in this area 
(Slade et al. 1986; Austin Librach, City of Austin in litt., 1990; City 
of Austin 1991, 1993; Barbara Britton, TWC, in litt., 1992).
    Water quality in the more heavily developed areas of the Barton 
Springs segment and at Barton Springs is also beginning to show signs 
of degradation (Slade et al. 1986; Librach in litt., 1990; City of 
Austin 1991, 1993; Slade 1992; Hauwert and Vickers 1994; Texas 
Groundwater Protection Committee (TGPC) 1995). The BS/EACD found 
elevated levels of sediment, fecal-group bacteria, trace metals, 
nutrients, and petroleum hydrocarbons in certain springs and wells 
between Sunset Valley and Barton Springs (Hauwert and Vickers 1994, 
TGPC 1994). Slade et al. (1986) reported that levels of fecal-group 
bacteria, nitrate nitrogen, and turbidity were highest in wells near 
creeks draining developed areas. In addition to sediments and bacteria, 
tetrachloroethene, a commonly used drycleaning solvent, has been 
detected in water samples from Barton Springs (Slade 1991). Possible 
sources of groundwater contamination include urban runoff, construction 
activities, leaking septic tanks and pipelines, and petroleum storage 
tank releases (Slade et al. 1986; TWC 1989; EPA 1990; Hauwert and 
Vickers 1994).
    One of the most immediate threats to the Barton Springs salamander 
is siltation of its habitat, owing primarily to construction activities 
in the Barton Creek watershed (Slade et al. 1986, City of Austin 1991, 
Hauwert and Vickers 1994, TGPC 1994). Major highway, subdivision, and 
other construction projects along Barton Creek increased during the 
early 1980's and 1990's. While high turbidity has been observed in 
Barton Springs Pool following major storm events since the early 1980's 
(Slade et al. 1986; Hauwert 1995), the duration and frequency of 
sediment discharges from Barton Springs increased substantially during 
the 1990's (Hauwert 1995; TGPC 1994). Barton Springs discharged large 
amounts of sediments following most major rain events in 1993, 1994 
(Hauwert and Vickers 1994; TGPC 1994), and 1995 (Collett, pers. comms., 
1994-1995). Sediments have been observed emanating directly from the 
spring outlets in Barton Springs Pool (Doyle Mosier, Lower Colorado 
River Authority; Debbie Dorsey, City of Austin; pers. comms., 1993; 
Collett and Hansen, pers. comms., 1994-1995) about 8 to 12 hours 
following the start of a heavy rain (Slade et al. 1986; City of Austin 
1991; Hauwert and Vickers 1994; David Johns, City of Austin, pers. 
comm. 1996).
    Several uncased wells in the Barton Creek watershed, one of which 
is located 5 km (3 mi) south of Barton Springs near the Loop 360 
bridge, have been completely filled with a cream-colored, carbonate 
silt (up to 45 m (150 ft)) (Hauwert and Vickers 1994). A well in Sunset 
Valley measured 1 to 1.5 ft accumulations of cream-colored sediment 
over an eight-month period prior to July 1993, and reportedly

[[Page 23385]]

caused the well pump to seize (Hauwert and Vickers 1994). Several well 
owners, drillers, and operators also reported a significant influx of 
sediments during 1993, particularly during periods of heavy rainfall 
and low water-level conditions (Hauwert and Vickers 1994).
    Studies have shown that high levels of suspended solids reduce the 
diversity and density of aquatic fauna (EPA 1986; Barrett et al. 1995). 
In Barton Springs Pool, the lowest recorded population counts of the 
salamander (ranging from 1 to 6 individuals) occurred over the five-
month period following an October 1994 flood event (see Background 
section). The flood deposited a large amount of silt and debris over 
the salamander's habitat in the pool, and the area occupied by the 
salamander during the following months was reduced to the silt-free 
areas immediately adjacent to the spring outlets (Hansen, in litt., 
1995c).
    In addition to covering the salamander's habitat, problems 
resulting from increased sediment loads may include: Clogging of the 
gills of aquatic species, causing asphyxiation (Garton 1977; Werner 
1983; Schueler 1987); smothering their eggs and reducing the 
availability of spawning sites (EPA 1986; Schueler 1987); filling 
interstitial spaces and voids, thereby reducing water circulation and 
oxygen availability (EPA 1986); filling and blocking of recharge 
features and underground conduits, restricting recharge and groundwater 
storage volume and movement; reducing light transmission needed for 
photosynthesis, food production, and the capture of prey by sight-
feeding predators (EPA 1986; Schueler 1987); and exposing aquatic life 
to contaminants that readily bind to sediments (such as petroleum 
hydrocarbons and heavy metals). Once deposited, pollutants in 
``enriched sediments can be remobilized under suitable environmental 
conditions, posing a risk to benthic life'' (Schueler 1987).
    Research indicates that species in or near contaminated sediments 
may be adversely affected even if water-quality criteria are not 
exceeded (Landrum and Robbins 1990; Medine and McCutcheon 1989). 
Sediments act as a sink for many organic and inorganic contaminants 
(Menzer and Nelson 1980; Landrum and Robbins 1990; Medine and 
McCutcheon 1989) and can accumulate these contaminants to levels that 
may impact aquatic ecosystems (Landrum and Robbins 1990; Medine and 
McCutcheon 1989). Metal-contaminated sediment toxicity studies have 
shown Hyallela azteca, the primary food item of the Barton Springs 
salamander, to be the most sensitive organism of those tested (Phipps 
et al. 1995; Burton and Ingersoll 1994). Most polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbons (PAHs), a component of oil, are associated with sediments 
in aquatic ecosystems, which may be ingested by benthic organisms 
(Eisler 1987). Hyallela azteca has been shown to assimilate PAHs from 
contaminated sediments (Eisler 1987). Sediments collected from the main 
stem of Barton Creek on November 21, 1994, about 150 m above Barton 
Springs Pool, contained several PAHs that were 2.5 to 22 times the 
levels shown to always have a toxic effect (survival, growth, or 
maturation) on Hyallela azteca (City of Austin, unpubl. data, 1994; 
Ingersoll et al., in press). Sediments collected from Barton Springs on 
April 20, 1995, also contained PAHs at levels up to 6.5 times those 
shown to be toxic to Hyallela azteca (City of Austin, unpubl. data, 
1995; Ingersoll et al., in press).
    In addition to sediment concentrations, high levels of total 
petroleum hydrocarbons have been detected in water samples from Sunken 
Garden Springs (Hauwert and Vickers 1994). Petroleum hydrocarbons 
include both aliphatic hydrocarbons and PAHs (Albers 1995). Normal 
concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the Edwards aquifer are 
below the detection limit of 1.0 mg/l. However, levels of total 
petroleum hydrocarbons measured 1.9 mg/l following a 9-mm (0.35-in) 
rain event in March 1994, and 1.3 mg/l in April 1994. A well that is 
hydrologically connected with Barton Springs contained a level of 2.1 
mg/l in May 1993 (Hauwert and Vickers 1994; BS/EACD 1994). Petroleum 
hydrocarbons may enter water supplies through sewage effluents, urban 
and highway runoff, and chronic leakage or acute spills of petroleum 
and petroleum products (Eisler 1987; Hauwert and Vickers 1994; Albers 
1995).
    Water samples from Sunken Garden Springs also contained elevated 
levels of lead, which are commonly found in petroleum-contaminated 
waters. Total and dissolved lead levels at Sunken Garden Springs 
measured 0.024 and 0.015 mg/l, respectively (Hauwert and Vickers 1994; 
BS/EACD 1994). Typical freshwater concentrations for lead are between 
0.001 and 0.01 mg/l (Menzer and Nelson 1980). The EPA drinking water 
standard for total lead is 0.015 mg/l. In aquatic environments, 
dissolved lead is the most toxic form, and adverse effects (including 
reduced survival, impaired reproduction, and reduced growth) on aquatic 
biota have been reported at concentrations of 0.001 to 0.005 mg/l 
(Eisler 1988a). Sources of lead in water may include industrial 
discharges, highway runoff, and sewage effluent (Pain 1995).
    Aquatic organisms may absorb lead through skin, gills, intestines, 
and other organs, and may ingest lead through feeding (Pain 1995). Lead 
concentrations tend to be highest in benthic organisms, which may 
assimilate lead directly from sediments (Eisler 1988a). Research 
indicates that lead is not essential or beneficial to living organisms, 
and that all known effects are deleterious, including those on 
survival, growth, reproduction, development, behavior, learning, and 
metabolism (Eisler 1988a; Pain 1995). Adverse effects increase with 
elevated water temperatures, reduced pH, younger life stages, and long 
exposures (Eisler 1988a; Pain 1995). Synergistic and additive effects 
may also occur when lead is mixed with other metals or toxic chemicals 
(Eisler 1988a). Studies have shown that lead is highest in urban 
streams and lowest in rural streams, and that species diversity is also 
greater in rural streams than urban ones (Eisler 1988a).
    Arsenic, which has been used in the manufacture of agricultural 
pesticides and other products (Eisler 1988b) and may be found in 
roadway and urban runoff, has been detected in wells in the Barton 
Springs watershed at levels exceeding EPA drinking water standards 
(0.05 mg/l) (Hauwert and Vickers 1994) and in other areas of Texas (TWC 
1989). Concentrations of arsenic compounds adversely affecting aquatic 
biota have been reported at 0.019 to 0.048 mg/l (Eisler 1988b). 
Toxicity of arsenic to aquatic life depends on many factors, including 
water temperature, pH, suspended solids, organic content, phosphate 
concentration, presence of other contaminants, arsenic speciation, and 
duration of exposure. As with many contaminants, early life stages are 
most sensitive, and large differences in responses exist between 
species (Eisler 1988b).
    Leaking underground storage tanks ``are considered to be one of the 
principal contributing sources of ground-water pollution, placing a 
significant loading on the State's aquifers, due to their regional 
distribution and high number which are estimated to be leaking'' (TWC 
1989). Chronic releases from leaking tanks represent a serious risk of 
water contamination (City of Austin 1994). The TNRCC (1994) lists 
leaking underground storage tanks as one of the top three most 
frequently encountered sources of groundwater contamination in the 
Edwards aquifer. Common pollutants from leaking underground storage 
tanks include gasoline, diesel,

[[Page 23386]]

and other oil products (TWC 1989). The TNRCC's ``Leaking Petroleum 
Storage Tank Case Report'' lists 626 leaking petroleum storage tanks 
for Hays and Travis counties for the period between October 1984 and 
April 1995, of which 158 cases resulted in some form of groundwater 
contamination. Fifteen of the reports specifically identified impacts 
to the Edwards aquifer, of which only three had been officially closed 
or were near closure.
    The conveyance and treatment of sewage in the watershed, 
particularly in the recharge zone, may also impair water quality. 
Sewage effluent may contain organics (including PAHs), metals, 
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), inorganic acids, and 
microorganisms (Eisler 1987; Menzer and Nelson 1980; TWC 1989; City of 
Austin 1991, 1993; Notenboom et al. 1994). Sewage contamination has 
occurred at Barton Springs following major rain events (TWC 1989), and 
high bacterial counts and algal blooms have been reported (Slade et al. 
1986; City of Austin 1991). 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 indicate the presence of other organisms that may be 
pathogenic to aquatic life (Lager et al. 1977), some of which may pose 
a threat to salamanders and/or their prey base.
    Wastewater discharges have been identified as a primary cause of 
algal blooms, which have been a recurring problem in both Barton Creek 
and at Barton Springs (City of Austin 1991, 1993). Increased nutrients 
promote eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems, including the growth of 
bacteria, algae, and nuisance aquatic plants, and lowered oxygen 
levels. Menzer and Nelson (1980) note that ``changes in nutrient pools 
must eventually directly affect the productivity of the entire 
ecosystem, even though the effects may not be measurable in biologic 
terms until a number of years later.'' Because most nutrients in urban 
runoff are present in soluble form and are thus readily consumed by 
algae, nutrient concentrations present in urban runoff tend to 
stimulate algal blooms (Schueler 1987). A 5 km-(3-mi) long algal bloom 
observed along Barton Creek in April 1993 may have been the result of 
an accidental discharge of 1.6 million liters (440,000 gallons) of 
effluent and irrigation water from a golf course (City of Austin 1993, 
1995).
    Based on USGS data (Slade et al. 1986), the average level of 
nitrates at Barton Springs Pool has increased from about 1.0 mg/l 
(measured as nitrate nitrogen) prior to 1955 to a 1986 level of about 
1.5 mg/l. Sunken Garden Springs measured greater than 2.0 mg/l nitrate 
nitrogen during the BS/EACD study (Hauwert and Vickers 1994). Elevated 
nitrate concentrations in groundwater are attributed primarily to human 
activities (TWC 1989). Total nitrogen (as nitrogen) concentrations 
measured in wells in the more urbanized areas of the Barton Springs 
watershed are typically two to six times higher than in rural areas 
(Slade 1992). Elevated levels of total phosphorus and orthophosphorus 
have also been detected in certain springs and wells in the Barton 
Springs watershed (Slade 1992; Hauwert and Vickers 1994). In addition 
to wastewater discharge, other possible sources of nutrients in the 
Barton Springs watershed include fertilizers, solid wastes, animal 
waste, and decomposition of natural vegetation (Hauwert and Vickers 
1994; Slade et al. 1986).
    Over 145 km (90 mi) of wastewater lines occur in the recharge zone 
of the Barton Springs segment (Maureen McReynolds, City of Austin Water 
and Wastewater Utility, pers. comm., 1993). Most of the creeks 
contributing recharge to the Barton Springs segment are underlain by 
wastewater lines, and five wastewater treatment plants are located 
within the Barton Springs watershed (City of Austin 1991). Leaking 
septic tanks and inadequate filtering in septic fields have also been 
identified as a major source of groundwater contamination, particularly 
for older systems (TWC 1989; EPA 1990; City of Austin 1991; Hauwert and 
Vickers 1994; TNRCC 1994). The TNRCC (1994) cites septic tanks as the 
most frequently encountered source of groundwater contamination in the 
Edwards aquifer. Although the amount of effluent leached from an 
individual septic system may be small, the cumulative impact over the 
landscape can be significant, especially for karst aquifers (EPA 1990). 
An estimated 4,800 septic systems currently exist in the Barton Springs 
watershed and may contribute as much as 23 percent of the total 
nitrogen load to the aquifer (City of Austin 1995).
    Highways can have major impacts on groundwater quality (TNRCC 1994; 
Barrett et al. 1995). The TNRCC (1994) lists highways and roads as the 
fifth most common potential source of groundwater contamination in the 
Edwards aquifer. Elevated concentrations of metals, Kjeldahl nitrogen, 
and organic compounds have been detected in groundwater near highways 
and their control structures. Highway construction can also cause large 
increases in suspended solids to receiving waters (Barrett et al. 
1995). Several major highways have been built over the recharge zone 
since the late 1980's, and the expansion of US 290 from SH 71 through 
Oak Hill to a six-lane freeway is underway. US 290 crosses the Barton 
Creek watershed and discharges stormwater runoff from detention ponds 
into tributaries of Barton Creek. Bypass events from a regional water 
quality pond at the US 290/Loop 360 interchange have resulted in 
significant sediment deposition along the entire length of an unnamed 
tributary and a portion of Barton Creek (City of Austin, in litt. 1995; 
City of Austin, unpubl. data, 1996; USFWS, in litt. 1996), less than 5 
km (3 mi) from Barton Springs.
    Organophosphorus pesticides commonly used in urban areas tend to 
degrade rapidly in the environment, but certain pesticides may remain 
biologically active for some time (Eisler 1986, Hill 1995). For 
example, diazinon, which is commonly used in commercial and residential 
areas, may remain biologically active in soils for up to 6 months under 
conditions of low temperature, low moisture, high alkalinity, and lack 
of microbial degraders (Eisler 1986). Diazinon has shown adverse 
effects on stream insects at concentrations of 0.3 micrograms/l (Eisler 
1986). To ensure protection of sensitive aquatic fauna, Eisler (1986) 
recommends that levels of diazinon in water not exceed 0.08 micrograms/
l. Many organophosphorus compounds may result in adverse effects after 
short-term exposures. Exposure may include contact with or ingestion of 
contaminated water, sediments, or food items (Hill 1995).
    Increasing urbanization also increases the risk of catastrophic 
spills. Because of the Barton Springs salamander's limited range, a 
single catastrophic spill has the potential to impact the entire 
species and its habitat. Catastrophic spills can result from major 
transportation accidents, underground storage tank leaks, pipeline 
ruptures, sewage spills, vandalism, and other sources. Because no 
designated route for hazardous materials exists for the Austin area, 
potentially hazardous materials may be transported on major roadways 
crossing the Barton Springs watershed (City of Austin 1994). Expansion 
of major roadways and increasing volumes of traffic, particularly 
across the recharge zone near Barton Springs, increases the threat of 
catastrophic spills.
    Oil pipeline ruptures also represent a source of groundwater 
contamination with potentially catastrophic

[[Page 23387]]

consequences. Three oil pipelines run roughly parallel to each other 
across the Barton Springs watershed and cross Barton Creek near the 
Hays/Travis county line. Two of these lines have ruptured within the 
recharge zone about 13 km (8 mi) south of Barton Springs, which 
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 m (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. Although about 91 percent 
of the spill was reportedly recovered (Rose 1986), petroleum 
hydrocarbon fumes were detected about six weeks later in caves located 
up to 2.7 km (1.7 mi) northeast of the spill (Russell 1987). The second 
pipeline break occurred in 1987 near the first spill site and released 
over 190,000 liters (49,000 gallons) of oil. According to the TWC 
database, more than 97 percent of this spill was recovered (TWC, 
unpubl. data).
    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. In some cases, spills may go 
undetected and/or unreported. Generally, cleanup is initiated within 
several hours once the spill has been detected and reported, but many 
weeks or possibly years may be necessary to complete the cleanup 
effort. In areas where access is difficult (due to remoteness, steep 
terrain, or other factors), remediation may not be possible or may be 
ineffective due to delays in initiating cleanup.
    Increased demands on water supplies from the aquifer can also 
reduce the quality and quantity of water in the Barton Springs segment 
and at Barton Springs. The volume of springflow is regulated by the 
level of water in the aquifer. Discharge decreases as water storage in 
the aquifer drops, which historically has resulted primarily from a 
lack of recharging rains rather than groundwater withdrawal for public 
consumption. During these low flow conditions, ``bad water'' within the 
San Antonio segment of the Edwards aquifer may move northward and 
contribute to flows from Barton Springs (Slade et al. 1986; Stein 
1995). In addition, increased withdrawals could result in upward 
leakage from the underlying Trinity aquifer, which has higher levels of 
dissolved solids and fluoride than water in the Barton Springs segment 
(Slade et al. 1986).
    Under low flow conditions, Barton Springs and a well near the bad 
water line (YD-58-50-216) have shown increased dissolved solids 
concentrations, particularly sodium and chloride, indicating 
encroachment of bad water (Slade et al. 1986). The BS/EACD (Hauwert and 
Vickers 1994) measured high levels of dissolved solids at Sunken Garden 
Springs, indicating a significant influence of bad water during low 
flow conditions. The potential for encroachment of the bad water line 
and/or recharge from the Trinity aquifer increases with pumpage of the 
aquifer and extended low recharge or low flow conditions (Slade et al. 
1986). The encroachment of bad water could have negative impacts on the 
plants and animals associated with Barton Springs. High sodium and 
chloride levels have been shown to increase fish mortality by 
disturbing ion balances (Werner 1983).
    Based on water-budget analyses and pumpage estimates for 1982 
(Slade et al. 1985, 1986), discharge from the Barton Springs segment 
(withdrawal plus springflow) was determined to be roughly equal to 
recharge from surface waters. Thus, a substantial increase in 
groundwater withdrawal would be expected to cause a decrease in the 
quantity of water in the aquifer and discharge from Barton Springs. The 
estimated total pumpage in 1982 was 470 hectare-meters (3,800 acre-
feet), or about 10 percent of the long-term mean discharge of 1,400 l/s 
(50 cfs) for Barton Springs (Slade et al. 1985, 1986). The BS/EACD 
estimated total pumpage for 1994 to be about 570 hectare-meters (4,600 
acre-feet) (Botto and Rauschuber 1995). The exact volume of water that 
is pumped from the aquifer is difficult to estimate, since meter 
reports are only required for municipal, industrial, irrigation, and 
commercial wells and not for wells that pump less than 38,000 l (10,000 
ga) per day, domestic wells, or agricultural wells used for non-
commercial livestock and poultry operations (BS/EACD 1994). Groundwater 
pumpage increases considerably and its effects on aquifer levels and 
springflows become more pronounced during dry spells (Slade et al. 
1986; D.G. Rauschuber & Associates and R.J. Brandes Co. 1990; BS/EACD 
1994; Nico Hauwert and Ron Fiesler, BS/EACD, pers. comms., 1995).
    The number of wells in the Barton Springs segment is growing with 
the increasing dependence on the Edwards aquifer for drinking water, 
irrigation, and industrial use (BS/EACD 1994 and 1995; Botto and 
Rauschuber 1995). In the 235 sq mi area of the Barton Springs segment, 
a total of 54 new wells were drilled between fiscal year (FY) 1989 
(September 1, 1988 to August 31, 1989) and FY 1993, with a maximum of 
18 wells drilled during a single year (BS/EACD 1995). During FY 1994, 
46 new wells were drilled, which is more than two and a half times the 
number drilled in FY 1993 (BS/EACD 1994). An additional 45 wells were 
drilled in FY 1995 (BS/EACD 1995). As urbanization in the outlying 
areas of Austin expands and reliance on groundwater supplies increases, 
the number of wells and the total volume of water withdrawal is also 
expected to continue to increase.
    In addition to contributing to declining groundwater supplies, the 
TWC (1989) cites water wells as a major source of groundwater 
contamination by providing direct access of pollutants into the aquifer 
and possibly through inter-aquifer transfer of bad water. Reduced 
groundwater levels exacerbate the problem through decreased dilution of 
pollutants.
    Under the 1996 pumping and drought regime, flows from Barton 
Springs approached historically low conditions. Because the flows from 
Eliza and Sunken Garden springs are considerably less than flows from 
the main springs in Barton Springs Pool (see Background section), the 
impacts of increased groundwater withdrawals and drought are realized 
more quickly for these spring outlets. As of July 1996, the water level 
in both Eliza Pool and Sunken Garden Springs was less than a foot deep 
(O'Donnell, pers. obs., 1996). Both springs ceased flowing during the 
drawdown of Barton Springs Pool (Hansen, pers. comm., 1996; O'Donnell, 
pers. obs. 1996).
    Other potential impacts to the salamander's surface habitat may 
include the use of high pressure fire hoses in areas where the 
salamander occurs, hosing silt from the shallow end of Barton Springs 
Pool into the salamander's habitat, diverting water from Sunken Garden 
Springs into Barton Creek below Barton Springs, and runoff from the 
train station above Eliza Pool. Following the 1992 fish kill (see 
Background section), chlorine is no longer used to clean Barton Springs 
Pool. The City of Austin has drafted a management plan to avoid, 
minimize, and mitigate impacts to the salamander from pool cleaning and 
other park maintenance practices.
    Impervious cover over the Barton Springs watershed is currently 
estimated at 4 to 6 percent (Slade 1992; City of Austin 1995). This 
area is under increasing pressure from urbanization (Austin 
Transportation Study (ATS) 1994). The ATS has projected that the Austin 
metropolitan area will support a

[[Page 23388]]

population of over 1.3 million by the year 2020, up from 815,000 in 
1994. Southwest Austin, which covers only a portion of the Barton 
Springs watershed, is projected to almost double in size, from an 
estimated 32,000 people in 1994 to 58,000 by the year 2020. Likewise, 
the population in northern Hays County is expected to more than triple 
in size by the year 2020, from 18,000 in 1994 to 68,000 in 2020 (ATS 
1994). According to the Capital Area Planning Council (CAPCO), Hays 
County has the second highest growth rate in the ten-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).
    Several major highways, including a segment of State Highway 45, 
the southern extension of Loop 1 (``MOPAC''), and the Southwest Parkway 
have been built in the last decade to accommodate the projected 
population growth, real estate speculation, and traffic demands in this 
area. Justification for the Highway 290 expansion was largely based on 
the population growth projected for and already occurring in this area 
(ATS 1994). In addition to these roadways, the remainder of State 
Highway 45, an 82-mi loop around Austin, is proposed to be built within 
the next 20 to 25 years. This highway would cross Barton Creek and 
several other creeks in the Barton Springs watershed (City of Austin 
1994).
    Less than 2,400 ha (6,000 ac) of preserve lands currently exist in 
the Barton Springs watershed (USFWS 1996). Much of the remaining area 
along Barton Creek and within the City of Austin's Extra-territorial 
Jurisdiction (ETJ) is slated for development at levels of greater than 
30 percent impervious cover (City of Austin unpubl. data).
    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. No diseases or parasites of the Barton 
Springs salamander have been reported. 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. No existing 
rules or regulations specifically require protection of the Barton 
Springs salamander or the Barton Springs ecosystem, and no 
comprehensive plan is in place to protect the Barton Springs watershed 
from increasing threats to water quality and quantity. The salamander 
is not included on the TPWD's list of threatened and endangered 
species, so the species is not protected by that agency.
    Since the publication of the proposed rule, the City of Austin's 
``Save Our Springs'' (SOS) ordinance was overturned by a Hays County 
jury in November 1994 (Jerry J. Quick, et al. v. City of Austin). Prior 
to its invalidation, the SOS ordinance was the most stringent water 
quality protection regulation in the Barton Springs watershed, 
requiring impervious cover limitations of 15 to 25 percent (based on 
net site area), buffers along major creeks, no increases in loadings of 
13 pollutants, barring of exemptions and variances from the ordinance 
provisions, and attempts to reduce the risk of accidental contamination 
(Camille Barnett, City of Austin, in litt., 1993).
    In addition to the overturning of the SOS ordinance, several bills 
passed during the State's 74th (1995) legislative session that curtail 
the City of Austin's ability to implement water quality protective 
measures within its five-mile ETJ. Senate Bill 1017 and House Bill 3193 
exempt large developments (over 1,000 acres, or 500 acres if approved 
by the TNRCC) from all City of Austin water quality ordinances and land 
use regulations. The TNRCC has determined that this legislation 
conflicts with State and Federal regulations; does not address 
groundwater quality; is inadequate to ensure protection of surface 
water quality and would not meet State water quality standards; 
provides little or no inspection, enforcement, or compliance 
safeguards; and would allow surface and groundwater quality to degrade 
(Mark Jordan, TNRCC, in litt., 1995). Other laws passed during the 1995 
session that limit the enforcement authority of local governments 
include Senate Bill 14, which allows landowners to sue local and State 
governments to invalidate regulations or seek compensation for actions 
that would decrease property values by 25 percent or more; and Senate 
Bill 1704, which ``grandfathers'' developers from updated health and 
safety ordinances.
    Other laws and regulations potentially affecting water quality in 
the Barton Springs watershed include the Federal Clean Water Act, Safe 
Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; 
the Edwards Rules and Texas Underground Storage Tanks Act (30 Texas 
Administrative Code, Chapters 313 and 334), which are promulgated and 
enforced by the TNRCC; 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 
amended Composite Ordinance (1994); and the City of Dripping Springs' 
Site Development Ordinance 52B. In addition to the inadequacies of 
these rules and regulations (discussed below), many of the agencies 
charged with their administration lack adequate resources to carry out 
their responsibilities (TNRCC 1994).
    The purpose of the Clean Water Act is ``to restore and maintain the 
physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' 
Section 304 of the Clean Water Act provides the EPA authority to 
develop water quality criteria to protect water resources, including 
groundwater. However, the primary focus of the Clean Water Act is on 
surface water, and the law does not mandate protection of groundwater 
resources. Furthermore, surface and groundwater tend to be treated as 
separate and distinct resources rather than interactively, and 
protection focuses on human use rather than effects on aquatic 
organisms. Section 302, which provides for a National Pollution 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), primarily addresses point source 
pollution and not non-point source pollution or groundwater 
contamination. Efforts are needed to integrate the relationship between 
surface and groundwater into the regulatory framework and to assess the 
impact of surface water regulations and management practices on 
groundwater resources.
    Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Underground Injection 
Control Program, requires that the injection of fluids underground not 
endanger drinking water supplies. Section 1427 (Sole Source Aquifer 
Program) requires that federally funded projects potentially affecting 
a sole source aquifer ensure that drinking water will not be 
contaminated. A portion of the Barton Springs watershed has been 
designated as a Sole Source Aquifer. The Sole Source Aquifer Program 
applies only to Federal projects and not to State or private projects, 
unless they receive Federal funds, and no requirements related to 
aquatic organisms are included.

[[Page 23389]]

    The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
focus on remedial actions once groundwater contamination has occurred, 
rather than on prevention. Under these Acts, monitoring is required to 
determine when remediative cleanup actions following groundwater 
contamination by chemical and waste sites is complete. In addition, the 
RCRA requires that all underground storage tanks installed since 1988 
be equipped with spill and overfill protection devices, protected from 
corrosion that could result in releases, and equipped with devices that 
would detect any releases that might occur. Previously existing tanks 
are to be upgraded to these same standards over a ten-year period.
    Much of the responsibility for protecting surface and groundwaters 
is directed to and administered by the states. Section 106 of the Clean 
Water Act provides funds to the states for water quality programs, 
including comprehensive groundwater protection programs. Section 303 
requires states to set water quality standards for surface waters, 
employing the criteria established by the EPA under section 304, and to 
designate uses for each water body. Section 319 provides technical and 
financial assistance to the states to implement programs to control 
nonpoint source pollution for both surface water and groundwater. The 
EPA's policy, ``Protecting the Nation's Groundwater: EPA's Strategy for 
the 1990's'' also recognizes states as having the primary role of 
protecting groundwater. Section 1428 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
the Wellhead Protection Program, directs states to control sources of 
contaminants near public supply wells used for drinking water. Most of 
the State of Texas' efforts to protect surface and groundwater 
resources focus on point sources of pollution, monitoring, and 
remediative actions (TNRCC 1994). The TNRCC's Tier II Antidegradation 
Policy applies only to regulatory actions that would exceed fishable/
swimmable quality of Barton and Onion creeks, and allows degradation if 
necessary for important economic or social development.
    The Edwards Rules regulate construction-related activities on the 
recharge zone of the Edwards aquifer 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 though 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, nonpoint 
source pollution, application of fertilizers and pesticides, or 
retrofitting for developments existing prior to the implementation of 
the Rules. (Travis County was incorporated into the Rules in March 
1990; Hays County was incorporated in 1984.) The WPAPs also do not 
apply to development activities in the aquifer's contributing zone. To 
date, the Edwards Rules do not include a comprehensive plan to address 
the effects of cumulative impacts on water quality in the aquifer or 
its contributing zone.
    The Edwards Rules and the Texas Underground Storage Tanks Act 
(Title 31, Chapters 313 and 334 of the Texas Administrative Code) 
require that all tanks installed after September 29, 1989, be equipped 
with release detection devices, corrosion protection, and spill/
overflow protection; that all previously existing tanks be upgraded to 
the same standards by December 22, 1994; and that tanks located in the 
Edwards aquifer recharge and transition zones be of double-walled or 
equivalent construction with continuous monitoring of the space between 
the tank and piping walls for leak detection. The adequacy of these 
measures in preventing groundwater contamination, particularly over the 
long term, has not been demonstrated. Routine testing of tanks to 
ensure proper functioning is not required until after a leak has been 
detected, and no routine monitoring or testing by the TNRCC is 
conducted to determine compliance with the regulations. Formal approval 
by the TNRCC of construction plans for new tanks is only required for 
the recharge zone and not the contributing zone. The TNRCC does not 
maintain a database of the total number of storage tanks that have been 
upgraded, those that still need to be upgraded, or those that are in 
violation of the regulations (Jackie Hardee, TNRCC, pers. comm., 1995).
    A Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit allowing the incidental taking of two 
endangered songbirds and six endangered karst invertebrates, known as 
the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan (BCCP), was issued to Travis 
County and the City of Austin in May 1996 (USFWS 1996). The BCCP does 
not allow incidental taking of the Barton Springs salamander, and 
requires that all permit applicants ensure that their activities do not 
degrade waters in the Barton Springs watershed. The guidance provided 
in the Available Conservation Measures section of this final rule is 
intended to assist landowners in achieving this goal. Acquisition of 
4,000 acres in the Barton Creek watershed as BCCP preserve land will 
provide additional benefits to the salamander by preserving the natural 
integrity of the landscape and positively contributing to water quality 
and quantity in Barton Creek and Barton Springs. The BCCP does not 
apply to development activities in Hays County.
    To protect water quantity in the Barton Springs segment, the BS/
EACD has developed a Drought Contingency Plan (D.G. Rauschuber & 
Associates and R.J. Brandes Co. 1990). Barton Springs has always flowed 
during recorded history, and one of the BS/EACD's goals is to assure 
that Barton Springs flow ``does not fall appreciably below historic low 
levels'' (D.G. Rauschuber & Associates and R.J. Brandes Co. 1990). The 
BS/EACD regulates about 60 to 80 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 (Bill Couch, 
BS/EACD, pers. comm., 1992, and in litt. 1994; Botto and Rauschuber 
1995). According to the BS/EACD (B. Couch, 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 success of the 
plan is limited, since it does not regulate 20 to 40 percent of the 
total volume that is pumped from the Barton Springs segment.
    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 fully aquatic, 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; 
Phipps et al. 1995; Burton and Ingersoll 1994).
    Research indicates that amphibians, particularly their eggs and 
larvae, are sensitive to many pollutants, such as heavy metals; certain 
insecticides,

[[Page 23390]]

particularly cyclodienes (endosulfan, endrin, toxaphene, and dieldrin), 
and certain organophosphates (parathion, malathion); nitrite; salts; 
and petroleum hydrocarbons (Harfenist et al. 1989). 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 be either lethal or 
sublethal, including morphological and developmental aberrations, 
lowered reproduction and survival, and changes in behavior and certain 
biochemical processes.
    Observations of central Texas Eurycea salamanders in captivity 
indicate that these species, including the Barton Springs salamander, 
are very 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 adverse reactions to plastic 
containers, aged tapwater, and detergent residues. The water in which 
these salamanders are kept also requires frequent changing (Sweet, in 
litt., 1993). Unsuccessful attempts at captive propagation of the San 
Marcos salamander (Janet Nelson, Southwest Texas State University, 
pers. comm., 1992) and very limited success at inducing captive 
spawning in the Barton Springs salamander (Ables, Coale, and Dwyer, 
pers. comms., 1996) may also be due to these species' sensitivity to 
environmental stress.
    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, which is located 3 to 
5 m (10 to 15 ft) below the water's surface. The survey data show no 
correlation between recreational use of the pool and salamander 
abundance. Furthermore, salamander population declines have occurred in 
Eliza Pool, which is closed to the public. Although certain pool 
maintenance practices may impact individual salamanders occurring in 
the pools, they are unlikely to have a major impact on the entire 
species.
    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 make this rule 
final. The best scientific data indicate that listing the Barton 
Springs salamander as endangered is warranted. Critical habitat is 
determined to be not prudent for this species for the reasons discussed 
below.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and 
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which protection 
under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Service 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical 
habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations 
exist--(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, 
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species, or (2) such designation of 
critical habitat 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.
    Designation of critical habitat benefits a listed species only when 
adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat could occur 
without the survival and recovery of the species also being 
jeopardized. Because the Barton Springs salamander is restricted to one 
area that discharges water from the entire Barton Springs watershed, 
any action that would result in adverse modification or destruction of 
the salamander's critical habitat would also jeopardize its continued 
survival and recovery. Designating critical habitat would therefore not 
provide a benefit to the species beyond the benefits already provided 
by listing and subsequent evaluation of activities under the jeopardy 
standard of section 7 of the Act. Because jeopardy to the species and 
adverse modification of its critical habitat are indistinguishable, the 
Service has determined that designation of critical habitat for the 
Barton Springs salamander is not 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 public 
awareness and conservation actions by Federal, State, and local 
agencies, private organizations, 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.
    The health of the aquifer and Barton Springs, and the long-term 
survival of the Barton Springs salamander, can only be ensured through 
a concerted, organized effort on the part of all affected Federal, 
State, and local governments and the private citizenry to protect the 
Barton Springs watershed. Conservation and management of the Barton 
Springs salamander will entail removing threats to its survival, 
including--(1) protecting the quality and quantity of springflow from 
Barton Springs by implementing comprehensive management programs to 
control and reduce point and nonpoint sources of pollution throughout 
the Barton Springs watershed; (2) minimizing the risk and likelihood of 
pollution events that would affect water quality; (3) strengthening 
efforts to protect groundwater and springflow quantity; (4) continuing 
to examine and implement pool cleaning practices and other park 
operations that protect and perpetuate the salamander's surface habitat 
and population; and (5) public outreach and education. It is also 
anticipated that listing will encourage continued research on the 
critical aspects of the Barton Springs salamander's biology (e.g., 
longevity, natality, sources of mortality, feeding and breeding 
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

[[Page 23391]]

or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is 
designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation 
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part 402. Section 7(a)(1) 
requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the 
purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for listed species. 
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 a listed species. If a Federal action may affect 
a listed species, the responsible Federal agency must enter into 
consultation with the Service, unless the Service agrees with the 
agency that the action is not likely to adversely affect the species.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. These prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, 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, 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. The Barton Springs salamander is not known to be 
commercially traded and such permit requests are not expected.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances. 
Regulations governing permits are 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 
connection with otherwise lawful activities.
    It is the policy of the Service (59 FR 34272; July 1, 1994) to 
identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is 
listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation 
of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase 
public awareness of the effect of listing on proposed and ongoing 
activities within a species' range, and to assist the public in 
identifying measures needed to protect the species. Aside from the 
potential for catastrophic spills, no single development activity or 
water withdrawal in and of itself is likely to significantly impact 
water quality and quantity in the Barton Springs watershed. Rather, it 
is the sum of all of these activities and their associated impacts that 
threaten this resource and the survival of the Barton Springs 
salamander. Because most of the threats to the salamander come from 
diffuse sources that are cumulative in nature, their effects will be 
observable at the ecosystem and population level rather than at the 
individual level. Thus, the purpose of this guidance is not only to 
identify activities that would or would not likely result in ``take'' 
of individuals, but activities that in combination will ultimately 
affect the long-term survival of the Barton Springs salamander. This 
guidance should not be used to substitute for local efforts to develop 
and implement comprehensive management programs for the Barton Springs 
watershed.
    Activities that the Service believes are unlikely to result in a 
violation of section 9 for the Barton Springs salamander are:
    (1) Range management and other agricultural practices that promote 
good vegetative cover and soil conditions (for example, low to moderate 
stocking rates, rotational and deferred grazing, and maintaining native 
bunchgrasses);
    (2) Swimming in Barton Springs pool;
    (3) Buying or selling of property;
    (4) Improvements to existing structures, such as renovations, 
additions, repairs, or replacement;
    (5) New developments or construction that do not result in an 
appreciable change in the quality or quantity of water in the Barton 
Springs watershed above normal background conditions (non-degradation). 
Generally, new developments and construction designed and implemented 
pursuant to State and local water quality protection regulations in 
effect as of the date of this rule will not result in a violation of 
section 9;
    (6) Routine residential lawn maintenance; and
    (7) Upgrading or replacing existing structures (such as bridge 
crossings, BMPs, septic systems, underground storage tanks) in order to 
minimize pollutant loadings into receiving waters.
    Activities that the Service believes could potentially harm the 
Barton Springs salamander and result in a violation of section 9 
include:
    (1) Collecting or handling of the species without appropriate 
permits;
    (2) Alteration or disturbance of the Barton Springs salamander's 
habitat in the pools where it occurs (including use of chemicals to 
clean the pools where the salamander occurs; use of high pressure fire 
hoses in salamander habitat; removal of beneficial aquatic plants; 
dredging; and frequent and/or prolonged drawdown, particularly during 
drought);
    (3) Illegal discharges or dumping of chemicals, silt, sewage, 
fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals, oil, organic wastes, or other 
pollutants into the Barton Springs watershed;
    (4) New developments or construction not designed and/or 
implemented pursuant to State and local water quality protection 
regulations in effect as of the date of this rule, that result in an 
appreciable change in the quality or quantity of water in the Barton 
Springs watershed above normal background conditions (non-degradation);
    (5) Withdrawal of water from the aquifer to the point at which 
springflows at Barton Springs appreciably diminish;
    (6) Withdrawal of water from the contributing zone to the point at 
which baseflows in the creeks appreciably diminish;
    (7) Introduction of non-native aquatic species (fish, plants, 
other) into Barton Springs or the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards 
aquifer;
    (8) Destruction or alteration of caves, sinkholes, or other 
significant recharge features (including dumping, vandalism, and/or 
diverting contaminated water into these features); and
    (9) Destruction or alteration of spring orifices that provide water 
to Barton Springs.
    Questions as to whether specific activities will constitute a 
violation of section 9 should be directed to the Service's Austin 
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests for 
copies of the regulations regarding listed wildlife and inquiries 
regarding prohibitions and permits should be addressed to the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species/Permits, P.O. Box 
1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (telephone: 505/248-6920; 
facsimile: 505/248-6922).

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental 
Assessments 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).

[[Page 23392]]

Required Determinations

    The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to contain no information collection 
requirements.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available 
upon request from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).
    Author: The primary author of this final rule is Lisa O'Donnell, 
Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, is amended 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. Section 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 where                     When       Critical                 
                                                          Historic range        endangered or         Status       listed      habitat     Special rules
           Common name              Scientific name                               threatened                                                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
AMPHIBIANS                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Salamander, Barton Springs......  Eurycea sosorum....  U.S.A. (TX)           Entire.............  E                    612  NA             NA           
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 24, 1997.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-11194 Filed 4-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P