[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46608-46616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22503]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AC22
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of
Proposed Rule To List the Barton Springs Salamander as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) withdraws the February
17, 1994, proposed rule (59 FR 7968) to list the Barton Springs
salamander (Eurycea sosorum) as an endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The Service finds that
information now available, discussed below, justifies withdrawal of the
proposed listing of this species as endangered. Various agencies of the
State of Texas have committed to expedite developing and implementing
conservation measures needed for the species and the Barton Springs
segment of the Edwards Aquifer supporting its spring habitat, as set
forth in the ``Barton Springs Salamander Conservation Agreement and
Strategy'' (Agreement), signed August 13, 1996. The Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission,
the Texas Department of Transportation, and the Service are signatories
to the Agreement. The cooperative Agreement addresses risks to the
survival and recovery of the Barton Springs salamander through a
combination of measures. These measures include: revision, adoption,
and implementation of regulations to protect water quality in the
Barton Springs watershed and the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards
Aquifer from degradation; development and implementation of Best
Management Practices to address point source contaminants; refinement
and enforcement of storage and disposal of hazardous waste protocols;
increased commitment to compliance enforcement, monitoring, and
reporting; and development and implementation of local management plans
to prevent degradation of surface and springhead habitat. The Agreement
contains measures to address potential water quantity concerns and to
establish captive refugia to prevent extinction in case of catastrophic
or chronic events. Because the commitment by the State of Texas to
fully implement the cooperative Agreement significantly reduces the
risks to the species, the Service concludes that listing is no longer
warranted.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Ecological Services
Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite
200, Austin, Texas 78758.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Helfert, Field Supervisor (see
ADDRESSES section) (512/490-0057; facsimile 512/490-0974).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Service withdraws the proposal to designate the Barton Springs
salamander (Eurycea sosorum) as endangered, under the authority of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.). The Barton
Springs salamander is entirely aquatic and neotenic (meaning it does
not metamorphose into a terrestrial form and retains its bright red
external gills throughout life) and depends on a constant supply of
clean, flowing water from Barton Springs. Adults attain an average
length of 6.35 cm (2.5 in). This species is slender, with slightly
elongate limbs and reduced eyes. Dorsal coloration varies from pale
purplish-brown or gray to yellowish-cream. Irregular spacing of dorsal
pigments and pigment gaps results in a mottled, ``salt and pepper''
pattern (Sweet 1978, Chippindale et al. 1993a).
The Barton Springs salamander was first collected from Barton
Springs Pool in 1946 by Bryce Brown and Alvin Flury (Chippindale et al.
1993a,b). Although he did not publish a formal description, Dr. Samuel
Sweet (University of California at Santa Barbara) was the first to
recognize the Barton Springs salamander as distinct from other central
Texas Eurycea salamanders based on its restricted distribution and
unique morphological and skeletal characteristics (such as its reduced
eyes, elongate limbs, dorsal coloration, and reduced number of
presacral vertebrae) (Sweet 1978, 1984). Based on Sweet's work and
genetic studies conducted by the University of Texas and Chippindale et
al. (1990, 1992, 1993b), the Barton Springs salamander was formally
described in June 1993 (Chippindale et al. 1993a). An adult male (based
on external examination only) collected from Barton Springs Pool in
November 1992, was selected to be the holotype (Chippindale et al.
1993a).
The water that discharges at Barton Springs originates from the
Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer (hereafter referred to as
the ``Barton Springs segment''). Barton Springs is the fourth largest
spring in Texas, exceeded only by Comal, San Marcos, and San Felipe
springs (Brune 1981). The Barton Springs salamander is found near three
of four hydrologically connected spring outlets that collectively make
up Barton Springs. These three spring outlets are known as Parthenia
(=Main), Eliza (=Concession, =Elk's), and Sunken Garden (=Old Mill,
=Walsh) springs, and they occur in Zilker Park, which is owned and
operated by the City of Austin. No salamanders have been found at the
fourth spring outlet, which is in Barton Creek immediately above Barton
Springs Pool (Chippindale et al. 1993a,b; Sweet, pers. comm., 1993;
Hansen, in litt., 1995a; William Russell, Texas Speleological Survey,
in litt. 1995). The area around the main spring outlet (Parthenia
Springs) was impounded in the late 1920's to create Barton Springs
Pool. Flows from Eliza and Sunken Garden springs also are retained by
concrete structures, forming small pools located on either side of
Barton Springs Pool. The salamander has been observed at depths of
about 0.1 to 5 m (0.3 to 16 ft) of water under gravel and small rocks,
submerged leaves, and algae; among aquatic vegetation; and buried in
organic debris. It is generally not found on exposed limestone surfaces
or in silted areas (Sweet 1978; Dr. Charles Sexton, City of Austin, in
litt., 1992; Chippindale et al. 1993a,b; Jim Collett, Robert Hansen,
and Mateo Scoggins, City of Austin, pers. comms., 1994-1995; O'Donnell,
pers. obs., 1996).
``Dozens or hundreds'' of individuals were estimated to occur among
sunken leaves in Eliza Pool during the 1970's (Chippindale et al.
1993a,b), while fewer than 15, and occasionally no individuals, were
observed during surveys conducted in Eliza Pool between 1987 and 1992
(Chippindale et al. 1993a, b). Fifteen salamanders were observed on
November 16, 1992 (Chippindale et al. 1993a,b). No salamanders were
observed at this location between December 1993 and
[[Page 46609]]
May 1995 (Paul Chippindale, University of Texas at Arlington, Collett,
Hansen, and Scoggins; pers. comms., 1994-1995; Hansen in litt. 1995b).
Numbers ranged from 0 to 28 between June 1995 and July 1996. Dead
salamanders also have been found (O'Donnell, unpubl. data, 1995-1996).
The Barton Springs salamander was reportedly abundant among the
aquatic vegetation in the deep end of Barton Springs Pool when
salamanders were collected there in 1946 (Hillis and Chippindale 1992;
Chippindale et al. 1993a,b). Between 1989 and 1991, Sexton (in litt.,
1992) reported finding salamanders under rock rubble immediately
adjacent to the main spring outflows on ``about one out of four
[snorkeling] dives.'' On July 28, 1992, at least 50 salamanders (David
Hillis, University of Texas at Austin, pers. comm., 1993) were found
over an area of roughly 400 sq. m (4,300 sq. ft) near the spring
outflows in Barton Springs Pool, about 3 to 5 m (10 to 15 ft) below the
water (Chippindale et al. 1993a,b). Following reports of a fish kill on
September 28, 1992, which was attributed to the improper application of
chlorine to clean Barton Springs Pool, only 10 to 11 salamanders were
observed and could only be found in an area of about 5 sq. m (54 sq.
ft) in the immediate vicinity of the Parthenia Spring outflows
(Chippindale et al. 1993a,b). At least 80 individuals were observed
during the first comprehensive survey effort conducted in Barton
Springs Pool on November 16, 1992, and about 150 individuals were seen
on November 24, 1992 (Chippindale et al. 1993a,b). A comprehensive
survey conducted immediately following an October 1994 flood event
found a total of 16 salamanders. A total of 10 salamanders were counted
in March 1995 (Hansen, in litt. 1995c).
The City of Austin initiated monthly transect surveys in June 1993
to provide more consistent data concerning the range and size of the
Barton Springs salamander population in Barton Springs Pool. Survey
counts ranged from 1 to 27 individuals (mean=13) between July 1993 and
March 1995. The highest survey counts (27 individuals) were reported in
November 1993 and May 1994. The lowest counts (ranging from 1 to 6
individuals) occurred during a five-month period following the October
1994 flood event (Hansen, in litt. 1995c). Survey counts between April
1995 and April 1996 ranged from 3 to 45 salamanders (City of Austin,
unpubl. data).
The salamander was first observed at Sunken Garden Springs on
January 12, 1993 (Chippindale et al. 1993b). Less than 20 individuals
have been sighted on any given visit to that outlet (Chippindale 1993b;
Hansen, pers. comm., 1995). Because it is part of the Barton Springs
complex and is hydrologically connected to Parthenia Springs,
biologists had speculated that the salamander occurred at Sunken Garden
Springs. However, no salamanders were observed during previous surveys
conducted at this location between 1987 and 1992. Low water levels and
the presence of large rocks and sediment make searching for salamanders
difficult at Sunken Garden Springs (Chippindale et al. 1993b;
O'Donnell, pers. obs., 1995).
No evidence exists that the species' range extends beyond the
immediate vicinity of Barton Springs. Despite survey efforts and
searches at other spring outlets (including the spring outlet
immediately above Barton Springs Pool), caves, and uncased wells in the
Barton Springs segment, no other locations of the Barton Springs
salamander have been found (Chippindale et al. 1993a,b; Russell, in
litt. 1995; Russell 1996; Hillis; Andy Price, Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department; Sweet; pers. comms., 1993; Hansen, in litt. 1995a). No
other species of Eurycea is known to occur in this portion of the
aquifer. Although the extent to which the Barton Springs salamander
occurs in the aquifer is unknown, it is likely concentrated near the
spring openings where light is available for photosynthesis and food
supplies are abundant, water chemistry and temperatures are relatively
constant, and where the salamander has immediate access to both surface
and subsurface habitats. Barton Springs is also the main discharge
point for the entire Barton Springs segment, and is one of the few
perennial springs in the area.
The Barton Springs salamander's diet is believed to consist almost
entirely of amphipods (Hyallela azteca) and other small invertebrates
(James Reddell, Texas Memorial Museum, University of Texas at Austin,
pers. comm., 1993; Hillis and Chippindale 1992; Chippindale et al.
1993a,b). Primary predators of the Barton Springs salamander are
believed to be fish and crayfish (Chippindale et al. 1993a,b; Collett,
Hansen, and Scoggins, pers. comms., 1995). Observations of larvae and
females with eggs indicate breeding occurs year-round (Chippindale,
pers. comm., 1993; Collett, Hansen, and Scoggins, pers. comms., 1994-
1995). The Barton Springs salamander's eggs are white (Lynn Ables and
Streett Coale, Dallas Aquarium; Jim Dwyer, Midwest Science Center;
pers. comms., 1996) and have never been observed in the wild
(Chippindale, Hillis, and Price, pers. comms. 1993; Collett, Hansen,
and Scoggins, pers. comms., 1994-1995; O'Donnell, pers. obs., 1995-
1996), and thus oviposition likely occurs in subsurface habitat.
Captive propagation of the Barton Springs salamander has been
initiated at the Dallas Aquarium in Texas and at the National
Biological Service's Midwest Science Center in Missouri. Although each
facility has had one successful spawning, hatching success was less
than 8 percent (Ables, Coale, and Dwyer, pers. comms., 1996).
The Barton Springs segment covers roughly 400 sq. km (155 sq. mi)
from southern Travis County to northern Hays County, Texas, and has a
storage capacity of over 37,000 hectare-meters (300,000 acre-feet)
(Slade et al. 1985, 1986). The approximate boundaries are the ``bad-
water'' line to the east (where dissolved solids are less than 1,000
milligrams/liter (mg/l) (1,000 parts per million (ppm)) in the aquifer,
but greater than this to the east); the Colorado River to the north;
the geologic divide between contiguous Edwards limestones overlying the
aquifer and the Glen Rose limestones to the west (Slade et al. 1985,
1986); and a groundwater divide occurring roughly between the Onion
Creek and Blanco River watersheds to the south. The area south of the
southern boundary is known as the San Antonio segment of the Edwards
aquifer and drains toward San Marcos Springs. Significant groundwater
movement from the San Antonio segment northward to the Barton Springs
segment is believed to occur only during extreme drought conditions.
North of the southern boundary, water in the aquifer moves toward
Barton Springs (Slade et al. 1985, 1986; Stein 1995). Transmissivity
(the rate at which groundwater is transmitted through the aquifer)
values for the Barton Springs segment have been estimated at 0.3 to
4,000 sq. m (3 to 47,000 sq. ft) per day and tend to increase as one
moves northward toward the springs (Slade et al. 1985, 1986).
Barton Springs drains about 391 sq. km (151 sq. mi) of the Barton
Springs segment. The remaining 10 sq. km (4 sq. mi) discharge at Cold
and Deep Eddy springs and are believed to be hydrologically distinct
from the area discharging from Barton Springs. Cold and Deep Eddy
springs are recharged by Dry Creek and a portion of Barton Creek. About
96 percent of all springflow from the aquifer discharges through Barton
Springs. The remaining 4 percent exits through intermittent springs.
These intermittent springs flow only about 30
[[Page 46610]]
percent of the time and discharge up to 170 liters per second (l/s) (6
cubic feet per second (cfs)). The long-term mean discharge from Barton
Springs is about 1,415 l/s (50 cfs), ranging from 283 l/s (10 cfs) to
4,700 l/s (166 cfs) (Andrews et al. 1984; Slade et al. 1985, 1986). The
mean water temperature is 20 deg.C (68 deg.F) (Martyn-Baker et al.
1992). Depending on flow conditions and whether the pool is full or
drained, about 55 to 82 percent of the total springflow from Barton
Springs exits the main springs into Barton Springs Pool (Slade et al.
1986).
The Barton Springs segment is divided into the recharge and
artesian zones. The recharge zone is that portion of the aquifer where
Edwards limestones are exposed at the surface, and covers the western
79 percent (about 233 sq. km (90 sq. mi)) of the aquifer. The artesian
zone is confined by an impermeable layer of Del Rio clay and covers the
eastern 21 percent of the aquifer. About 85 percent of all recharge is
through sinkholes, fractures, and other openings in the beds of six
major creeks that cross the recharge zone, including (from north to
south) Barton, Williamson, Slaughter, Bear, Little Bear, and Onion
creeks. The remaining 15 percent of recharge is through tributaries and
direct infiltration between the creeks (Andrews et al. 1984; Slade et
al. 1985, 1986).
The watersheds of the six creeks upstream (west) of the recharge
zone span about 684 sq. km (264 sq. mi). This area is referred to as
the contributing zone and includes portions of Travis, Hays, and Blanco
counties. The recharge and contributing zones (hereafter referred to
collectively as the ``Barton Springs watershed'') make up the total
area that provides water to the aquifer, which equals about 917 sq. km
(354 sq. mi). Based on streamflow studies, Onion Creek and Barton Creek
contribute the greatest percentages of total recharge to the aquifer
(34 percent and 28 percent, respectively). Williamson, Slaughter, Bear,
and Little Bear creeks each contribute 12 percent or less to total
recharge (Andrews et al. 1984; Slade et al. 1985, 1986). The total
maximum instantaneous recharge for the creeks has been estimated at
10,000 to 11,000 l/s (350 to 400 cfs), above which runoff does not
infiltrate into the aquifer. Water flowing downstream off the recharge
zone is runoff that has been rejected (Slade et al. 1985).
Water quality is highly variable throughout the Barton Springs
segment and waters flowing from Barton Springs represent a mixture of
these waters originating primarily from the six streams crossing the
recharge zone. Owing to the amount of recharge contributed by Barton
Creek and its proximity to Barton Springs, this creek has a greater
impact on the water quality at the springs than any other recharge
source in the Barton Springs segment (Slade et al. 1985, 1986).
Although some development has occurred along Barton Creek near Barton
Springs, these waters are diluted by recharge waters from more rural
watersheds, such as Onion Creek. Although farthest from the springs,
Onion Creek provides a significant amount of recharge and thus makes an
important contribution to the water quality at Barton Springs (Andrews
et al. 1984; Slade et al. 1985, 1986).
The Edwards Aquifer is a ``karst'' aquifer, characterized by
subsurface features such as caves, sinkholes, and other conduits. The
aquifer is made up of limestones that have high localized permeability
and porosity. Dissolution of calcium carbonate along faults and
fractures in the bedrock forms solution channels similar to an
underground network of pipes. Since these subsurface ``pipes'' are not
uniformly distributed, groundwater movement in the aquifer is highly
variable, being rapid in areas where the ``pipes'' are large and
extensive, and slow where permeability and porosity are low.
The potential of the Edwards Aquifer and other karst aquifers to
rapidly transmit large volumes of water with little filtration makes
them highly susceptible to pollution (Slade et al. 1986; Texas Water
Commission (TWC) 1989; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1990; City
of Austin 1991; Margaret Hart, TWC, in litt. 1991; Ford and Williams
1994; Notenboom et al. 1994). Major potential sources of groundwater
contamination have been attributed to construction activities, leaking
underground storage tanks, pipelines, septic tanks, accidental spills,
and pesticide and fertilizer use (EPA 1990, TWC 1989). Pollutants
entering the creeks or other recharge features may then be rapidly
transported into the aquifer. Once in a karst aquifer, treatment of
water-borne contaminants is generally ineffective because: (1) Few
materials (such as sand, gravel, and organic matter) are present to
filter out pollutants; (2) little evaporation occurs, which is
important in eliminating highly volatile organic compounds; (3) little
filtration occurs through thin karst soils; (4) water is transported
rapidly through a conduit system with little or no filtration (EPA
1990; TWC 1989; Slade et al. 1986; Ford and Williams 1994; Notenboom et
al. 1994); and (5) some contaminants (such as nitrates and petroleum
hydrocarbons) tend to be highly insoluble and mobile in water and may
not adsorb onto karst substrates (TWC 1989).
Because of the characteristics of karst aquifers, Barton Springs is
believed to be heavily influenced by the quality and quantity of
runoff, particularly in the recharge zone (City of Austin 1991, Slade
et al. 1986). Thus, increasing urban development over the area
supplying recharge waters to the Barton Springs segment can threaten
water quality within the aquifer. The Texas Water Commission (now known
as the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC))
identified the Edwards Aquifer as being one of the most sensitive
aquifers in Texas to groundwater pollution (TWC 1989; Hart, in litt.,
1991; TNRCC 1994).
Previous Federal Action
The Barton Springs salamander was a Category 2 candidate species on
the Service's candidate notices of review from December 30, 1982 (47 FR
58454; September 18, 1985: 50 FR 37958; January 6, 1989: 54 FR 554; and
November 21, 1991: 56 FR 58804) until publication of the proposed rule
to list the species as endangered (59 FR 7968). Dr. Mark Kirkpatrick
and Ms. Barbara Mahler petitioned the Service to list the Barton
Springs salamander on January 22, 1992, and on December 11, 1992 (57 FR
58779), the Service published a notice in the Federal Register that the
petitioner presented substantial information that the requested action
may be warranted. A proposed rule to list the Barton Springs salamander
was published in the Federal Register on February 17, 1994 (59 FR
7968). The Service held a public hearing on June 16, 1994, in Austin,
Texas (59 FR 27257). On March 10, 1995, the Service published a notice
extending the 1-year deadline for final action on the proposed rule
until August 17, 1995, and reopened the public comment period (59 FR
27257). Reasons for the 6-month extension are provided in the March 10,
1995, Federal Register notice.
On April 10, 1995, Congress enacted a moratorium prohibiting work
on listing actions (Public Law 104-6) and eliminated funding for the
Service to conduct final listing actions. On November 27, 1995, in
response to a lawsuit from the Save Our Springs Legal Defense Fund
(Save Our Springs Legal Defense Fund, Inc., et al., v. Bruce Babbitt),
a U.S. District Court invalidated the Service's March 10, 1995, notice
of extension and ruled that the Service had to make a final
determination on whether to list the Barton Springs salamander within
14 days of the court order. The court
[[Page 46611]]
granted a stay pending the Service's appeal of the order, on the
grounds that the moratorium and lack of funding prohibited the Service
from making a final listing determination. The moratorium was lifted on
April 26, 1996, by means of a Presidential waiver, at which time
limited funding for listing actions was made available through the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law No. 104-134, 100
Stat. 1321, 1996). The Service published guidance for restarting the
listing program on May 16, 1996 (61 FR 24722). Due to the potential for
new information during the lapse between the reinstatement of the
listing program and the close of the last comment period (May 17,
1995), the Service reopened the public comment period on June 24, 1996,
for 30 days. That comment period closed July 10, 1996, by U.S. District
Court order.
Development of Conservation Agreement
Following the Service's decision to propose the species for listing
as endangered, the City of Austin and the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department (TPWD) formed the Aquatic Biological Assessment Team (ABAT)
to conduct independent peer review of the listing proposal and to
address salamander issues. The ABAT concluded that important
information gaps exist that prevent a conclusive scientific assessment
regarding the biology of the salamander. The ABAT also noted that both
short-term and long-term threats to the viability of the species exist.
On September 20, 1995, the ABAT issued a report detailing its
recommendations for further study of the Barton Springs salamander so
that improved scientific understanding could lead to the development of
factually based conservation measures for the species. Those
recommendations led to the ``Barton Springs Salamander Conservation
Agreement and Strategy'' (Agreement) signed by the State agencies on
August 13, 1996.
In order to meet the objectives of the Agreement, agencies of the
State of Texas will implement five conservation actions. These actions
are: (1) Enforcement and monitoring of compliance with existing
regulations and adoption, implementation, and enforcement of currently
proposed regulations; (2) prevention of catastrophic contaminant
releases into the spring waters; (3) prevention of degradation of the
springhead habitat; (4) establishment of a captive breeding program;
and (5) development of a better biological understanding of the
salamander population. In addition, the State will effect four general
administrative actions: (1) Coordination of conservation activities;
(2) implementation of the conservation schedule; (3) funding of
conservation actions; and (4) assessment of the conservation progress.
The actions listed above are adequate to reduce risks to the
salamander. But, if in the future, the adequacy is questioned, the
Barton Springs Salamander Conservation Team (Conservation Team) will
assess such issues for follow up on conservation actions.
The Conservation Team was formed under the Agreement to administer
and revise the Agreement as needed, based on new biological information
on the species. Such information will include the results of a TPWD-
sponsored population and habitat study, which may lead to a population
viability and habitat analysis (PVHA) workshop. The Conservation Team
will coordinate conservation activities and monitor conservation
actions taken by the signatories of the Agreement. The Service
understands that the Conservation Team will review the current and
proposed regulatory programs that contribute to conserving the Barton
Springs salamander, its habitat and the ecosystem, the Barton Springs
segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
The Service believes that the Agreement ensures the implementation
of conservation measures that will reduce the threats to the salamander
to the point that it does not warrant listing. The Service therefore
withdraws the proposal to list the Barton Springs salamander as
endangered.
Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
In the February 17, 1994, proposed rule (59 FR 7968) and associated
Federal Register notices, including notification of a public hearing
(59 FR 27257) and each of the five comment periods (February 17 to
April 18, 1994 (59 FR 7968); May 26 to July 1, 1994 (47 FR 13105); July
8 to July 29, 1994 (59 FR 35089); March 10 to May 17, 1995 (47 FR
13105); and June 24 to July 10, 1996 (61 FR 32414)), all interested
parties were requested to submit factual reports or information to be
considered in making a final listing determination. Appropriate Federal
and State agencies, local governments, scientific organizations, and
other interested parties were contacted and asked to comment. Legal
notices of the public hearing which invited general public comment were
published in the Dripping Springs Century News and Austin-American
Statesman on June 8, 1994, in the Drippings Springs Dispatch on June 9,
1994, and in the Austin Chronicle on June 10, 1994.
The Service received 657 written and oral comments, 8 videotapes, 5
petitions, and 2 resolutions from individuals and agencies. Of the 657
comments, 524 supported the proposed action, 123 opposed it, and 10
stated neither support nor opposition. Four petitions totaling over
1,800 signatures and one resolution from the City of Austin supported
listing, and one petition containing 29 signatures and one resolution
from the city of Dripping Springs opposed the listing.
The Service held a public hearing in two sessions on June 16, 1994,
at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Auditorium at the University of Texas at
Austin. Over 160 people attended the public hearing, and 74 individuals
provided oral testimony.
Written and oral comments are incorporated into this withdrawal
notice where appropriate. Most of the comments were directly related to
listing the salamander as endangered. Many of the comments supporting
listing provided substantive factual information that documented risks
to the Barton Springs salamander. Those comments were considered, and
listing appeared warranted prior to the signing of the Agreement.
Conversely, substantive comments opposing listing generally discussed
the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms then in place to protect
the salamander. Since development of the Agreement, commitment to
conservation of the species has been insured, rendering most of the
comments on this action moot, outdated, or otherwise irrelevant to this
withdrawal notice. The Service carefully considered all comments
submitted relevant to the decision to withdraw the proposed listing.
Comments submitted are available for review at the Service's Austin
Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
The Service must consider five factors described in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act when determining whether to list a species. These factors,
and their application to the Service's decision to withdraw the
proposal to list the Barton Springs salamander, are as follows:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range. The primary risks to the Barton
Springs salamander and its habitat, which the Service identified in its
proposal to list the species (59 FR 7968), are degradation of water
quality and
[[Page 46612]]
quantity resulting from urban expansion over the Barton Springs
watershed (including roadway, residential, commercial, and industrial
development). The Service identified cumulative degradation,
catastrophic spills (such as hazardous materials), and increased water
withdrawals from the aquifer (compounded by drought) as factors
contributing to declining water quality and quantity in the portion of
the Edwards Aquifer upon which the species depends. Other concerns
identified by the Service are potential impacts to the salamander's
surface habitat in Barton Springs pool caused by pool maintenance and
cleaning activities.
The Agreement includes a State commitment to implement specific
conservation measures to protect the salamander, its habitat and the
ecosystem, the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer. The
Agreement addresses these risks to the Barton Springs salamander
through a combination of measures. They are: (1) Revision, adoption,
and implementation of regulations to protect water quality in the
Barton Springs watershed and the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards
Aquifer from degradation; (2) development and implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to address point source contaminants; (3)
refinement and enforcement of storage and disposal of hazardous waste
protocols; (4) increased commitment to compliance enforcement,
monitoring, and reporting; and (5) development of local management
plans to prevent degradation of surface and springhead habitat.
The Agreement includes specific responsibilities to be implemented
immediately and in Fiscal Year 1997 by the lead State agencies. Those
responsibilities for the TPWD include: provide the team leader for the
Conservation Team (formed in the Agreement); assist the City of Austin
in Barton Springs pool maintenance; assist other State and local
agencies in evaluating existing and proposed conservation actions that
benefit the Barton Springs salamander; sponsor a salamander population
and habitat study and follow up on a population viability and habitat
analysis (PVHA) workshop; serve as the responsible State agency for
protection and conservation of the salamander and its unique ecosystem;
serve as the responsible State agency for enforcement of the Act; and
serve as the responsible lead for establishing a captive breeding/
refugium program. The responsibilities of the TNRCC include: evaluate
existing and proposed water quality regulations for State and local
agencies and private development compliance in the protection and
conservation of Barton Springs, the Barton Springs segment of the
Edwards Aquifer, and the recharge zone and contributing streams and
watersheds; serve as the responsible State agency for ensuring water
quality compliance and monitoring; and serve as the responsible State
agency for coordinating State/regional/local response and remediation
on hazardous materials spills and contingency plans and operations.
Commitments by The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) include:
serve as the responsible State agency for ensuring that all
transportation projects over the recharge zone are developed with BMPs
that will minimize or prevent the degradation of recharging waters to
Barton Springs; serve as responsible State agency for the design,
construction and maintenance of permanent structural controls (e.g.,
hazardous materials traps, detention ponds, filtration basins, etc.) on
transportation projects over the recharge zone; serve as the
responsible State agency for ensuring that transportation projects are
constructed in a manner to minimize water quality impacts in accordance
with State law and regulations; and work with TPWD on conservation
issues related to transportation activities in accordance with the
Memorandum of Understanding between the two State agencies. The Service
is responsible for: serving on the Conservation Team and providing
technical assistance to all State agencies, regional and local agencies
and cooperators; and providing technical input to State, regional and
local agencies and cooperating interests concerning the conservation of
the salamander.
The Agreement includes measures to address potential water quantity
concerns and to minimize chances of a catastrophic event, however the
Agreement establishes captive refugia to prevent extinction in case of
catastrophic or chronic events. The Barton Springs salamander is still
considered rare and potentially vulnerable; however, the commitment by
the State of Texas to implement the cooperative Agreement reduces the
imminence and severity of threats to the species so that listing is no
longer considered warranted.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. No threat from overutilization of this species is
known at this time.
C. Disease or predation. The Service is not aware of diseases or
parasites of the Barton Springs salamander. Primary predators of the
Barton Springs salamander are believed to be predatory fish and
crayfish; however, no information exists to indicate that predation
poses a major threat to this species.
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The
conservation and recovery of this species is tied to the protection of
water quality and quantity through regulatory mechanisms for Barton
Springs, the Barton Creek watershed, and the Barton Springs segment of
the Edwards Aquifer. The Service evaluated existing State and local
regulatory mechanisms and BMPs prior to preparing the proposed rule for
listing the species. The Service found evidence of inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms in 1994 and published the proposed rule
with information on this factor. Several commentors, including the
State of Texas, presented information on the issue of existing
regulatory programs. The Service reopened the comment period on June
24, 1996, in part due to the potential for new information on proposed
regulatory protection under State authorities and disagreement
concerning data on existing regulatory mechanisms that would conserve
the species. The State of Texas developed the Agreement specifically to
implement conservation measures using existing and proposed regulatory
mechanisms in a comprehensive program for the conservation of the
Barton Springs salamander.
The Service recognizes that the Agreement reduces the threats to
the salamander. The Agreement addresses the issue of reducing threats
by charging the Conservation Team to review the adequacy of those
regulatory mechanisms, rules, regulations, and State agency policies
for conserving the species and its habitat. This review will ensure
that revisions or changes will be developed cooperatively and
implemented expeditiously through State government mechanisms to
conserve the salamander and its ecosystem. As team leader, TPWD is
charged with ensuring that these conservation measures are implemented.
The Service serves on the team, but if the team's recommendations to
State agencies are not implemented, the Service may withdraw from the
Agreement and will consider the use of the full range of its listing
authority, including emergency listing, to protect the species.
The signatories of the Agreement are those agencies with the
responsibility, authority, and funding mechanisms to implement the
provisions of the Agreement. The signatories include the
[[Page 46613]]
TPWD, the TNRCC, the TXDOT, and the Service. Other parties may be
included as additional measures are added to the Agreement. The
Agreement follows the recommendations presented by the ABAT report
(1995), using an ecosystem approach to conserve the Barton Springs
salamander population by maintaining the high quality spring ecosystem
within which the salamander exists.
The Agreement focuses on two objectives. The main objective is to
eliminate or significantly reduce the threats to the species. This
includes eliminating risk of catastrophic events. In case this does not
work, the Agreement establishes a captive breeding/refugium program in
order to avoid extinction of the species should any potential threats
actually cause the species to disappear in the wild. These objectives
will be reached through implementation of the Agreement for the
species.
The TNRCC has implemented a comprehensive water quality protection
program for the Edwards Aquifer and related surface waters. This
program covers the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer that
yields flow to Barton Springs and provides the most stringent
groundwater quality protection measures in the State.
The Federal Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) rules require each State to develop and implement an
anti-degradation policy, as a part of its water quality standards (40
CFR 131.6). Such standards, including the anti-degradation policy, must
be approved by the EPA. The TNRCC's policy, which has been approved by
EPA, is contained in 30 TAC 307.5 and adopts the language used by the
EPA in its anti-degradation policy (40 CFR 131.12).
The Tier II Anti-degradation Policy contained in section 307.5 of
the TNRCC's rules is currently applicable to the Barton Creek
watershed. This policy provides that no activities subject to
regulatory action which would cause degradation of waters which exceed
fishable/swimmable quality will be allowed, unless it can be shown that
the lowering of the water quality is necessary for important economic
or social development. Degradation is defined as a lowering of water
quality beyond a de minimus extent, to the extent that an existing use
is impaired. Fishable/swimmable waters are waters which have quality
sufficient to support propagation of indigenous fish, shellfish and
wildlife, as well as recreation in and on the water. Water quality
sufficient to protect existing uses is to be maintained. The
Conservation Team will assess the potential impact to the salamander of
the anti-degradation policy exception (important economic or social
development) that could lead to degradation of the salamander's
habitat. The policy exception would require careful assessment and
recommended action to alleviate the threat to the salamander, its
habitat and the ecosystem, the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards
Aquifer. If the Conservation Team's recommended action is not
implemented, the Service may withdraw from the Agreement and will
consider the use of the full range of its listing authority, including
emergency listing, to protect the species.
The TNRCC's rules seek to maintain and protect the water quality
standards and related aquatic life uses designated for the Barton Creek
watershed. The regulation of point discharges and effluent on and
upstream of the recharge zone (section 313.6), as well as the design,
installation, and removal of petroleum storage tanks (PSTs) (sections
313.10 and 313.11) and on-site sewage systems (section 285.9) are the
most stringent in the State and are summarized in the TNRCC's July 1,
1996, memo entitled ``Protecting Water Quality in the Edwards
Aquifer.'' No new or increased discharges are allowed in the recharge
zone. Additionally, no confined animal operations may be located in the
recharge zone (section 313.10).
In addition to the more broadly applicable chapter 313 TNRCC's
rules, for which revisions are currently proposed, under State Senate
Bill 1017 (codified as section 26.179, Texas Water Code), special water
quality protection plans are being developed and implemented in the
Barton Creek watershed within the contributing zone of the Edwards
Aquifer. This legislation applies to property of 200 hectares (500
acres) or more within the City of Austin's extraterritorial
jurisdiction where a designated water quality protection zone and a
water quality protection plan are subject to review and approval by the
TNRCC. The legislation provides a non-degradation water quality goal by
providing that development on the property may not result in exceeding
background water quality. The quality of runoff water must be
comparable to those levels that existed prior to new development.
Proposed rules under 30 TAC chapter 216 (relating to Water Quality
Protection Zones) that implement this legislation were published in the
Texas Register on April 14, 1996, for public comment. Adoption of these
rules by the TNRCC is expected in October 1996. If not adopted in a
timely manner, the Service would withdraw from the Agreement and re-
propose the salamander for listing.
The TNRCC proposed a new Edwards Aquifer rule as a new chapter 213
to streamline and consolidate the existing chapter 313 Edwards Aquifer
rule, which are also expected to be adopted in October, 1996. The
proposed rule would also update the current day-to-day operations of
the agency relating to the protection of the water quality of the
Edwards Aquifer and make the administration of the Edwards Aquifer
Protection Program more efficient and effective. The proposed rule also
provides: new or revised definitions for regulated activity, BMP,
aboveground and underground storage tank facilities, commencement of
construction, geologic or manmade feature, sensitive feature, and site.
The rule consolidates into one section the requirement for filing and
processing an Edwards Aquifer protection plan, details how the plan
will be processed by the agency; prohibits the commencement of
construction of any regulated activity until a plan has been approved
by the agency; and provides that the term of approval of a plan will
expire two years after the initial issuance unless commencement of
construction has occurred. The rule also consolidates the description
of activities that require an Edwards Aquifer protection plan, the
contents of various plans, notification and inspection requirements,
and exemptions from submitting a plan.
Five new requirements for the technical report submitted as part of
an Edwards Aquifer protection plan are proposed under the new rule in
chapter 213. The report must include a description of measures to be
taken to avoid or minimize instream erosion from water flowing off the
site. Measures that would decrease instream erosion will protect water
quality. The report must include a description of the BMPs and measures
that will be taken to prevent pollutants from entering the aquifer
while, to the extent practicable, maintaining flow to sensitive
features identified in either the assessment of area geology or during
excavation, blasting, or construction. The report must include a plan
for inspection of BMPs and measures and their maintenance and repair.
The existing rule requires measures to prevent pollution of stormwater
flowing onto and off a site. The submission of this plan will formalize
maintenance and repair as part of an Edwards Aquifer protection plan.
The requirement for a downgradient assessment of area geology has been
changed from one mile to one-half mile. A geological assessment will be
performed 15 m (50
[[Page 46614]]
feet) on either side of the path of a proposed sewer line, allowing for
pre-planning to address sensitive features. The rule prohibits
construction on either the recharge or transition zone of new municipal
solid waste landfill activities and restricts further the construction
and use of underground and aboveground storage tanks and facilities.
Prior to commencement of construction, a developer of a project on
the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone must submit a Water Pollution
Abatement Plan (WPAP) to the TNRCC for review and approval. The
developer must propose in the plan measures and practices that will
prevent pollution of stormwater entering the site, on-site, and leaving
the site. Pollution is defined in the rule as the alteration of the
physical, chemical or biological quality of, or the contamination of,
any water in the State that renders the water harmful, detrimental or
injurious to humans, animal life, vegetation or property, or to public
health, safety or welfare, or impairs the usefulness of the public
enjoyment of the waters for any lawful or reasonable purpose. The plans
must meet this performance goal of water quality protection. Under the
proposed new rule in chapter 213, BMPs must be included and implemented
as part of the WPAP.
The TNRCC is responsible for compliance monitoring of water
pollution abatement plans for the Barton Creek watershed. The TNRCC's
staff perform pre-construction onsite inspections prior to approval of
WPAPs. This includes inspection to verify that all recharge features
have been identified on the site. The TNRCC's staff conduct a follow-up
inspection for each site during construction to ensure that all
pollution prevention measures are in place, maintained properly and
working as required. A reporting requirement in all approved plans is
the immediate notification by the permittee to the TNRCC of any
previously unidentified recharge feature discovered during
construction. If such a feature is found, construction must stop until
the TNRCC's staff can inspect the feature and approve the proposed
measures to prevent pollution from entering the feature. The TNRCC
conducts inspections before, during, and after construction of all
TxDOT road and highway projects as well as commercial developments. The
TNRCC also inspects any non-State road development project (e.g., city)
to ensure that water quality protection under permitted WPAPs is
enforced. During Fiscal Year 1996, TNRCC Austin field staff conducted
182 initial site assessments and 289 follow-up inspections. Almost all
non-compliances (typically failure to properly maintain a BMP such as a
sediment control fence or other structure) were remedied immediately
during these inspections. The remainder were remedied after receipt of
a ``Notice of Violation'' letter. In only one instance during Fiscal
Year 1996 was it necessary for the field staff to refer a violation for
formal enforcement in order to achieve compliance.
Statewide rules for the protection of water quality have been
applied to the Barton Springs area since their inception. This includes
requirements for PSTs, spill response and remediation, hazardous waste
control, and point and non-point source pollution prevention programs.
The Edwards Aquifer rules contained in chapter 313 were extended to
Travis County beginning in 1990. Chapter 313 provides that if
construction on a project has not commenced within two years of
application approval, a new application must be submitted for review
and approval. However, rules in effect at the time of resubmission of
the initial application shall apply to the new application.
Pursuant to the TNRCC's authority to protect the water quality of
the Edwards Aquifer, the TNRCC's rules contained in section
313.4(b)(4)(D) provide that a water pollution abatement plan must
contain a description of the measures that will be taken to prevent
pollutants from entering recharge features ``while maintaining or
enhancing the quantity of water entering the recharge features. * * *''
This language is also contained in the proposed amendments to these
rules and more clearly states that the sealing of a recharge feature
may not be an acceptable measure to prevent contaminants from entering
the aquifer unless there is no reasonable, practicable alternative.
The Edwards Aquifer/Barton Springs Conservation District controls
the withdrawal and use of the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards
Aquifer. The District's rules require users to implement water
conservation measures and mandate reduction measures during a drought.
When fully implemented, the District's drought contingency plan is set
up to prevent the aquifer from dropping below historically low levels
and thus conserve springflow at Barton Springs.
Full implementation of spill contingency plans and hazardous
materials storage, transportation, and use during construction is a key
component of protection of the waters supporting Barton Springs and the
salamander. In particular, the potential for catastrophic spills from a
highway over the recharge zone is a major risk to the species. In order
to eliminate the risk, the TNRCC works with the TxDOT to address both
potential contamination issues surrounding the construction of highways
and the placement of hazardous materials traps (HMTs) to capture
accidental spills resulting from accidents.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulates the
transportation of hazardous materials. The requirements for driver
training, shipping papers, insurance, placarding and container
integrity and labeling are established by the USDOT pursuant to the
Hazardous Materials Uniform Transportation Safety Act. The TNRCC
imposes additional regulations on the transportation of hazardous
wastes, which call for tracking of shipments to ensure that they reach
their intended destination. The Texas Department of Public Safety
provides enforcement of both the USDOT and TNRCC transporter
regulations.
The TxDOT began implementing stormwater runoff controls on projects
over the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone in
1991. These controls include facilities to capture spills of hazardous
material occurring on roadways that contribute runoff to creeks and
streams in the recharge zone. To date, the TxDOT has constructed 44
HMTs at a cost of over $15 million at outfalls over the recharge zone
on three major projects: Loop 1, State Highway (SH) 45, and U.S.
Highway 290. These outfalls discharge to the watersheds of Slaughter,
Williamson, and Barton creeks, all of which contribute to the recharge
of the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer. All new and
retrofit TxDOT project plans incorporate stormwater runoff controls and
HMTs where needed for water quality protection.
The HMT is a concrete-lined basin located at the end of the storm
drainage system just prior to discharging to the natural drainageway.
The HMT is designed to hold 38,000 l (10,000 gallons), the capacity of
a large tanker truck. The HMTs operate as stand-alone structures or
work in combination with other stormwater runoff controls such as
detention ponds or filtration basins. Routine maintenance procedures
for HMTs include regular inspections by TxDOT personnel. The HMTs are
inspected at least monthly and/or after each rainfall event. Based on
these inspections, the HMTs are cleaned, drained or otherwise repaired
as necessary.
The TNRCC is authorized by statute to conduct emergency spill
response and
[[Page 46615]]
cleanup activities statewide pursuant to section 26.264 of the Texas
Water Code. This includes spills occurring on the recharge zone, within
the transition zone and in the contributing watershed of the Edwards
Aquifer. The TNRCC is the lead State agency for response to all
hazardous substance spills into State waters. The TNRCC works with
State, regional and local entities to carry out a comprehensive,
coordinated plan that can be implemented in the event of a crisis. The
TNRCC works closely with the TxDOT by implementing a contractual
agreement (statute requirement) whereby personnel, equipment and
materials under TxDOT control may be diverted and utilized for spill
and discharge cleanup. The TNRCC works closely with the Edwards
Aquifer/Barton Springs Conservation District in spill response and
cleanup planning and action for the Barton Springs segment of the
Edwards Aquifer. The TNRCC, the District and the TxDOT conduct joint
training exercises to respond to simulated spills. The TNRCC works with
local fire departments and county emergency services districts to
develop and implement spill response plans, such as in the Barton Creek
watershed with the Oak Hill Fire Department and Travis County Services
District Number 3.
The TNRCC prohibits the storage of hazardous materials and waste in
the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer. Hazardous waste storage
facilities, waster piles or landfills containing hazardous waste may
not be located in the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer unless
secondary containment is provided to preclude migration to groundwater
from spills, leaks or discharges. Approximately 70 to 80 percent of the
recharge to the Edwards Aquifer comes from surface streams. Protection
of water quality is provided in these affected riparian areas in the
recharge zone as well as in the contributory watershed.
Wetlands are a major contributor of surface water to groundwater
recharge and serve a vital water quality protection function. They trap
sediments, filter contaminants, and help prevent flooding and increased
soil erosion. The State regulates the location of hazardous material
storage facilities in wetlands. Protected wetlands include those that
may provide recharge to the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards
Aquifer and serve a water quality protection function for the aquifer
and related springs. Transition zones, areas of downgradient of the
recharge zone but where faults and fractures may occur, provide
additional recharge to the Edwards Aquifer. Waster disposal wells and
disposal are also prohibited in the transition zone.
The Barton Springs pool is an on-channel impoundment on Barton
Creek and constitutes a State water under the TNRCC's water quality
rules and statutes. Any pool maintenance activity carried out by the
City of Austin must have prior TNRCC review and approval. The TPWD and
the Service have been working with the City to develop and implement
BMPs for Barton Springs pool maintenance. The City of Austin is
continuing to review and revise as necessary its pool maintenance
practices in order to protect the salamander and its habitat while
considering human recreational needs. The maintenance plan is designed
to avoid impacting the salamander and maintain the highest possible
level of water quality. The TPWD will work with the City of Austin to
continue to improve the BMPs for the Barton Springs pool. The Service
believes that current pool maintenance BMPs are sufficient to reduce
threats to the salamander.
The Baron Spring salamander's limited geographic distribution,
small population size, and presumed delayed reproductive strategy
contribute to the recommendation for a captive breeding program for the
species. Such a program may prevent extinction of the species should
any of the potential threats previously described cause the salamander
to disappear at Barton Springs. Small breeding populations are
currently maintained at the Dallas Aquarium and at the Midwest Science
Center of the National Biological Service in Columbia, Missouri. Both
of these captive programs will continue and could serve as refugia in
the event of a catastrophe. The Agreement commits to a third more local
captive breeding/refugium program, to be established when sufficient
founding stock are available. Local facilities may be available at
either the national fish center at San Marcos, Texas, or the TPWD fish
hatchery in San Marcos.
The Service believes that the actions noted above are sufficient to
reduce the risks to the salamander. But uncertainty exists on the
biological information on the species. Therefore, the Agreement makes
the TPWD responsible for providing population monitoring studies for
the Barton Springs salamander . These studies will include surveys of
population numbers and observations on distribution, body sizes, stages
of development, and habitat. Surveys will include times immediately
following storm events, during periods of low spring flow, and during
recovery periods from abnormal events such as prolonged drought or
contamination events. Surveys will be conducted at all three springs.
The TPWD will sponsor a Barton Springs salamander PVHA workshop based
upon these studies and other information concerning the salamander.
By protecting the water quality and quantity at Barton Springs and
in the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer, the involved
agencies will reduce the threats to the species to the point that it
does not warrant listing. The Service will closely monitor the
implementation of the Agreement and, if the Agreement is not
accomplishing its purpose the Service will consider the use of the full
range of its listing authority, including emergency listing, to protect
the species.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. The very restricted range of the Barton Springs salamander
makes this species especially vulnerable to acute and/or cumulative
groundwater contamination. As described above, the threat to the
salamander due to limited distribution, along with catastrophic spills
and drought-related effects on the salamander through groundwater use
of the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer are factors that
are addressed in the Agreement. The signatories of the Agreement will
conduct a salamander population and habitat study, including sponsoring
a PVHA workshop; develop a captive breeding/refugium program; and work
with other agencies, local water conservation districts, local
communities and private landowners to protect water quality in the
Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer.
Finding and Withdrawal
The Barton Springs salamander is known only from the immediate
vicinity of the three spring outlets that are collectively known as
Barton Springs in Zilker Park, Austin, Travis County, Texas. The waters
at Barton Springs originate from a 920 sq. km (354 sq. mile) area,
which consists of the recharge zone of the Barton Springs segment of
the Edwards Aquifer and its contributing zone. The Barton Springs
segment is a designated sole source of water for over 35,000 people in
a three-county area. The Barton Springs watershed occurs in Blanco,
Hays and Travis counties.
The proposed rule identified degradation of water quality and
quantity of Barton Springs, resulting from urban expansion over the
Barton Springs watershed, as the primary threat to the Barton Springs
salamander.
[[Page 46616]]
Reasons for this degradation were listed as: chronic degradation,
catastrophic spills, and increasing water withdrawals from the Barton
Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer. Following the Service's
publication of the proposed rule, the City of Austin and the TPWD
initiated an effort to develop an independent peer review process to
address salamander issues. The resulting Aquatic Biological Assessment
Team (ABAT) concluded that both short-term and long-term threats to the
viability of the salamander exist. The ABAT concluded that important
information gaps exist that prevent a conclusive scientific assessment
regarding the biology of the salamander. The ABAT report included
conservation recommendations that emphasize an ecosystem approach to
conservation and recovery of the Barton Springs salamander. Through its
signatory agencies, the state of Texas developed the ``Barton Springs
Salamander Conservation Agreement and Strategy'' (Agreement) to
expedite conservation measures recommended by the ABAT. The signatory
State agencies have committed to implement those conservation measures
using existing and proposed regulatory mechanisms in a comprehensive
program for the conservation of the salamander.
One function of the implemented Agreement is for the Barton Springs
Salamander Conservation Team (Conservation Team) to review the adequacy
of those regulatory mechanisms, rules, regulations, and State agency
policies to ensure that revisions or changes can be developed
cooperatively and implemented expeditiously through State
responsibility for conservation of the salamander and its ecosystem.
The goal of the Agreement is to conserve the Barton Springs salamander
by protecting the high quality spring ecosystem within which the
salamander exists.
The agreement focuses on two objectives. The primary objective is
to eliminate or significantly reduce the threats to the species and to
minimize chances of a catastrophic event. The Agreement establish a
captive breeding/refugium program in order to avoid extinction of the
species should any potential threats cause the species to disappear in
the wild. These objectives will be reached through implementing the
five management actions: (1) Enforce and monitor compliance with
existing regulations and adopt, implement, and enforce currently
proposed regulations to protect the Barton Springs recharge zone; (2)
prevent catastrophic contaminant releases into spring waters; (3)
prevent degradation of springhead habitat; (4) establish a captive
breeding/refugium program; and (5) study the salamander population. In
addition, four administrative actions will be implemented: (1)
Coordinate conservation activities; (2) implement the conservation
schedule; (3) fund conservation actions; and (4) assess conservation
progress. The Agreement establishes the Conservation Team to ensure
that the coordination and assessment roles are carried out under the
team leadership of the TPWD. The Agreement will provide for
conservation and recovery of the Barton Springs salamander by
establishing a framework for interagency cooperation, State and local
community leadership, and coordination on conservation efforts, setting
recovery priorities, and assessing existing, proposed and future
regulatory programs to ensure that the threats are reduced. By
protecting water quality at Barton Springs and in the Barton Springs
segment of the Edwards Aquifer and conserving water quantity, this
Agreement reduces the threats to the species to the point that the
Service no longer believes the species warrants listing. The Service
will closely monitor the implementation of the Agreement and, if the
Agreement is not accomplishing its purpose, the Service may list the
salamander on an emergency basis if appropriate and re-propose it for
permanent listing.
After a thorough review and consideration of all information
available, including the development and implementation of the
Agreement, the Service has determined that listing the Barton Springs
salamander as endangered or threatened is no longer warranted. The
Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available in the development of this withdrawal notice.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Author
The primary author of this proposed rule is Steve Helfert, Austin
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authority: The authority for this action is section
4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Dated: August 28, 1996.
John G. Rogers,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22503 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
