Vol. 78 Tuesday, No. 161 August 20, 2013

Part II

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Species Status for the Austin Blind Salamander and Threatened Species Status for the Jollyville Plateau Salamander Throughout Their Ranges; Final Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51278 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR or a significant portion of its range. actions until 2006. On February 13, Listing a species as an endangered or 2007, we published a 90-day petition Fish and Wildlife Service threatened species can only be finding (72 FR 6699) in which we completed by issuing a rule. concluded that the petition presented 50 CFR Part 17 This rule lists the Austin blind substantial information indicating that [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035; salamander as an endangered species listing may be warranted. On December 4500030113] and the Jollyville Plateau salamander as 13, 2007, we published the 12-month a threatened species under the Act. finding (72 FR 71040) on the Jollyville RIN 1018–AY22 The basis for our action. Under the Plateau salamander, which concluded Act, we can determine that a species is that listing was warranted, but Endangered and Threatened Wildlife an endangered or threatened species precluded by higher priority actions. and Plants; Determination of based on any of five factors: (A) The The Jollyville Plateau salamander was Endangered Species Status for the present or threatened destruction, subsequently included in all of our Austin Blind Salamander and modification, or curtailment of its annual Candidate Notices of Review (73 Threatened Species Status for the habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR Jollyville Plateau Salamander commercial, recreational, scientific, or 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, Throughout Their Ranges educational purposes; (C) Disease or November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, predation; (D) The inadequacy of October 26, 2011). Throughout the four Interior. existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) reviews, the listing priority number has ACTION: Final rule. Other natural or manmade factors remained at 8, indicating that threats to affecting its continued existence. We the species were imminent, but SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and have determined that the Austin blind moderate to low in impact. On Wildlife Service (Service), determine salamander is an endangered species September 30, 2010, the Jollyville endangered species status for the Austin and the Jollyville Plateau salamander is Plateau salamander was petitioned to be blind salamander (Eurycea a threatened species under the Act due emergency listed by Save Our Springs waterlooensis) and threatened species to threats faced by the species both now Alliance and Center for Biological status for Jollyville Plateau salamander and in the foreseeable future from Diversity. We issued a petition response (Eurycea tonkawae) under the Factors A, D, and E. letter to Save Our Springs Alliance and Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), Peer review and public comment. We Center for Biological Diversity on as amended. The effect of this regulation sought comments from independent December 1, 2011, which stated that is to conserve these salamander species specialists to ensure that our emergency listing a species is not a and their habitats under the Act. This designation is based on scientifically petitionable action under the final rule implements the Federal sound data, assumptions, and analyses. Administrative Procedure Act or the protections provided by the Act for We invited these peer reviewers to Act; therefore, we treat a petition these species. comment on our listing proposal. We requesting emergency listing solely as a DATES: This rule becomes effective also considered all comments and petition to list a species under the Act. September 19, 2013. information received during the On August 22, 2012, we published a proposed rule to list as endangered and ADDRESSES: This final rule is available comment period. designate critical habitat for the Austin on the Internet at http:// Background blind salamander, Georgetown www.regulations.gov and http:// Previous Federal Action salamander (Eurycea naufragia), www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ Jollyville Plateau salamander, and AustinTexas/. Comments and materials The Austin blind salamander was Salado salamander (Eurycea received, as well as supporting included in nine Candidate Notices of chisholmensis) (77 FR 50768). That documentation used in preparing this Review (67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 proposal had a 60-day comment period, final rule is available for public FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, ending October 22, 2012. We held a inspection, by appointment, during May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September public meeting and hearing in Round normal business hours, at U.S. Fish and 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, Rock, Texas, on September 5, 2012, and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological 2007; 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; a second public meeting and hearing in Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR Austin, Texas, on September 6, 2012. INFORMATION CONTACT). 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR On January 25, 2013, we reopened the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 66370, October 26, 2011). The listing public comment period on the August Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. priority number has remained at 2 22, 2012, proposed listing and critical Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin throughout the reviews, indicating that habitat designation; announced the Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 threats to the species were both availability of a draft economic analysis; Burnet Rd., Suite 200, Austin, TX imminent and high in impact. In and an amended required 78758; by telephone 512–490–0057; or addition, on May 11, 2004, the Service determinations section of the proposal by facsimile 512–490–0974. Persons received a petition from the Center for (78 FR 9876). who use a telecommunications device Biological Diversity to list 225 species Section 4(b)(6) of the Act and its for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal we previously had identified as implementing regulation, 50 CFR Information Relay Service (FIRS) at candidates for listing in accordance 424.17(a), requires that we take one of 800–877–8339. with section 4 of the Act, including the three actions within 1 year of a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Austin blind salamander. proposed listing: (1) Finalize the The Jollyville Plateau salamander was proposed listing; (2) withdraw the Executive Summary petitioned to be listed as an endangered proposed listing; or (3) extend the final Why we need to publish a rule. Under species on June 13, 2005, by Save Our determination by not more than 6 the Act, a species may warrant Springs Alliance. Action on this petition months, if scientists knowledgeable protection through listing if it is was precluded by court orders and about the species substantial endangered or threatened throughout all settlement agreements for other listing disagreement regarding the sufficiency

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51279

or accuracy of the available data aquatic habitats (springs, spring-runs, described as the rock matrix below the relevant to the determination, for the wet caves, and groundwater) throughout stream bed. As such, subsurface habitats purposes of soliciting additional data. their lives (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. are impacted by the same threats that The public comments we have 1). In other words, the Austin blind and impact surface habitat, as the two exist received indicate substantial Jollyville Plateau salamanders are as a continuum (Bendik 2012, COA, disagreement regarding the sufficiency aquatic and respire through gills and pers. comm.). or accuracy of the available data that is permeable skin (Duellman and Trueb Salamanders move an unknown depth relevant to our determination of the 1986, p. 217). Also, adult salamanders into interstitial spaces (empty voids proposed listing of the Georgetown and of these species are about 2 inches (in) between rocks) within the spring or Salado salamanders. Therefore, in (5 centimeters (cm)) long (Chippindale streambed substrate that provide consideration of these disagreements, et al. 2000, pp. 32–42; Hillis et al. 2001, foraging habitat and protection from we are publishing a 6-month extension p. 268). predators and drought conditions (Cole 1995, p. 24; Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. of final determination for the Habitat Georgetown and Salado salamanders 16–17). They may also use deeper elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. Each species inhabits water of high passages of the aquifer that connect to With this 6-month extension, we will quality with a narrow range of the spring opening (Dries 2011, COA, make a final determination on the conditions (for example, temperature, pers. comm.). This behavior makes it proposed rule for the Georgetown and pH, and alkalinity) maintained by difficult to accurately estimate Salado salamanders no later than groundwater from various sources. Both population sizes, as only salamanders February 22, 2014. the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau on the surface can be regularly On the other hand, more research has salamanders depend on water in monitored. However, techniques have been conducted, and, therefore, more is sufficient quantity and quality to meet been developed for marking individual known about the life history, population their life-history requirements for salamanders, which allows for better trends, and threats to the Austin blind survival, growth, and reproduction. estimating population numbers using and Jollyville Plateau salamanders. Much of this water is sourced from the ‘‘mark and recapture’’ data analysis Although there may be some Edwards Aquifer, which is a karst techniques. These techniques have been disagreement among scientists aquifer characterized by open chambers used by the City of Austin (COA) on the knowledgeable about the Austin blind such as caves, fractures, and other Jollyville Plateau salamander (Bendik et and Jollyville Plateau salamanders, the cavities that were formed either directly al. 2013, pp. 2–7). or indirectly by dissolution of disagreement is not substantial enough Range to extend the final determination for subsurface rock formations. Water for The habitat of the Austin blind these species. Therefore, this rule the salamanders is provided by salamander occurs in the Barton Springs constitutes our final determination to infiltration of surface water through the Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, while list the Austin blind and Jollyville soil or recharge features (caves, faults, fractures, sinkholes, or other open the habitats of the three other species Plateau salamanders as an endangered cavities) into the Edwards Aquifer, occur in the Northern Segment of the and threatened species, respectively. which discharges from springs as Edwards Aquifer (although some reside Species Information groundwater (Schram 1995, p. 91). In in spring locations with different addition, some Jollyville Plateau groundwater sources, as explained Taxonomy salamander populations rely on water above). The recharge and contributing The Austin blind and Jollyville from other sources. For instance, zones of these segments of the Edwards Plateau salamanders are neotenic (do springs, such as Rieblin Spring, may Aquifer are found in portions of Travis, not transform into a terrestrial form) discharge from the Walnut formation, Williamson, Blanco, Bell, Burnet, members of the family Plethodontidae. and some, such as Pit Spring, may Lampasas, Mills, Hays, Coryell, and Plethodontid salamanders comprise the discharge from the Glen Rose formation Hamilton Counties, Texas (Jones 2003, largest family of salamanders within the (part of the Trinity Aquifer) (Johns 2012, p. 3; Mahler et al. 2006). Order Caudata, and are characterized by COA, pers. comm.; Johnson et al. 2012, Diet an absence of lungs (Petranka 1998, pp. pp. 1, 3, 46–53, 82). Other springs, such 157–158). The Jollyville Plateau as Lanier Spring, appear to have alluvial A stomach content analysis by the salamander has very similar external aquifer sources (derived from water- COA demonstrated that the Jollyville morphology. Because of this, the bearing soil or sediments usually Plateau salamander preys on varying Jollyville Plateau salamander was adjacent to streams) (Johns 2012, pers. proportions of aquatic invertebrates, previously believed to be the same comm.). such as ostracods, copepods, mayfly species as the Georgetown and Salado The Austin blind and Jollyville larvae, fly larvae, snails, water mites, salamanders; however, molecular Plateau salamanders spend varying aquatic beetles, and stone fly larvae, evidence strongly supports that there is portions of their life within their surface depending on the location of the site a high level of divergence between the habitats (the wetted top layer of (Bendik 2011b, pers. comm.). The feces three groups (Chippindale et al. 2000, substrate in or near spring openings and of one wild-caught Austin blind pp. 15–16). Based on our review of these pools as well as spring runs) and salamander contained amphipods, differences, and taking into account the subsurface habitats (within caves or ostracods, copepods, and plant material view expressed in peer reviews by other underground areas of the (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 273). Gillespie taxonomists, we believe that the underlying groundwater source). (2013, pp. 5–9) also found that the diet currently available evidence is sufficient Although surface and subsurface of the closely related Barton Springs for recognizing these salamanders as habitats are often discussed separately salamanders consisted primarily of separate species. within this final rule, it is important to planarians or chironomids (flatworms or note the interconnectedness of these nonbiting midge flies) depending on Morphological Characteristics areas. Subsurface habitat does not which was more abundant and As neotenic salamanders, they retain necessarily refer to an expansive cave amphipods when planarians and external feathery gills and inhabit underground. Rather, it may be chironomids were rare.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51280 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Predation it is plausible that populations of these (Van Dyke 2008, p. 217). Conversely, the The Austin blind and Jollyville species could also extend 984 ft (300 m) smaller the population, the higher are Plateau salamanders also share similar through subterranean habitat. However, its chances of extirpation when predators, which include centrarchid subsurface movement is likely to be experiencing this demographic and fish (carnivorous freshwater fish limited by the highly dissected nature of environmental stochasticity. the aquifer system, where spring sites belonging to the sunfish family), can be separated from other spring sites Rangewide Needs crayfish (Cambarus sp.), and large by large canyons or other physical aquatic insects (Pierce and Wall 2011, We used the conservation principles barriers to movement. Surface pp. 18–20; Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117; of redundancy, representation, and movement is similarly inhibited by Cole 1995, p. 26). resiliency (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. geologic, hydrologic, physical, and 307, 309–310) to better inform our view Reproduction biological barriers (for example, of what contributes to these species’ The detection of juveniles in all predatory fish commonly found in probability of persistence and how best seasons suggests that reproduction impoundments along urbanized to conserve them. ‘‘Resiliency’’ is the occur year-round (Bendik 2011a, p. 26; tributaries (Bendik 2012, COA, pers. ability of a species to persist through comm.). Dye-trace studies have Hillis et al. 2001, p. 273). However, severe hardships or stochastic events demonstrated that some Jollyville juvenile abundance of Jollyville Plateau (Tear et al. 2005, p. 841). ‘‘Redundancy’’ Plateau salamander sites located miles salamanders typically increases in means a sufficient number of apart are connected hydrologically spring and summer, indicating that populations to provide a margin of (Whitewater Cave and Hideaway Cave) there may be relatively more safety to reduce the risk of losing a (Hauwert and Warton 1997, pp. 12–13), reproduction occurring in winter and species or certain representation but it remains unclear if salamanders early spring compared to other seasons (variation) within a species, particularly are travelling between those sites. In (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 116; Pierce 2012, from catastrophic or other events. conclusion, some data indicate that pp. 10–11, 18, 20). Because eggs are very ‘‘Representation’’ means conserving populations could be connected through ‘‘some of everything’’ with regard to rarely found on the surface, these subterranean water-filled spaces, salamanders likely deposit their eggs genetic and ecological diversity to allow although we are unaware of any for future adaptation and maintenance underground for protection (O’Donnell information available on the frequency et al. 2005, p. 18). of evolutionary potential. of movements and the actual nature of Representation can be measured Population Connectivity connectivity among populations. through the breadth of genetic diversity More study is needed to determine Population Persistence within and among populations and ecological diversity (also called the nature and extent of the dispersal A population’s persistence (ability to environmental variation or diversity) capabilities of the Austin blind and survive and avoid extirpation) is occupied by populations across the Jollyville Plateau salamanders. It has influenced by a population’s species’ range. been suggested that they may be able to demographic factors (such as survival travel some distance through subsurface and reproductive rates) as well as its A variety of factors contribute to a aquifer conduits. For example, it has environment. The population needs of species’ resiliency. These can include been thought that Austin blind the central Texas salamander species are how sensitive the species is to salamander can occur underground the factors that provide for a high disturbances or stressors in its throughout the entire Barton Springs probability of population persistence environment, how often they reproduce complex (Dries 2011, COA, pers. over the long term at a given site (for and how many young they have, how comm.). The spring habitats used by example, low degree of threats and high specific or narrow their habitat needs salamanders of the Barton Springs survival and reproduction rates). We are are. A species’ resiliency can also be complex are not connected on the unaware of detailed studies that affected by the resiliency of individual surface, so the Austin blind salamander describe all of the demographic factors populations and the number of population could extend a horizontal that could affect the population populations and their distribution distance of at least 984 feet (ft) (300 persistence of the Austin blind and across the landscape. Protecting meters (m)) underground, as this is the Jollyville Plateau salamanders; however, multiple populations and variation of a approximate distance between the we have assessed their probability of species across its range may contribute farthest two outlets within the Barton persistence by evaluating environmental to its resiliency, especially if some Springs complex known to be occupied factors (threats to their surface habitats) populations or habitats are more by the species. However, a mark-and- and what we know about the number of susceptible or better adapted to certain recapture study failed to document the salamanders that occur at each site. threats than others (Service and NOAA movement of endangered Barton To estimate the probability of 2011, p. 76994). The ability of Springs salamanders (Eurycea sosorum) persistence of each population involves individuals from populations to between any of the springs in the Barton considering the predictable responses of disperse and recolonize an area that has Springs complex (Dries 2012, COA, the population to various environmental been extirpated may also influence their pers. comm.). This could indicate that factors (such as the amount of food resiliency. As population size and individual salamanders are not moving available or the presence of a toxic habitat quality increase, the the distances between spring openings. substance), as well as the stochasticity. population’s ability to persist through Alternatively, this could mean that the Stochasticity refers to the random, periodic hardships also increases. study simply failed to capture the chance, or probabilistic nature of the A minimal level of redundancy is movement of salamanders. This study demographic and environmental essential for long-term viability (Shaffer has only recently begun and is relatively processes (Van Dyke 2008, pp. 217– and Stein 2000, pp. 307, 309–310; small in scope. 218). Generally, the larger the Groves et al. 2002, p. 506). This Due to the similar life history of the population, the more likely it is to provides a margin of safety for a species Austin blind salamander to the other survive stochastic events in both to withstand catastrophic events three Eurycea species considered here, demographic and environmental factors (Service and NOAA 2011, p. 76994) by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51281

decreasing the chance of any one event available to formally describe these salamander observations were made affecting the entire species. juveniles as a separate species using (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 273). The Representation and the adaptive morphological and genetic abundance of Austin blind salamanders capabilities (Service and NOAA 2011, p. characteristics (Hillis et al. 2001, p. increased slightly from 2002 to 2006, 76994) of each of the central Texas 267). Given the reduced eye structure of but fewer observations have been made salamander species should also be the Austin blind salamander, and the in more recent years (2009 to 2010) conserved. Because a species’ genetic fact that it is rarely seen at the water’s (COA 2011a, pp. 51–52). In fact, during makeup is shaped through natural surface (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 267), this an 11-month period of drought selection by the environments it has salamander is thought to be more conditions from 2008 to 2009, neither experienced (Shaffer and Stein 2000, p. subterranean than the primarily surface- the Austin blind salamander nor the 308), populations should be protected in dwelling Barton Springs salamander. Barton Springs salamander was seen at the array of different environments in The Austin blind salamander occurs all (Dries 2012, p. 17), despite almost which the salamanders occur (surface in Barton Springs in Austin, Texas. monthly survey attempts (Dries 2012, p. and subsurface) as a strategy to ensure These springs are fed by the Barton 7). When they are observed, Austin genetic representation, adaptive Springs Segment of the Edwards blind salamanders occur in relatively capability, and conservation of the Aquifer. This segment covers roughly low numbers (COA 2011a, pp. 51–52; species. 155 square miles (mi) (401 square Dries 2012, p. 4) within the surface To increase the probability of kilometers (km)) from southern Travis habitat. Although the technology to persistence of each species, populations County to northern Hays County, Texas mark salamanders for individual of the Austin blind and Jollyville (Smith and Hunt 2004, p. 7). It has a recognition has recently been developed Plateau salamanders should be storage capacity of more than 300,000 (Bendik et al. 2013, p. 7), population conserved in a manner that ensures acre-feet of water. The contributing zone estimates for this species have not been their variation and representation. This for the Barton Springs Segment of the undertaken. However, population result can be achieved by conserving Edwards Aquifer that supplies water to estimates are possible for aquifer- salamander populations in a diversity of the salamander’s spring habitat extends dwelling species using genetic environments (throughout their ranges), into Travis, Blanco, and Hays Counties, techniques, and one such study is including: (1) Both spring and cave Texas (Ross 2011, p. 3). Under drought planned for the Austin blind locations, (2) habitats with groundwater conditions, Barton Springs (particularly salamander in the near future (Texas sources from various aquifers and Sunken Garden/Old Mill Springs) also Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) geologic formations, including the receives some recharge from the Blanco 2011, p. 11). Edwards and Trinity Aquifers and the River (Johnson et al. 2012, p. 82), whose Edwards, Walnut, and Glen Rose waters originate from the Trinity Jollyville Plateau Salamander formations, and (3) at sites with Aquifer. Surface-dwelling populations of different hydrogeological The Austin blind salamander is found Jollyville Plateau salamanders have characteristics, including sites where in three of the four Barton Springs large, well-developed eyes; wide, water flows come from artesian outlets in the COA’s Zilker Park, Travis yellowish heads; blunt, rounded snouts; pressure, a perched aquifer, or County, Texas: Parthenia (Main) dark greenish-brown bodies; and bright resurgence through alluvial deposits (for Springs, Eliza Springs, and Sunken yellowish-orange tails (Chippindale et example, artesian springs, Edwards and Garden (Old Mill or Zenobia) Springs al. 2000, pp. 33–34). Some cave forms Edwards/Walnut headwater springs, where the Barton Springs salamander of Jollyville Plateau salamanders, which and Bull Creek alluvial resurgence also occurs (Dries 2012, p. 4). Parthenia are also entirely aquatic, exhibit cave- areas). Springs provides water for the Barton associated morphologies, such as eye Information for Austin blind and Springs Pool, which is operated by the reduction, flattening of the head, and Jollyville Plateau salamanders is COA as a public swimming pool. These dullness or loss of color (Chippindale et discussed separately for each species in spring sites have been significantly al. 2000, p. 37). Genetic analysis more detail below. modified for human use. The area suggests a taxonomic split within this around Parthenia Springs was species that appears to correspond to Austin Blind Salamander impounded in the late 1920s to create major geologic and topographic features The Austin blind salamander has a Barton Springs Pool. Flows from Eliza of the region (Chippindale 2010, p. 2). pronounced extension of the snout, no and Sunken Garden Springs are also Chippindale (2010, pp. 5, 8) concluded external eyes, and weakly developed tail retained by concrete structures, forming that the Jollyville Plateau salamander fins. In general appearance and small pools on either side of Barton exhibits a strong genetic separation coloration, the Austin blind salamander Springs Pool (COA 1998, p. 6; Service between two lineages within the is more similar to the Texas blind 2005, pp. 1.6–25). The Austin blind species: A ‘‘Plateau’’ clade that occurs salamander (Eurycea rathbuni) that salamander has not been observed at the in the Bull Creek, Walnut Creek, Shoal occurs in the Southern Segment of the fourth Barton Springs outlet, known as Creek, Brushy Creek, South Brushy Edwards Aquifer than its sympatric Upper Barton Springs (Hillis et al. 2001, Creek, and southeastern Lake Travis (occurring within the same range) p. 273; Dries 2012, p. 4). Upper Barton drainages; and a ‘‘peripheral’’ clade that species, the Barton Springs salamander. Springs flow only intermittently (and occurs in the Buttercup Creek and The Austin blind salamander has a can cease flowing for weeks or months northern Lake Travis drainages reflective, lightly pigmented skin with a at a time) (Dries 2012, p. 4). We are (Chippindale 2010, pp. 5–8). The study pearly white or lavender appearance unaware of any information that also suggests this genetic separation (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 271). Before the suggests Main, Eliza, or Sunken Garden may actually represent two species Austin blind salamander was formally Springs have ever stopped flowing. (Chippindale 2010, pp. 5, 8). However, described, juvenile salamanders were From January 1998 to December 2000, a formal, peer-reviewed description of sighted occasionally in Barton Springs, there were only 17 documented the two possible species has not been and thought to be a variation of the observations of the Austin blind published. Because this split has not Barton Springs salamander. It was not salamander. During this same been recognized by the scientific until 2001 that enough specimens were timeframe, 1,518 Barton Springs community, we do not recognize a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51282 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

separation of the Jollyville Plateau counted at each of these 4 sites declined associated documents. All substantive salamander into two species. from 27 salamanders counted during information provided during the The Jollyville Plateau salamander surveys from 1996 to 1999 to 4 comment periods has been incorporated occurs in the Jollyville Plateau and salamanders counted during surveys directly into the final listing rule for the Brushy Creek areas of the Edwards from 2004 to 2007. In 2007, monthly Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau Plateau in northern Travis and southern mark-recapture surveys were conducted salamanders and is addressed below. Williamson Counties, Texas in concert with surface counts at three Comments from peer reviewers and (Chippindale et al. 2000, pp. 35–36; sites in the Bull Creek watershed (Lanier State agencies are grouped separately Bowles et al. 2006, p. 112; Sweet 1982, Spring, Lower Rieblin, and Wheless below. Comments received are grouped p. 433). Upon classification as a species, Spring) over a 6- to 8-month period to into general issues specifically relating Jollyville Plateau salamanders were obtain surface population size estimates to the proposed listing for each known from Brushy Creek and, within and detection probabilities for each site the Jollyville Plateau, from Bull Creek, (O’Donnell et al. 2008, p. 11). Using salamander species. Beyond the Cypress Creek, Long Hollow Creek, these estimation techniques, surface comments addressed below, several Shoal Creek, and Walnut Creek population estimates at Lanier Spring commenters submitted additional drainages (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. varied from 94 to 249, surface reports and references for our 36). Since it was described, the population estimates at the Lower consideration, which were reviewed Jollyville Plateau salamander has also Rieblin site varied from 78 to 126, and and incorporated into this critical been documented within the Lake Creek surface population estimates at Wheless habitat final rule as appropriate. drainage (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 1). Spring varied from 187 to 1,024 Peer Review Jollyville Plateau salamanders are (O’Donnell et al. 2008, pp. 44–45). known from 1 cave in the Cypress Creek These numbers remained fairly In accordance with our peer review drainage and 15 caves in the Buttercup consistent in more recent population policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR Creek cave system in the Brushy Creek estimates for the three sites (Bendik 34270), we solicited expert opinions drainage (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 49; 2011a, p. 22). However, Bendik (2011a, from 22 knowledgeable individuals with Russell 1993, p. 21; Service 1999, p. 6; pp. 5, 12–24, 26, 27) reported scientific expertise with the hydrology, HNTB 2005, p. 60). There are 106 statistically significant declines in taxonomy, and ecology that is important known surface sites for the Jollyville Jollyville Plateau salamander counts to these salamander species. The focus Plateau salamander. over a 13-year period (1996–2010) at six The Jollyville Plateau salamander’s monitored sites with high impervious of the taxonomists was to review the spring-fed habitat is typically cover (18 to 46 percent) compared to proposed rule in light of an unpublished characterized by a depth of less than 1 two sites with lower (less than 1 report by Forstner (2012) that ft (0.3 m) of cool, well oxygenated water percent) impervious cover. These results questioned the taxonomic validity of the (COA 2001, p. 128; Bowles et al. 2006, are consistent with Bowles et al. (2006, Austin blind, Georgetown, Jollyville p. 118) supplied by the underlying p. 111), who found lower densities of Plateau, and Salado salamanders as Northern Segment of the Edwards Jollyville Plateau salamanders at separate species. We received responses Aquifer (Cole 1995, p. 33), the Trinity urbanized sites. Based on the best from 13 of the peer reviewers. Aquifer (Johns 2012, COA, pers. available information, these counts During the first comment period we comm.), or local alluvial sources (Johns likely reflect changes in the salamander received public comments from SWCA 2012, COA, pers. comm.). The main populations at these sites. Environmental Consultants (SWCA) and aquifer that feeds this salamander’s COA that contradicted each other. We habitat is generally small, shallow, and Summary of Comments and localized (Chippindale et al. 2000; p. 36; Recommendations also developed new information relative Cole 1995, p. 26). Jollyville Plateau We requested comments from the to the listing determination. For these salamanders are typically found near public on the proposed designation of reasons, we conducted a second peer springs or seep outflows and likely critical habitat for the Austin blind review on: (1) Salamander require constant temperatures (Sweet salamander and Jollyville Plateau demographics and (2) urban 1982, pp. 433–434; Bowles et al. 2006, salamanders during two comment development and stream habitat. The p. 117). Salamander densities are higher periods. The first comment period peer reviewers were provided with the in pools and riffles and in areas with associated with the publication of the contradictory comments from SWCA rubble, cobble, or boulder substrates proposed rule (77 FR 50768) opened on and COA. During this second peer rather than on solid bedrock (COA 2001, August 22, 2012, and closed on October review, we solicited expert opinions p. 128; Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 114–116). 22, 2012, during which we held public from knowledgeable individuals with Surface-dwelling Jollyville Plateau meetings and hearings on September 5 expertise in the two areas identified salamanders also occur in subsurface and 6, 2012, in Round Rock and Austin, above, which included all of the peer habitat within the underground aquifer Texas, respectively. We reopened the reviewers from the first comment period (COA 2001, p. 65; Bowles et al. 2006, p. comment period on the proposed listing except the taxonomists. We received 118). rule from January 25, 2013, to March 11, responses from eight peer reviewers. Some Jollyville Plateau salamander 2013 (78 FR 5385). We also contacted The peer reviewers generally concurred populations have likely experienced appropriate Federal, State, and local with our methods and conclusions and decreases in abundance in recent years. agencies; scientific organizations; and provided additional information, Survey data collected by COA staff other interested parties and invited clarifications, and suggestions to indicate that four of the nine sites that them to comment on the proposed rule were regularly monitored by the COA and draft economic analysis during improve the final listing and critical between December 1996 and January these comment periods. habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments 2007 had statistically significant We received a total of approximately are addressed in the following summary declines in salamander abundance over 416 comments during the open and incorporated into the final rule as 10 years (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 4). comment period for the proposed appropriate. The average number of salamanders listing, proposed critical habitat, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51283

Peer Reviewer Comments (3) Comment: Forstner (2012, pp. 15– protective of salamander habitat based 16) used results from Harlan and Zigler on a study by Coles et al. (2012, pp. 4– Taxonomy (2009), indicating that levels of genetic 5), which found a loss of sensitive (1) Comment: Most peer reviewers variation within the eastern species E. species due to urbanization and that stated that the best available scientific lucifuga are similar to those among six there was no evidence of a resistance information was used to develop the currently recognized species of Texas threshold to invertebrates that the proposed rule and the Service’s analysis Eurycea, as part of his argument that salamanders preyed upon. A vast of the available information was there are fewer species in Texas than amount of literature indicates that 1 to scientifically sound. Further, most currently recognized. Several peer 2 percent impervious cover can cause reviewers stated that our assessment reviewers said that these sorts of habitat degradation, and, therefore, the that the Austin blind, Georgetown, comparisons can be very misleading in 10 percent threshold for impervious Jollyville Plateau, and Salado that they fail to take into consideration cover will not be protective of these salamanders are four distinct species differences in the ages, effective species. and our interpretation of literature population sizes, or population Our Response: We recognize that low addressing threats (including reduced structure of the units being compared. levels of impervious cover in a habitat quality due to urbanization and The delimitation of species should be watershed may have impacts on aquatic increased impervious cover) to these based on patterns of genetic variation life, and we have incorporated results of species were well researched. However, that bear on the separation (or lack these studies into the final listing rule. some researchers suggested that further thereof) of gene pools rather than on the However, we are aware of only one research would strengthen or refine our magnitude of genetic differences, which peer-reviewed study that examined understanding of these salamanders. For can vary widely within and between watershed impervious cover effects on example, one reviewer stated that the species. salamanders in central Texas, and this Jollyville Plateau salamander was Our Response: See our response to study found impacts on salamander supported by ‘‘weak but suggestive comment 1. density in watersheds with over 10 evidence,’’ and, therefore, it needed (4) Comment: Several peer reviewers percent impervious cover (Bowles et al. more study. Another reviewer thought stated that the taxonomic tree presented 2006, pp. 113, 117–118). Because this there was evidence of missing in Forstner (2012, pp. 20, 26) is difficult impervious cover study was done descendants in the group that included to evaluate because of the following locally, we are using 10 percent as a the Jollyville Plateau salamander in the reasons: (1) no locality information is guideline to categorize watersheds that enzyme analysis presented in the given for the specimens; (2) it disagrees are impacted in terms of salamander original species descriptions with all trees in other studies (which density. (Chippindale et al. 2000). seem to be largely congruent with one (7) Comment: While the Service’s Our Response: Peer reviewers’ another), including that in Forstner and impervious cover analysis assessed comments indicate that we used the best McHenry (2010, pp. 13–16) with regard impacts on stream flows and surface available science, and we correctly to monophyly (more than one member habitat, it neglected to address impacts interpreted that science as recognizing of a group sharing the same ancestor) of over the entire recharge zone of the the Austin blind, Georgetown, Jollyville several of the currently recognized contributing aquifers on spring flows in Plateau, and Salado salamanders as four species; and (3) the tree is only a gene salamander habitat. Also, the surface separate species. In the final listing rule, tree, presenting sequence data on a watersheds analyzed in the proposed we continue to recognize the Austin single gene, which provides little or no rule are irrelevant because these blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders new information on species salamanders live in cave streams and as distinct and valid species. However, relationships of populations. spring flows that receive groundwater. we acknowledge that the understanding Our Response: See our response to Without information on the of the taxonomy of these salamander comment 1. groundwater recharge areas, the rule species can be strengthened by further (5) Comment: Peer reviewers should be clear that the surface research. generally stated that Forstner (2012, pp. watersheds are only an approximation (2) Comment: Forstner (2012, pp. 3– 13–14) incorrectly dismisses of what is impacting the subsurface 4) used the size of geographic morphological data that have been used drainage basins. distributions as part of his argument for to recognize some of the Texas Eurycea Our Response: We acknowledge that the existence of fewer species of species on the basis that it is prone to the impervious cover analysis is limited Eurycea in Texas than are currently convergence (acquisition of the same to impacts on the surface watershed. recognized. Several peer reviewers biological trait in unrelated lineages) Because the specific groundwater commented that they saw no reason for and, therefore, misleading. The peer recharge areas of individual springs are viewing the large number of Eurycea reviewers commented that it is true that unknown, we cannot accurately assess species with small distributions in similarities in characters associated the current or future impacts on these Texas as problematic when compared to with cave-dwelling salamanders can be areas. However, we recognize the larger distributions of Eurycea misleading when suggesting that the subsurface flows as another avenue for species outside of Texas. They stated species possessing those characters are contaminants to reach the salamander that larger numbers and smaller closely related. However, this in no way sites, and we tried to make this clearer distributions of Texas Eurycea species indicates that the reverse is true; that is, in the final rule. are to be expected given the isolated indicating differences in characters is (8) Comment: Several of the spring environments that they inhabit not misleading in identifying separate watersheds analyzed for impervious within an arid landscape. Salamander species. cover in the proposed rule were species with very small ranges are Our Response: See our response to overestimated. The sub-basins in these common in several families and are comment 1. larger watersheds need to be analyzed usually restricted to island, mountain, for impervious cover impacts. or cave habitats. Impervious Cover Our Response: We have refined our Our Response: See our response to (6) Comment: The 10 percent impervious cover analysis in this final comment 1. impervious cover threshold may not be listing rule to clarify the surface

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51284 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

watersheds of individual spring sites. numerous studies conducted (and every metropolitan area studied. Our final impervious cover report referenced) within the known ranges of Conductivity is an excellent surrogate containing this refined analysis is the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau for tracking changes in water quality available on the Internet at http:// salamanders provide scientific support related to land use change associated www.regulations.gov under Docket No. at the appropriate scale for recent and with urbanization due to the FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035 and at http:// potential habitat degradation due to conservative nature of the ions. www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ urbanization. One peer reviewer pointed Our Response: While drought may AustinTexas/. out that if you sort the spring sites result in increased conductivity, SWCA sampled into ‘‘urbanized’’ and increased conductivity is also a Threats ‘‘rural’’ categories, the urban sites reflection of increased urbanization. We (9) Comment: One peer reviewer generally have more degraded water incorporated information from the study stated that the threat to these species quality than the rural sites, in terms of by Coles et al. (2012) in the final listing from over collection for scientific nitrate, nitrite, E. coli counts, and fecal rule, and we continued to include purposes may be understated. coliform bacteria counts. conductivity as a measure of water Our Response: We have reevaluated Our Response: We agree with the peer quality in the primary constituent the potential threat of overutilization for reviewers who stated that SWCA (2012, elements for the Austin blind and scientific purposes and have pp. 21–24) did not present convincing Jollyville Plateau salamanders in the incorporated a discussion of this under evidence that overall water quality at final critical habitat rule as published Factor B ‘‘Overutilization for sites in Williamson County is good or elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or that urbanization is not impacting the (13) Comment: One peer reviewer Educational Purposes.’’ We recognize water quality at these sites. Water stated that SWCA’s criticisms of COA’s that removing individuals from small, quality monitoring based on one or a linear regression analysis, general localized populations in the wild few samples are not necessarily additive model, and population age without any proposed plans or reflective of conditions at the site under structure were not relevant and regulations to restrict these activities all circumstances that the salamanders unsupported. In addition, peer could increase the population’s are exposed to over time. Based on this reviewers agreed that COA’s mark- vulnerability of extinction and decrease assessment, we continued to rely upon recapture estimates are robust and its resiliency and ability to withstand the best scientific evidence available highly likely to be correct. Three peer stochastic events. However, we do not that states water quality will decline as reviewers agreed that SWCA consider overutilization from collecting urbanization within the watershed misrepresented the findings of Luo salamanders in the wild to be a threat increases. (2010) and stated that this thesis does by itself, but it may cause significant (12) Comment: The SWCA report not invalidate the findings of COA. population declines, and could indicates that increasing conductivity is Our Response: Because the peer negatively impact the species in related to drought. (Note: Conductivity reviewers examined COA’s data, as well combination with other threats. is a measure of the ability of water to as SWCA’s analysis of the COA’s data, carry an electrical current and can be and generally agreed that the COA’s Salamander Demographics used to approximate the concentration data was the best information available, (10) Comment: Several peer reviewers of dissolved inorganic solids in water we continue to rely upon this data set agreed that COA’s salamander survey that can alter the internal water balance in the final listing rule. data were generally collected and in aquatic organisms, affecting the (14) Comment: One peer reviewer analyzed appropriately and that the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau stated that the long-term data collected results are consistent with the literature salamanders’ survival. Conductivity by the COA on the Jollyville Plateau on aquatic species’ responses to levels in the Edwards Aquifer are salamander were simple counts that urbanizing watersheds. Three reviewers naturally low. As ion concentrations serve as indexes of relative population had some suggestions on how the data such as chlorides, sodium, sulfates, and abundance, and not of absolute analysis could be improved, but they nitrates rise, conductivity will increase. abundance. This data assumes that the also state that COA’s analysis is the best The stability of the measured ions probability of observing salamanders scientific data available, and alternative makes conductivity an excellent remains constant over time, season, and methods of analysis would not likely monitoring tool for assessing the among different observers. This change the conclusions. impacts of urbanization to overall water assumption is often violated, which Our Response: Because the peer quality. High conductivity has been results in unknown repercussions on reviewers examined COA’s salamander associated with declining salamander the assessment of population trends. demographic data, as well as SWCA’s abundance.) While SWCA’s report notes Therefore, the negative trend observed analysis of the COA’s data, and lack of rainfall as the dominant factor in in several sites could be due to a real generally agreed that the COA’s data increased conductivity, the confounding decrease in population absolute was the best information available, we influence of decreases in infiltration and abundance, but could also be related to continue to rely upon this data set in the increases in sources of ions as factors a decrease in capture probabilities over final listing rule. associated with urbanization and time (or due to an interaction between (11) Comment: Two peer reviewers changes in water quality in these areas these two factors). Absolute population pointed out that SWCA’s water samples is not addressed by SWCA. The shift to abundance and capture probabilities were collected during a period of very higher conductivity associated with should be estimated in urban sites using low rainfall and, therefore, under increasing impervious surface is well the same methods implemented at rural represent the contribution of water documented in the COA references. sites by COA. However, even in the influenced by urban land cover. The Higher conductivity in urban streams is absence of clear evidence of local single sampling of water and sediment well documented and was a major population declines of Jollyville Plateau at the eight sites referenced in the finding of the U.S. Geological Survey salamanders, the proposed rule was SWCA report do not compare in scope (USGS) urban land use studies (Coles et correct in its assessment because there and magnitude to the extensive studies al. 2012). Stream conductivity increased is objective evidence that stream referenced from the COA. The with increasing urban land cover in alterations negatively impact the density

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51285

of Eurycea salamanders (Barrett et al. a large factor influencing declines in literature on the effects of pollutants 2010). salamander counts. and deterioration of water quality on Our Response: We recognize that the Regarding comments from SWCA on sensitive macroinvertebrate species as long-term survey data of Jollyville the assessment of threats, peer reviewers well as on aquatic amphibians. In the Plateau salamanders using simple made the following comments: proposed rule, the Service cites just a counts may not give conclusive (17) Comment: SWCA’s (2012, pp. 84– small sampling of the available evidence on the true population status 85) summary understates what is known literature regarding the effects of at each site. However, based on the about the ecology of Eurycea species pollutants on the physiology and threats and evidence from scientifically and makes too strong of a conclusion indirect effects of urbanization on peer-reviewed literature, we believe the about the apparent ‘‘coexistence with aquatic macroinvertebrates and declines in counts seen at urban long-standing human development.’’ amphibians. In almost all cases, there Jollyville Plateau salamander sites are Human development and urbanization are synergistic and indirect negative likely representative of real declines in is an incredibly recent stressor in the effects on these species that may not the population. evolutionary history of the central Texas have one single direct cause. There is no (15) Comment: One peer reviewer had Eurycea, and SWCA’s assertion that the ecological requirement that any stressor similar comments on COA salamander Eurycea will be ‘‘hardy and resilient’’ to (be it a predator, a pollutant, or a change counts and relating them to populations. these new stressors is not substantiated in the invertebrate community) must be They stated that the conclusion of a with any evidence. a direct effect to threaten the stability or (18) Comment: SWCA (2012, p. 7) difference in salamander counts long-term persistence of a population or states that, ‘‘Small population size and between sites with high and low levels species. Indirect effects can be just as restricted distribution are not among the of impervious cover is reasonable based important, especially when many are five listing criteria and do not of on COA’s data. However, this combined. themselves constitute a reason for conclusion is not about salamander Our Response to Comments 17–20: considering a species at risk of populations, but instead about the We had SWCA’s (2012) report peer extinction.’’ To the contrary, even counts. The COA’s capture-mark- reviewed. The peer reviewers generally though the salamanders may naturally agreed that we used the best information recapture analyses provide strong occur in small isolated populations, evidence of both nondetection and available in our proposed listing rule. small isolated populations and the (21) Comment: One reviewer stated substantial temporary emigration, inability to disperse between springs that, even though there is detectable findings consistent with other studies of should be considered under listing gene flow between populations, it may salamanders in the same family as the criteria E as a natural factor affecting the be representative of subsurface Jollyville Plateau salamander. This species’ continued existence. In direct connections in the past, rather than evidence cautions against any sort of contradiction, SWCA (2012, p. 81) later current population interchange. analysis that relies on raw count data to states that, ‘‘limited dispersal ability However, dispersal through the aquifer draw inferences about populations. (within a spring) may increase the is possible even though there is Our Response: See our response to species’ vulnerability as salamanders currently no evidence that these species previous comment. may not move from one part of the migrate. Further, they stated that there (16) Comment: The SWCA (2012, pp. spring run to another when localized is no indication of a metapopulation 70–76) argues that declines in habitat loss or degradation occurs.’’ It is structure where one population could salamander counts can be attributed to well known that small population size recolonize another that had gone declines in rainfall during the survey and restricted distributions make extinct. period, and not watershed urbanization. populations more susceptible to Our Response: We acknowledge that However, one peer reviewer stated that selection or extinction due to stochastic more study is needed to determine the SWCA provided no statistical analysis events. Small population size can also nature and extent of the dispersal to validate this claim and affect population density thresholds capabilities of the Austin blind and misinterpreted the conclusions of required for successful mating. Jollyville Plateau salamanders. It is Gillespie (2011) to support their (19) Comment: SWCA (2012, p. v) plausible that populations of these argument. A second peer reviewer contests that the Jollyville Plateau species could extend through agrees that counts of salamanders are salamander is not in immediate danger subterranean habitat. However, related to natural wet and dry cycles, of extinction because, ‘‘over 60 of the subsurface movement is likely to be but points out that COA has taken this 90-plus known Jollyville Plateau limited by the highly dissected nature of effect into account in their analyses. salamander sites are permanently the aquifer system, where spring sites Another peer reviewer points out that protected within preserve areas. . . .’’ can be separated from other spring sites this argument contradicts SWCA’s This statement completely ignores the by large canyons or other physical (2012) earlier claim that COA’s entire aquifer recharge zone, which is barriers to movement. Dye-trace studies salamander counts are unreliable data. If not included in critical habitat. have demonstrated that some Jollyville the data were unreliable, they probably Furthermore, analysis of the COA’s Plateau salamander sites located miles would not correlate to environmental monitoring and water quality datasets apart are connected hydrologically changes. clearly demonstrate that, even within (Whitewater Cave and Hideaway Cave) Our Response: Although rainfall is protected areas, there is deterioration of (Hauwert and Warton 1997, pp. 12–13), undoubtedly important to these strictly water quality and decrease in but it remains unclear if salamanders aquatic salamander species, the best population size of salamanders. are travelling between those sites. There scientific evidence suggests that rainfall (20) Comment: SWCA (2012, p. 11) is some indication that populations is not the only factor driving salamander criticizes the Service and the COA for could be connected through population fluctuations. In the final not providing a ‘‘direct cause and subterranean water-filled spaces, listing rule, we continue to rely upon effect’’ relationship between although we are unaware of any this evidence as the best scientific and urbanization, nutrient levels and information available on the frequency commercial information available, salamander populations. There is, in of movements and the actual nature of which suggests that urbanization is also fact, a large amount of peer-reviewed connectivity among populations.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51286 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Comments From States community response. Current research Stormwater Permitting, Total Maximum Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the in Williamson County indicates that Daily Load Program, Nonpoint Source Secretary shall submit to the State water and sediment quality remain good Program, Edwards Aquifer Rules, and agency a written justification for his with no degradation, no elevated levels Local Ordinances and Rules (San failure to adopt regulations consistent of toxins, and no harmful residues in Marcos Ordinance and COA Rules). with the agency’s comments or known springs. Continuing efforts at the local, regional, Our Response: We have reviewed the petition.’’ Comments received from all and State level will provide a more best available scientific and commercial State agencies and entities in Texas focused and efficient approach for information in making our final listing regarding the proposal to list the Austin protecting these species than Federal determination. We sought comments blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders listing. from independent peer reviewers to are addressed below. Our Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of ensure that our designation is based on (22) Comment: Chippindale (2010) the Act requires us to take into account scientifically sound data, assumptions, demonstrated that it is possible for those efforts being made by a State or and analysis. And the peer reviewers Jollyville Plateau salamanders to move foreign nation, or any political stated that our proposed rule was based between sites in underground conduits. subdivision of a State or foreign nation, on the best available scientific Close genetic affinities between to protect such species, and we fully information. Additionally, recent recognize the contributions of the State populations in separate watersheds on research on water quality in Williamson either side of the RM 620 suggest that and local programs. We consider County springs was considered in our relevant Federal, State, and tribal laws these populations may be connected listing rule. The peer reviewers agreed hydrologically. Recent studies and regulations when developing our that these data did not present threats analysis. Regulatory mechanisms (Chippindale 2011 and 2012, in prep) convincing evidence that overall water indicate that gene flow among may preclude the need for listing if we quality at salamander sites in determine such mechanisms address the salamander populations follows Williamson County is good or that groundwater flow routes in some cases threats to the species such that listing is urbanization is not impacting the water no longer warranted. However, the best and that genetic exchange occurs both quality at these sites (see Comment 19 horizontally and vertically within an available scientific and commercial data above). supports our determination that existing aquifer segment. (25) Comment: The listing will have regulations and local ordinances are not Our Response: We agree that genetic negative impacts to private development adequate to remove all of the threats to evidence suggests subsurface and public infrastructure. hydrological connectivity exist between Our Response: In accordance with the the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau sites at some point in time, but we are Act, we cannot make a listing salamanders. We have added further unable to conclude if this connectivity determination based on economic discussion of these regulations and occurred in the past or if it still occurs impacts. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states ordinances to Factor D in the final today without more hydrogeological that the Secretary shall designate and listing rule. studies or direct evidence of salamander make revisions to critical habitat on the (27) Comment: The requirement in the migration from mark-recapture studies. basis of the best available scientific data Edwards Rules for wastewater to be Also, one of our peer reviewers stated after taking into consideration the disposed of on the recharge zone by that this genetic exchange is probably economic impact, national security land application is an important and representative of subsurface connection impact, and any other relevant impact of protective practice for aquifer recharge in the past (see comment 21 above). specifying any particular area as critical and a sustainable supply of (23) Comment: Very little is known habitat. However, economic groundwater. Permits for irrigation of about Austin blind salamander, and considerations are not taken into wastewater are fully evaluated and COA has a plan in place to protect and consideration as part of listing conditioned to require suitable improve habitat without listing. determinations. vegetation and sufficient acreage to Our Response: We agree that more (26) Comment: It was suggested that protect water quality. study is needed on the ecology of the there are adequate regulations in Texas Our Response: Based on the best Austin blind salamander, but enough to protect the Austin blind and Jollyville available science, wastewater disposal scientific and commercial data is Plateau salamanders, and their on the recharge zone by land available on the threats to this species respective habitats. The overall application can contribute to water to make a listing determination. We programs to protect water quality— quality degradation in surface waters make our listing determinations based especially in the watersheds of the and the underground aquifer. Previous on the five listing factors, singly or in Edwards Aquifer region—are more studies have demonstrated negative combination, as described in section robust and protective than suggested by impacts to water quality (increases in 4(a)(1) of the Act. We recognize the the Service’s descriptions of nitrate levels) at Barton Springs (Mahler conservation actions made by the COA deficiencies. The Service overlooks the et al. 2011, pp. 29–35) and within in the final listing and critical habitat improvements in the State of Texas and streams (Ross 2011, pp. 11–21) that rules, but we determined that these local regulatory and incentive programs were likely associated with the land actions are inadequate to protect the to protect the Edwards Aquifer and application of wastewater. species from threats that are occurring spring-dependent species over the last (28) Comment: A summary of surface from outside of the COA’s jurisdiction 20 years. Texas has extensive water water quality data for streams in the (that is, the surface watershed and quality management and protection watersheds of the Austin blind and recharge area of Barton Springs). programs that operate under State Jollyville Plateau salamanders was (24) Comment: Regarding all central statutes and the Federal Clean Water provided and a suggestion was made Texas salamanders, there was Act. These programs include: Surface that sampling data indicated high- insufficient data to evaluate the long- Water Quality Monitoring Program, quality aquatic life will be maintained term flow patterns of the springs and Clean Rivers Program, Water Quality despite occasional instances where creeks, and the correlation of flow, Standards, Texas Pollutant Discharge parameters exceeded criteria or water quality, habitat, ecology, and Elimination System (TPDES) screening levels.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51287

Our Response: In reviewing the 2010 local ordinances are not effective at Conservancy of Texas, and Travis and 2012 Texas Water Quality removing the threats to the salamanders. Audubon Society. While these Integrated Reports prepared by the conservation lands contribute to the Protections Texas Commission on Environmental protection of the surface and subsurface Quality (TCEQ), the Service identified (30) Comment: The Service fails to watersheds, other factors contribute to 14 of 28 (50 percent) stream segments consider existing local conservation the decline of the salamander’s habitat. located within surface drainage areas measures and habitat conservation plans Other factors include, but are not occupied by the salamanders, which (HCPs) including the regional permit limited to: (1) Other areas within the contained measured parameters within issued to the COA and Travis County, surface watershed that have high levels water samples that exceeded screening referred to as the Balcones Canyonlands of impervious cover, which increases level criteria. These included ‘‘screening Conservation Plan (BCCP), which the overall percentage of impervious level concerns’’ for parameters such as benefits the salamanders. While the cover within the watershed; (2) nitrate, dissolved oxygen, impaired salamanders are not covered in most of potential for groundwater pollution benthic communities, sediment toxicity, these HCPs, some commenters believe from areas outside of the surface and bacteria. In addition, as required that measures are in place to mitigate watershed; and (3) disturbance of the under Sections 303(d) and 304(a) of the any imminent threats to the species. The surface habitat of the spring sites Clean Water Act, 4 of 28 stream Service overlooks permanent themselves. segments located within surface conservation actions undertaken by both With regard to the BCCP specifically, drainage areas occupied by the public and private entities over the last we recognize that the BCCP system salamanders have been identified as two or more decades, including offers some water quality benefits to the impaired waters ‘‘. . . for which preservation of caves, which protects Jollyville Plateau salamander in effluent limitations are not stringent water quality through recharge, and the portions of the Bull Creek, Brushy enough to implement water quality preservation of the original Water Creek, Cypress Creek, and Long Hollow standards.’’ Water quality data collected Treatment Plant 4 site as conservation Creek drainages through preservation of and summarized in TCEQ reports land in perpetuity, which the COA is open space (Service 1996, pp. 2–28–2– supports our concerns with water now managing as part of the Balcones 29). Despite the significant conservation quality degradation within the surface Canyonlands Preserve. Additionally, measures being achieved by the BCCP drainage areas occupied by the Travis County conducts quarterly and their partners, the potential for surveys at two permanent survey sites, salamanders. This information is groundwater degradation still exists and the COA monitors several spring discussed under D. The Inadequacy of from outside these preserves. For sites, along with additional searches for Existing Regulatory Mechanisms in this example, eight of the nine COA new localities within the BCCP- final listing rule. monitoring sites occupied by the managed properties. The HCPs and Jollyville Plateau salamander within the Public Comments water quality protection standards are BCCP have experienced water quality sufficient to prevent significant habitat degradation where pollution sources Existing Regulatory Mechanisms degradation. Several commenters stated likely originated upstream and outside (29) Comment: Many commenters that the majority of Jollyville Plateau of the preserved tracts (O’Donnell et al. expressed concern that the Service had salamander sites were already protected 2006, pp. 29, 34, 37, 49; COA 1999, pp. not adequately addressed all of the by the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve. 6–11; Travis County 2007, p. 4). Our Response: In the final listing rule, existing regulatory mechanisms and (31) Comment: The proposed rule we included a section titled programs that provided protection to the directly contradicts the Service’s recent ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat salamanders. In addition, many of the policy titled Expanding Incentives for Destruction, Modification, or same commenters believed there were Voluntary Conservation Actions Under Curtailment of Its Range’’ that describes the Act (77 FR 15352, March 15, 2012), adequate Federal, State, and local existing conservation measures which concerns the encouragement of regulatory mechanisms to protect the including the regional permit issued to voluntary conservation actions for non- Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau the COA and Travis County for the listed species and is available at http:// salamanders and their aquatic habitats. BCCP and the Williamson County www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-15/ Our Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of Regional HCP. These conservation pdf/2012-6221.pdf. the Act requires us to take into account efforts and the manner in which they Our Response: The commenter did those efforts being made by a State or are helping to ameliorate threats to the not specify how the proposed rule foreign nation, or any political species were considered in our final contradicts the Service’s recent policy subdivision of a State or foreign nation, listing determination. The Service pronouncements concerning the to protect such species. Under D. The considered the amount and location of encouragement of voluntary Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory managed open space when analyzing conservation actions for nonlisted Mechanisms in the final listing rule, we impervious cover levels within each species. The recent policy provide an analysis of the inadequacy of surface watershed (Service 2012, 2013). pronouncements specifically state that existing regulatory mechanisms. During We also considered preserves when voluntary conservation actions the comment period, we sought out and projecting how impervious cover levels undertaken are unlikely to be sufficient were provided information on several within the surface watershed of each to affect the need to list the species. local, State, and Federal regulatory spring site would change in the future. However, if the species is listed and mechanisms that we had not considered These analyses included the benefits voluntary conservation actions are when developing the proposed rule. We from open space as a result of several implemented, as outlined in policy have reviewed these mechanisms and HCPs (including, but not limited to, the pronouncements, the Service can have included them in our analysis BCCP, Rockledge HCP, and Comanche provide assurances that if the conditions under D. The Inadequacy of Existing Canyon HCP). Additional conservation of a conservation agreement are met, the Regulatory Mechanisms in the final lands considered, but not part of, an landowner will not be asked to do more, listing rule. Our expanded analysis still HCP, includes the Lower Colorado River commit more resources, or be subject to concluded that existing regulations and Authority (LCRA), The Nature further land use restrictions than agreed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51288 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

upon. We may also allow a prescribed critical habitat designation consisted of available for public inspection, by level of incidental take by the 60 days, beginning August 22, 2012, and appointment, during normal business landowner. ending on October 22, 2012. We hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife reopened the comment period for an Service, Austin Ecological Services Listing Process and Policy additional 45 days, beginning on Field Office, 10711 Burnet Rd, Suite (32) Comment: The Service is pushing January 25, 2013, and ending on March 200, Austin, Texas 78758. these listings because of the legal 11, 2013. We consider the comment settlement and not basing its decision periods described above an adequate Peer Review Process on science and the reality of the existing opportunity for both written and oral (36) Comment: One commenter salamander populations. public comment. requested that the Service make the peer Our Response: We are required by (34) Comment: One commenter review process as transparent and court-approved settlement agreements suggested recognition of two distinct objective as possible. The Service to remove Austin blind and Jollyville population segments for Jollyville should make available the process and Plateau salamanders from the candidate Plateau salamander. criteria used to identify peer reviewers. list within a specified timeframe. To Our Response: In making our listing It is not appropriate for the Service to remove these salamanders from the determinations, we first decide whether choose the peer review experts. For the candidate list means to propose them a species is endangered or threatened peer review to be credible, the entire for listing as threatened or endangered throughout its entire range. Because we process including the selection of or to prepare a not-warranted finding. have already determined that the reviewers must be managed by an The Act requires us to determine Jollyville Plateau salamander is independent and objective party. We whether a species warrants listing based warranted for listing throughout its recommend that the peer review plan on our assessment of the five listing entire range, we are not considering identify at least two peer reviewers per factors described in the Act using the whether a distinct vertebrate population scientific discipline. Further, the peer best available scientific and commercial segment of the species meets the reviewers should be identified. information. We already determined, definition of an endangered or Our Response: To ensure the quality prior to the court settlement agreement, threatened species. and credibility of the scientific that the Austin blind and Jollyville (35) Comment: One commenter information we use to make decisions, Plateau salamanders warranted listing expressed concern with the use of we have implemented a formal peer under the Act, but were precluded by ‘‘unpublished’’ data in the proposed the necessity to commit limited funds rule. It is important that the Service review process. Through this peer and staff to complete higher priority takes the necessary steps to ensure all review process, we followed the species actions. The Austin blind and data used in the listing and critical guidelines for Federal agencies spelled Jollyville Plateau salamanders have habitat designations are reliable, out in the Office of Management and been included in our annual Candidate verifiable, and peer reviewed, as Budget (OMB) ‘‘Final Information Notices of Review for multiple years, required by President Obama’s 2009 Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,’’ during which time scientific literature directive for transparency and open released December 16, 2004, and the and data have and continue to indicate government. In December of 2009, the Service’s ‘‘Information Quality that these salamander species are Office of Management and Budget Guidelines and Peer Review,’’ revised detrimentally impacted by ongoing (OMB) issued clarification on the June 2012. Part of the peer review threats, and we continued to find that presentation and substance of data used process is to provide information online listing each species was warranted but by Federal agencies and required in its about how each peer review is to be precluded. While the settlement Information Quality Guidelines. conducted. Prior to publishing the agreement has set a court-ordered Additionally under the OMB guidelines, proposed listing and critical habitat rule timeline for rendering our final all information disseminated by Federal for the Austin blind and Jollyville decision, our determination is still agencies must meet the standard of Plateau salamanders, we posted a peer guided by the Act and its implementing ‘‘objectivity.’’ Additionally, relying on review plan on our Web site, which regulations considering the five listing older studies instead of newer ones included information about the process factors and using the best available conflicts with the Information Quality and criteria used for selecting peer scientific and commercial information. Guidelines. reviewers. (33) Comment: Commenters requested Our Response: Our use of In regard to transparency, the OMB that the Service extend the comment unpublished information and data does and Service’s peer review guidelines period for another 45 days after the first not contravene the transparency and mandate that we not conduct comment period. The commenters were open government directive. Under the anonymous peer reviews. The concerned about the length of the Act, we are obligated to use the best guidelines state that we advise proposed listing, which is very dense available scientific and commercial reviewers that their reviews, including and fills 88 pages in the Federal information, including results from their names and affiliations, and how Register and that the public hearing was surveys, reports by scientists and we respond to their comments will be held only 2 weeks after the proposed biological consultants, various models, included in the official record for rule was published. The commenter and expert opinion from biologists with review, and, once all the reviews are does not consider this enough time to extensive experience studying the completed, their reviews will be read and digest how the Service is salamanders and their habitat, whether available to the public. We followed the basing a listing decision that will have published or unpublished. One element policies and standards for conducting serious consequences for Williamson of the transparency and open peer reviews as part of this rulemaking County. Furthermore, the 60-day government directive encourages process. comment period does not give the executive departments and agencies to (37) Comment: The results of the peer public enough time to submit written make information about operations and review process should be available to comments to such a large proposed rule. decisions readily available to the public. the public for review and comment well Our Response: The initial comment Supporting documentation used to before the end of the public comment period for the proposed listing and prepare the proposed and final rules is period on the listing decision. Will the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51289

public have an opportunity to recommended scientists to be qualified species. The peer review plan states that participate in the peer review process? as independent experts, we included the reviewers will have expertise in Response: As noted above, OMB and 4 experts recommended by the invertebrate ecology, conservation the Service’s guidelines state that we commenter among the 11. Eight biology, or desert spring ecology. The make available to the public the peer scientists responded to our request, and disciplines of invertebrate ecology and reviewers information, reviews, and all eight scientists agreed with our desert spring ecology do not have any how we respond to their comments once recognition of four separate and distinct apparent relevance to the salamanders all reviews are completed. The peer salamander species, as described in the in question. The Eurycea are vertebrate reviews are completed at the time the Species Information section of the species that spend nearly all of their life last public comment period closes, and proposed and final listing rules. The cycle underground. Central Texas is not our responses to their comments are commenter also provided an a desert. The peer reviewers should completed at the time the final listing unpublished paper offering an have expertise in amphibian ecology decision is published in the Federal alternative interpretation of the and familiarity with how karst Register. All peer review process taxonomy of central Texas salamanders hydrogeology operates. information is available upon request at (Forstner 2012, entire), and that Our Response: The peer review plan this time and will be made available information was also provided to peer stated that we sought out peer reviewers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, reviewers. We included two authors of with expertise in invertebrate ecology or Austin Ecological Services Field Office, the original species descriptions of the desert spring ecology, but this was an 10711 Burnet Rd, Suite 200, Austin, Austin blind, Georgetown, Jollyville error. In the first comment period, we Texas 78758. Plateau, and Salado salamanders to give asked and received peer reviews from (38) Comment: New information has them an opportunity to respond to independent scientists with local and been provided during the comment criticisms of their work and so that we non-local expertise in amphibian period. The final listing decision should could fully understand the taxonomic ecology, amphibian taxonomy, and karst be peer reviewed. questions about these species. hydrology. In the second comment Response: During the second public (40) Comment: One commenter period, we sought out peer reviewers comment period, we asked peer requested a revision to the peer review with local and non-local expertise in reviewers to comment on new and plan to clarify whether it is a review of population ecology and watershed substantial information that we received non-influential information or urbanization. during the first comment period. We did influential information. (43) Comment: The peer review plan not receive any new information during Our Response: We see no benefit from appears to ask peer reviewers to the second comment period that we felt revising the peer review plan to clarify consider only the scientific information rose to the level of needing peer review. whether the review was of non- reviewed by the Service. The plan Furthermore, as part of our peer review influential or influential information. should include the question of whether process, we asked peer reviewers not to The Service’s ‘‘Information Quality the scientific information reviewed provide comments or recommendations Guidelines and Peer Review,’’ revised constitutes the best available scientific on the listing decision. Peer reviewers June 2012, defines influential and commercial data. The plan should were asked to comment specifically on information as information that we can be revised to clarify that the peer the quality of information and analyses reasonably determine that reviewers are not limited to the used or relied on in the reviewed dissemination of the information will scientific information in the Service’s documents. In addition, they were asked have or does have a clear and administrative record. to identify oversights, omissions, and substantial impact on important policy Our Response: The peer review plan inconsistencies; provide advice on or private sector decisions. Also, we are states that we may ask peer reviewers to reasonableness of judgments made from authorized to define influential in ways identify oversights and omissions of the scientific evidence; ensure that appropriate for us, given the nature and information as well as to consider the scientific uncertainties are clearly multiplicity of issues for which we are information reviewed by the Service. identified and characterized and that responsible. As a general rule, we When we sent out letters to peer potential implications of uncertainties consider an impact clear and substantial reviewers asking for their review, we for the technical conclusions drawn are when a specific piece of information is specifically asked them to identify any clear; and provide advice on the overall a principle basis for our position. oversights, omissions, and strengths and limitations of the (41) Comment: One commenter inconsistencies with the information we scientific data used in the document. requested clarification on what type of presented in the proposed rule. (39) Comment: One commenter peer review was intended. Was it a (44) Comment: The proposed peer requested a peer review of the Austin panel review or individual review? Did review plan falls far short of the OMB blind, Georgetown, Jollyville Plateau, peer reviewers operate in isolation to Guidelines (2004 Office of Management and Salado salamanders’ taxonomy and generate individual reports or did they and Budget promulgated its Final recommended that, to avoid any work collaboratively to generate a single Information Quality Bulletin for Peer potential bias, peer reviewers not be peer review document. Review). from Texas or be authors or contributors Our Response: Peer reviews were Our Response: This commenter failed of any works that the Service has or is requested individually. Each peer to tell us how the plan falls short of the relying upon to diagnose the Austin reviewer who responded generated OMB Guidelines. We tried to adhere to blind, Georgetown, Jollyville Plateau, independent comments. the guidelines set forth for Federal and Salado salamanders as four distinct (42) Comment: It does not seem agencies and in OMB’s ‘‘Final species. This commenter also provided appropriate to ask peer reviewers, who Information Quality Bulletin for Peer a list of four recommended scientists for apparently do not have direct expertise Review,’’ released December 16, 2004, the peer review on taxonomy. on Eurycea or central Texas ecological and the Service’s ‘‘Information Quality Our Response: We requested peer systems, to provide advice on Guidelines and Peer Review,’’ revised reviews of the central Texas salamander reasonableness of judgments made from June 2012. While the draft peer review taxonomy from 11 scientific experts in generic statements or hyper- plan had some errors, we believe we this field. Because we considered the 4 extrapolations from studies on other satisfied the intent of the guidelines and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51290 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

that the errors did not affect the rigor of spring-fed impoundment that maintains critical to impounded habitats. Constant the actual peer review that occurred. water for a significant portion of a year. water impoundments (Barton Springs The notion of Jollyville Plateau Pool and Spring Lake in San Marcos) are Salamander Populations salamander being a ‘‘surface dwelling a unique type of habitat (pond) for (45) Comment: Studies indicate that Eurycea’’ most likely stems from an Eurycea distinct from ephemeral spring there are healthy populations of early description of the Barton Springs flow areas and underground areas. The Jollyville Plateau salamanders in many salamander adopted by the Service. San Marcos salamander uses aquatic locations, including highly developed Characterizing the Barton Springs vegetation as cover. It is noteworthy that areas such as State Highway 45 at RM salamander as ‘‘predominately surface Spring Lake has a significantly higher 620 and along Spicewood Springs Road dwelling’’ is highly questionable. The density of salamanders than does Barton between Loop 1 and Mesa Drive. history of the Barton Springs Pool Springs Pool. Threats the Service Our Response: We are unaware of provides a tremendous amount of associates with sediment must be long-term monitoring studies that have information regarding the life history of assessed differently for impounded demonstrated healthy populations of the Barton Springs salamander (and areas compared to ephemeral spring Jollyville Plateau salamanders over time other Texas Eurycea), the relative flow areas. in highly developed areas. Furthermore, importance of surface habitat areas, and Our Response: We recognize that the fact that some heavily urbanized the absolute necessity for underground these salamanders can use habitat types areas still have salamanders in them habitat. other than rocky substrate. Jollyville does not indicate the probability of Our Response: In the proposed rule, Plateau salamanders have been found population stability. In the case of the we did not mean to imply or assume under leaf litter, vegetation, and in open Spicewood Spring site mentioned by the that ‘‘surface-dwelling populations’’ are areas (Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 114–116). commenter, salamander monitoring by restricted to surface habitat only. In fact, Pierce et al. (2010, p. 295) observed COA since 1996 has consistently found we made clear in the proposed rule that closely related Georgetown salamanders low numbers of salamanders (Bendik these populations need access to in open spaces and under sticks, leaf 2011a, pp. 14, 19–20). subsurface habitat. In addition, we also litter, and other structural cover. (46) Comment: A recent study by considered the morphology of these However, these peer-reviewed studies SWCA proposes that the COA’s data is species in our description of their also came to the conclusion that inadequate to assess salamander habitat use. The morphology of the salamanders are much more likely to be population trends and is not Jollyville Plateau salamander serves as under rocks than other cover objects and representative of environmental and indicators of surface and subsurface that they select rocks with larger surface population control factors (such as habitat use. The Jollyville Plateau areas (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 296; Bowles seasonal rainfall and drought). The salamander’s surface populations have et al. 2006, p. 118). These results are study also states that there is very little large, well-developed eyes. In addition, consistent with studies on other aquatic evidence linking increased urban the Jollyville Plateau salamanders have salamanders nationwide (Davic and Orr development to declining water quality. yellowish heads and dark greenish- 1987; Parker 1991; Welsh and Ollivier Our Response: We have reviewed the brown bodies. Subterranean populations 1998; Smith and Grossman 2003). report by SWCA and COA’s data and of this species have reduced eyes and Therefore, based on the best available determined that it is reasonable to dullness of color, indicating adaptation information, we consider habitat conclude that a link between increased to subsurface habitat. In contrast, the containing substrates other than large urban development, declining water Austin blind salamander has no external rocks to be suboptimal habitat for the quality, and declining salamander eyes and has lightly pigmented skin, Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau populations exists for these species. indicating it is more subterranean than salamanders. Regarding sediment, we Peer reviewers have also generally surface-dwelling. explain the impacts that sedimentation agreed with this assessment. has on salamanders in the proposed and Threats (47) Comment: Given the central final listing rules under Factor A. The Texas climate and the general geology (48) Comment: One commenter assessment of this threat is based on a and hydrology of the Edwards described an experiment at Barton number of studies, which peer Limestone formation north of the Springs Pool in 1998 designed to reviewers have agreed comprise the best Colorado River, the description measure the impacts on the Barton available information. Impoundments ‘‘surface-dwelling’’ or ‘‘surface residing’’ Springs salamander from lowering the promote sedimentation and generally overstates the extent and frequency that water level during pool cleanings. At suboptimal habitat for salamanders, as the Jollyville Plateau salamander the time, the substrate of the beach area described under Factor A of the utilizes surface water. The phrase was described by the Service as proposed and final listing rules. Despite ‘‘surface dwelling population’’ in the ‘‘basically silt and sediment with algae the persistence of salamander species at proposed rule appears to be based on on top’’ and ‘‘like concrete.’’ In other impounded locations, these are not two undisclosed and questionable words, it was nothing like the habitat in natural habitat types in which the assumptions pertaining to Jollyville the proposed rule, which emphasized species have evolved and would be Plateau salamander species: (1) There the need for interstitial spaces (the unlikely to persist in perpetuity if are a sufficient number of these space between the rocks) free from restricted to sites like this. salamanders that have surface water sediments. Despite this untraditional (49) Comment: The Service appears available to them for sufficient periods habitat, 23 Barton Springs salamanders reluctant to distinguish between what of times so that the group could be were found in the beach area, and prey are normal, baseline physical conditions called a ‘‘population;’’ and (2) there are items such as amphipods were also (climate, geology, and hydrology) found surface-dwelling Jollyville Plateau found. Later, the COA removed the silt in central Texas and those factors salamander populations that are distinct and algae substrate, restricting outside of the norm that might actually from subsurface dwelling Jollyville salamander habitat to the rocky threaten the survival of the Austin blind Plateau salamander populations. substrate. The events of 1998 and Jollyville Plateau salamanders Neither assumption can be correct demonstrate that unobstructed species. Cyclical droughts and regular unless the surface area is within a interstitial space is not necessarily flood events are part of the normal

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51291

central Texas climate and have been for Bull Creek (77 FR 50778), and once to results of the study. The fact that thousands of years. The Service appears state that Tributary 5 of Bull Creek significant trends were not found when very tentative about accepting the increased in conductivity, chloride, and the last 5 years of data (from 1995 obvious adaptive behaviors of the sodium and decreased in invertebrate through 1999) were excluded from the salamanders to survive floods and diversity from 1996 to 2008 (77 FR analysis supports our conclusion that droughts. 50779). We do not believe that these recent urbanization in the surrounding Our Response: The final listing rule statements were misleading or areas was driving declines in water acknowledges that drought conditions misrepresenting the results of the study. quality. The author states that their are common to the region, and the In addition, the COA 2010 report (p. 16) regression model should not be used to ability to retreat underground may be an summarized their study by stating that predict future water quality evolutionary adaptation to such natural ‘‘currently Bull Creek ranks highest out concentrations (Turner 2005, p. 6). We conditions (Bendik 2011a, pp. 31–32). of all sampled creeks in the COA; made no such predictions based on this However, it is important to note that, however, spatial differences between model in the proposed rule. Regarding although salamanders may survive a sites coupled with temporal shifts over the last point made by the commenter, drought by retreating underground, this the past decade indicate negative the proposed rule did in fact state that, does not necessarily mean they are changes in the watershed, particularly ‘‘The significance and presence of resilient to future worsening drought in the headwater tributaries.’’ This trends in other pollutants were variable conditions in combination with other statement is followed by a list of water depending on flow conditions (baseflow environmental stressors. For example, quality declines found in headwater vs. stormflow, recharge vs. non- climate change, groundwater pumping, tributaries 5 and 6. This is the area of recharge) (Turner 2005a, p. 20)’’ (see 77 decreased water infiltration to the Bull Creek where Jollyville Plateau FR 50779). aquifer, potential increases in saline salamander habitat is located. (52) Comment: The Tonkawa Springs water encroachments in the aquifer, and Further, the Service has relied on and Great Oaks neighborhoods in increased competition for spaces and other data to support the conclusion Williamson County, Texas, had their resources underground all may that water quality is degrading in the water supply contaminated in 1995 after negatively affect their habitat (COA Bull Creek watershed. For example, gasoline from a nearby gas station 2006, pp. 46–47; TPWD 2011, pp. 4–5; O’Donnell et al. (2006, p. 45) state that leaked into water wells for the two Bendik 2011a, p. 31; Miller et al. 2007; despite the amount of preserve land in neighborhoods. These water wells had p. 74; Schueler 1991, p. 114). These the watershed, ‘‘the City of Austin has to be decommissioned and another factors may exacerbate drought reported significant declines in water supplier found. conditions to the point where Jollyville Plateau salamander abundance Our Response: We agree that leaking salamanders cannot survive. In at one of their Jollyville Plateau underground storage tanks and other addition, we recognize threats to surface salamander monitoring sites within Bull sources of hazardous materials pose a habitat at a given site may not extirpate Creek even though our analysis found threat to salamanders. The final listing populations of these salamander species that 61 percent of the land within this rules cite this type of hazardous spill as in the short term, but this type of habitat watershed has 0 percent impervious a threat. degradation may severely limit cover.’’ O’Donnell et al. (2006, p. 46) (53) Comment: One commenter population growth and increase a state, ‘‘Poor water quality, as measured contests the idea that land application population’s overall risk of extirpation by high specific conductance and irrigation from wastewater treatment from cumulative impacts of other elevated levels of ion concentrations, is plants increases pollutants in the stressors occurring in the surface cited as one of the likely factors leading aquifer. watershed of a spring. to statistically significant declines in Our Response: No citation is provided (50) Comment: The Service cited two salamander abundance at the COA’s by the commenter to support this view; COA studies (COA 2001, p.15; COA long-term monitoring sites.’’ however, Ross (2011, pp. 11–18) 2010a, p. 16) within the proposed rule (51) Comment: The Service cites a reported that residential irrigation with to support the finding of water quality 2005 COA study (Turner 2005a, p. 6) wastewater effluent had led to excessive degradation in the Bull Creek that reported ‘‘significant changes over nutrient input into the recharge zone of watershed. To the extent that the 2001 time’’ for several chemical constituents the Barton Springs Segment of the study is superseded by the 2010 study, (77 FR 50779). The proposed rule does Edwards Aquifer. Mahler et al. (2011, p. the 2001 study should be excluded. The not disclose the following finding from 35) also cites land application of treated COA 2001 report (p. 16) states that this study: ‘‘No significant trends at the wastewater as the likely source of excess ‘‘Although this study found some 0.05 level were found when the data nutrients, and possibly wastewater evidence of a negative shift in the Bull from the last five years was eliminated.’’ compounds, detected in tributaries Creek watershed, many COA watershed Also not disclosed were the study’s recharging Barton Springs. This health measures, including the habitat author’s admonition regarding the information has been updated in the quality index, the TCEQ aquatic life use limitations of the study and statement final listing rule. score, the number of macroinvertebrate that the study should not be used to (54) Comment: City of Round Rock is taxa, and the three diatom community predict future water quality extending its contract for the third time metrics, all continue to indicate an concentrations. Finally, the proposed to build a fire station next to Krienke overall healthy creek.’’ The use of the rule did not disclose the last sentence of Spring in Jollyville Plateau salamander 2010 study without providing a full this report: ‘‘Significance and presence critical habitat Unit 1. No detention disclosure or analysis of the overall of trends is variable depending on flow facilities have been proposed, and none findings of this study does not meet the conditions (‘baseflow vs. stormflow, appear possible because of topography objectivity standard of the Information recharge vs. non-recharge’).’’ Such non- without excavation into karst rock layer. Quality Guidelines. disclosures do not comport with the The City of Round Rock had a geological Our Response: We cited the COA Information Quality Guidelines. assessment and geotechnical studies 2010 study twice in the proposed rule: Our Response: We do not believe that done as well as an engineering once to state that sensitive our characterization of this study was feasibility study, which includes logs of macroinvertebrate species were lost in misleading or misrepresenting the boring with lab test data, boring location

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51292 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

plan, and preliminary foundation and performed within the past 3 months at have salamanders in them does not pavement design information. Copies Jollyville Plateau salamander sites indicate the probability of population were provided in the comment letter. indicate that aquifer water is remarkably persistence over the long term. Our Response: The final listing rule clean and that water quality protection Hydrology cites population growth and urban standards already in place throughout development as a primary threat to the county are working. (59) Comment: The Service salamanders. To achieve recovery of Our Response: The listing process homogenizes ecosystem characteristics these salamander species, we will seek requires the Service to consider both across central Texas salamander species. cooperative conservation efforts on ongoing and future threats to the The proposed rule often assumes that private, State, and other lands. species. Williamson County has yet to the ‘‘surface habitat’’ characteristics of (55) Comment: Through measuring experience the same level of population the Barton Springs salamander and water-borne stress hormones, growth as Travis County, but is Austin blind salamander (year-round researchers found that salamanders from projected to have continued rapid surface water in manmade urban sites had significantly higher growth in the foreseeable future. impoundments) apply to the Jollyville corticosterone stress hormone levels Therefore, it is not surprising that some Plateau salamanders, which live in very than salamanders from rural sites. This areas where the Jollyville Plateau different geologic and hydrologic finding serves as evidence that chronic salamanders occur in Williamson habitat. The Jollyville Plateau stress can occur as development County may exhibit good water quality. salamander lives in water contained encroaches upon these spring habitats. However, our peer reviewers concluded within a ‘‘perched’’ zone of the Edwards Our Response: We are aware that that the water quality data referenced by Limestone formation that is relatively researchers are pursuing this relatively the commenter is not enough evidence thin and does not retain or recharge new approach to evaluate salamander to conclude that water quality at much water when compared to the health based on differences in stress salamander sites in Williamson County Barton Springs segment of the Edwards hormones between salamanders from is sufficient for the Jollyville Plateau Aquifer. Many of the springs where urban and nonurban sites. Stress levels salamander. The best available science Jollyville Plateau salamanders are found that are elevated due to natural or indicates that water quality and species are more ephemeral due to the relatively unnatural (that is, anthropogenic) diversity consistently declines with small drainage basins and relatively environmental stressors can affect an increasing levels of urban development. quick discharge of surplus groundwater organism’s ability to meet its life-history Existing regulatory programs designed after a rainfall event. Surface water at requirements, including adequate to protect water quality are often not several of the proposed creek headwater foraging, predator avoidance, and adequate to preserve native ecosystem critical habitat units is generally short reproductive success. We encourage integrity. Although some springs lived following a rain event. The continued development of this and support larger salamander populations persistence of Jollyville Plateau other nonlethal scientific methods to compared to others, among the Jollyville salamanders at these headwater improve our understanding of Plateau salamander sites for which we locations demonstrates that this species salamander health and habitat quality. have long-term monitoring data, there is is not as dependent on surface water as (56) Comment: Information in the a strong correlation between highly occupied impoundments suggest. proposed rule does not discern whether urbanized areas and lower salamander Our Response: The Service recognizes water quality degradation is due to densities. According to COA, densities that the Austin blind salamander is development or natural variation in of Jollyville Plateau salamanders are an more subterranean than the other three flood and rainfall events. Fundamental average of three times lower at urban species of salamander. However, the differences in surface counts of sites compared to rural streams. Jollyville Plateau salamander spends salamanders between sites are due to a (58) Comment: Aerial photography in large portions of its life in subterranean natural dynamic of an extended period the Travis County soil survey indicates habitat. Further, the Jollyville Plateau of above-average rainfall followed by that the entire surface watershed of salamander has cave-associated forms. recent drought. Indian Spring was built out as primarily The Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau Our Response: We recognize that single-family residential subdivisions salamander species are within the same aquatic-dependent organisms such as before 1970 in the absence of any water genus, entirely aquatic throughout each the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau quality regulations. Impervious cover portion of their life cycles, respire salamanders will respond to local levels in the watershed have remained through gills, inhabit water of high weather conditions; however, the best above 40 percent for more than 40 years. quality with a narrow range of available science indicates that rainfall Despite nearly 75 years of contiguous conditions, depend on water from the alone does not explain lower development and habitat modification Edwards Aquifer, and have similar salamander densities at urban sites to Indian Spring, the salamanders have predators. The Barton Springs monitored by the COA. Furthermore, persisted and appear to thrive. salamander shares these same there is scientific consensus among Our Response: We were provided no similarities. Based on this information, numerous studies on the impacts of references in support of the comment the Service has determined that these urbanization that conclude species ‘‘. . . Indian Spring . . . salamanders species are suitable surrogates for each diversity and abundance consistently have persisted and appear to thrive.’’ other. declines with increasing levels of Our records indicate the status of the Exactly how much these species development, as described under Factor salamander population at Indian depend on surface water is unclear, but A in the final listing rule. Springs is currently unknown. As stated the best available information suggests (57) Comment: Studies carried out by in our response to comment 62 above, that the productivity of surface habitat the Williamson County Conservation we are unaware of long-term monitoring is important for individual growth. For Foundation (WCCF) do not support the studies that have demonstrated stable example, a recent study showed that Service’s assertions that habitat for the populations of Jollyville Plateau Jollyville Plateau salamanders had salamanders is threatened by declining salamanders over time in highly negative growth in body length and tail water quality and quantity. New developed areas. Furthermore, the fact width while using subsurface habitat information from water quality studies that some heavily urbanized areas still during a drought and that growth did

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51293

not become positive until surface flow persistence in the environment makes expected to be low historically in the returned (Bendik and Gluesenkamp them pose an inherent risk to nontarget aquifer, but we disagree that pesticides 2012, pp. 3–4). In addition, the species. Numerous studies have are decreasing. No citation was morphological variation found in these documented the presence of pesticides provided by the commenter to salamander populations may provide in water, particularly areas impacted by substantiate this claim. We believe that, insight into how much time is spent in urbanization and agriculture, and there with projected human population subsurface habitat compared to surface is ample evidence that full life-cycle growth, the frequency and concentration habitat. and multigenerational exposures to of pesticides in the environment will (60) Comment: Another commenter dozens of chemicals, even at low increase in the future. stated that salamander use of surface concentrations, contribute to declines in (64) Comment: The Service cites Rohr habitat is entirely dependent on rainfall the abundance and diversity of aquatic et al. (2003, p. 2,391) indicating that events large enough to generate species. Few pesticides or their carbaryl causes mortalities and sufficient spring and stream flow. Even breakdown products have been tested deformities in streamside salamanders after large rainfall events, stream flow for multigenerational effects to (Ambystoma barbouri). However, Rohr decreases quickly and dissipates within amphibians, and many do not have an et al. (2003, p. 2,391) actually found that days. As a result, the salamanders are applicable State or Federal water quality larval survival was reduced by the predominately underground species standard. For these reasons, we highest concentrations of carbaryl tested because groundwater is far more maintain that commercial and (50 mg/L) over a 37-day exposure period. abundant and sustainable. residential pesticide use contributes to Rohr et al. (2003, p. 2,391) also found Our Response: See our response to habitat degradation and poses a threat to that embryo survival and growth was previous comment. the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau not affected, and hatching was not (61) Comment: Several commenters salamanders, as well as the aquatic delayed in the 37 days of carbaryl stated that there is insufficient data on organisms that comprise their diet. exposure. In the same study, exposure long-term flow patterns of the springs (63) Comment: There were no to 400 mg/L of atrazine over 37 days (the and creek and on the correlation of flow, detections of insecticides or fungicides highest dose tested) had no effect on water quality, habitat, ecology, and in a USGS monitoring program that larval or embryo survival, hatching, or community response to make a listing analyzed for 52 soluble pesticide growth. A Scientific Advisory Panel determination. Commenters propose residues in the Barton Springs aquifer (SAP) of the Environmental Protection that additional studies be conducted to from 2003 through 2005 (Maher et al. Agency (EPA) reviewed available evaluate hydrology and surface recharge 2006). This same study found the information regarding atrazine effects on area, and water quality. highest atrazine concentrations detected amphibians, including the Hayes (2002) Our Response: We agree that there is was about 0.08 mg/L in a sample from study cited by the Service, and a need for more study on the hydrology Upper Spring, indicated as 40 times concluded that atrazine appeared to of salamander sites, but there is enough lower than levels of concern (Maher et have no effect on clawed frog (Xenopus data available on the threats to these al. 2006). The maximum value of 0.44 laevis) development at atrazine species to make a listing determination. mg/L cited from older USGS monitoring concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 100 We make our listing determinations data, though still lower than levels of mg/L. These studies do not support the based on the five listing factors, singly concern, appears to be abnormally high Service’s conclusions. or in combination, as described in and not representative of actual Our Response: We do not believe that section 4(a)(1) of the Act. exposure. The body of evidence our characterization of Rohr et al. (2003) misrepresented the results of the study. Pesticides available strongly suggests that historical levels of pesticide residues in In their conclusions, Rohr et al. (2003, (62) Comment: Claims of pesticides the aquifers inhabited by the Austin p. 2,391) state, ‘‘Carbaryl caused posing a significant threat are blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders significant larval mortality at the highest unsubstantiated. The references cited in have always been low and are concentration and produced the greatest the proposed rule are in some cases diminishing. percent of malformed larvae, but did not misquoted, and others are refuted by Our Response: We agree that levels of significantly affect behavior relative to more robust analysis. The water quality pesticides documented in Barton controls. Although atrazine did not monitoring reports, as noted in the Springs and other surface water bodies induce significant mortality, it did seem proposed rule, indicate that pesticides of the Edwards Aquifer often occur at to affect motor function.’’ This study were found at levels below criteria set relatively low concentrations; clearly demonstrates that these two in the aquatic life protection section of nevertheless, we believe they are pesticides can have an impact on the Texas Surface Water Quality capable of negatively impacting habitat amphibian biology and behavior. In Standards, and they were most often at quality and salamander health. Barton addition, the EPA (2007, p. 9) also sites with urban or partly urban Springs in particular is an artesian found that carbaryl is likely to adversely watersheds. This information conflicts spring with high flows that would serve affect the Barton Springs salamander with the statement that the frequency to dilute pollutants that are introduced both directly and indirectly through and duration of exposure to harmful to the system via storm events, irrigation reduction of prey. levels of pesticides have been largely runoff, or other non-point sources and Regarding the Hayes (2002) study, we unknown or undocumented. may, therefore, not be representative of acknowledge that an SAP of the EPA Our Response: We recognize there are pesticide concentrations in springs reviewed this information and uncertainties about the degree to which throughout the range of the Austin blind concluded that atrazine concentrations different pesticides may be impacting and Jollyville Plateau salamanders. less than 100 mg/L had no effects on water quality and salamander health Furthermore, persistent compounds that clawed frogs in 2007. However, the 2012 across the range of the Austin blind and bioaccumulate could enter aquatic SAP did reexamine the conclusions of Jollyville Plateau salamanders, but the systems at low levels, but nevertheless the 2007 SAP using a meta-analysis of very nature of pesticides being designed reach levels of concern in sediments published studies along with additional to control unwanted organisms through and biological tissues over time. We studies on more species (EPA 2012, p. toxicological mechanisms and their agree that pesticide residues would be 35). The 2012 SAP expressed concern

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51294 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

that some studies were discounted in Aquifer area. Further discussion of these accumulate in Barton Springs (Geismar the 2007 SAP analysis, including measures can be found under Factor D 2005, p. 2; COA 2007a, p. 4). studies like Hayes (2002) that indicated in this final listing rule. (69) Comment: During the first public that atrazine is linked to endocrine (67) Comment: The springshed, as comment period, many entities disruption in amphibians (EPA 2012, p. defined in the draft impervious cover submitted comments and information 35). In addition, the 2007 SAP noted analysis, is a misnomer because the so- directing the Service’s attention to the that their results on clawed frogs are called springsheds delineated in the actual data on water quality in the insufficient to make global conclusions study are not the contributing or affected creeks and springs. Given the about the effects of atrazine on all recharge area for the studied springs. amount of water quality data available amphibian species (EPA 2012, p. 33). Calling a surface area that drains to a to the Service and the public, the Texas Accordingly, the 2012 SAP has specific stretch of a creek a springshed Salamander Coalition is concerned that recommended further testing on at least is disingenuous and probably the Service continues to ignore local three amphibian species before a misleading to less informed readers. data and instead focuses on impervious conclusion can be reached that atrazine Our Response: We acknowledge that cover and impervious cover studies has no effect on amphibians at the term springshed may be confusing to conducted in other parts of the country concentrations less than 100 mg/L (EPA readers, and we have thus replaced this without regard to existing water quality 2012, p. 33). Due to potential differences term with the descriptors ‘‘surface regulations. Why use models, generic in species sensitivity, exposure drainage area of a spring’’ or ‘‘surface data, and concepts when actual data on scenarios that may include dozens of watershed of a spring’’ throughout the the area of concern is readily available? chemical stressors simultaneously, and final listing rule and impervious cover Our Response: The Service has multigenerational effects that are not analysis document. examined and incorporated all water fully understood, we continue to view (68) Comment: Page 18 of the draft quality data submitted during the public pesticides in general, including impervious cover analysis states, ‘‘. . . comment periods. However, the vast carbaryl, atrazine, and many others to clearly-delineated recharge areas that majority of salamander sites are still which aquatic organisms may be flow to specific springs have not been lacking long-term monitoring data that exposed, as a potential threat to water identified for any of these spring sites; are necessary to make conclusions on quality, salamander health, and the therefore, we could not examine the status of the site’s water quality. The health of aquatic organisms that impervious cover levels on recharge impervious cover analysis allows us to comprise the diet of salamanders. areas to better understand how quantify this specific threat for sites development in those areas may impact where information is lacking. Impervious Cover salamander habitat.’’ This statement is (70) Comment: Spicewood Springs, (65) Comment: One commenter stated not accurate with respect to the springs proposed critical habitat Unit 31 for the that, in the draft impervious cover in which the Austin Blind salamander Jollyville Plateau salamander, was fully analysis, the Service has provided no has been observed. Numerous studies, built out prior to 1995. No open space data to prove a cause and effect including several dye studies, have been exists within Unit 31 aside from the relationship between impervious cover conducted on the recharge area for these narrow wooded area along an unnamed and the status of surface salamander springs. Enclosed with this letter are tributary. Impervious cover in Unit 31 sites or the status of underground seven studies that describe the exceeds 55 percent. Impervious cover habitat. ‘‘springshed’’ for these springs. Further, within the Spicewood Springs surface Our Response: Peer reviewers agreed Barton Springs Pool is largely isolated watershed exceeds 50 percent. that we used the best available scientific from Barton Creek due to dams and Development has almost certainly led to information in regard to the link bypass structures except during larger bank erosion, increased velocity, between urbanization, water quality, rainfall events when the creek tops the decreased water depths, fill from and salamander populations. upstream dam. That the draft construction activities, and stream (66) Comment: On page 18 of the draft impervious cover analysis misses these maintenance and stabilization. These impervious cover analysis, the Service obvious and widely known facts modifications have altered the natural dismisses the role and effectiveness of indicates a fundamental and traditional character of the tributary water quality controls to mitigate the misunderstanding of how the Barton in which Spicewood Springs are effects of impervious cover: ‘‘. . . the Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer located. Extensive, historic impervious effectiveness of storm water runoff operates. cover in the watershed (55 percent) and measures, such as passive filtering Our Response: We acknowledge that the subsequent baseline water quality systems, is largely unknown in terms of the recharge area for Barton Springs is has not eliminated Jollyville Plateau mitigating the effects of watershed-scale much better studied compared to salamander at the spring, documenting urbanization.’’ The Service recognized springs for other central Texas that the threat of the habitat degradation the effectiveness of such storm water salamanders, and we have incorporated is absent in Unit 31. By the criteria in runoff measures in the final rule listing this information in the final impervious the proposed rule, the Jollyville Plateau the Barton Springs salamander as cover analysis. We are also aware of the salamander should no longer occupy endangered in 1997. Since 1997, the upstream dam above Barton Springs. Spicewood Springs because the Service has separately concurred that However, this dam does not isolate the impervious cover is greater than 15 the water quality controls imposed in springs from threats occurring within percent and has been for 30 years. the Edwards Aquifer area protect the the surface watershed. We believe the However, Jollyville Plateau salamanders Barton Springs salamander. surface watershed of Barton Springs have been found by the COA in 1996 Our Response: Since 1997, water does play a role in determining the after which most of the development in quality and Jollyville Plateau overall habitat quality of this site. For the area was complete. Further, recent salamander counts have declined at example, development in the surface water quality sampling by SWCA shows several salamander sites, as described watershed may increase the frequency baseline levels of almost all under Factor A in the final listing rule. and severity of flood events that top the contaminants. Any future added This is in spite of water quality control upstream dam. These floods contain impervious cover is not likely to measures implemented in the Edwards contaminants and sediments that significantly reduce the current amount

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51295

of groundwater recharging. features. This has implications for water indirect (that is, due to an additional Groundwater depletion may also result storage. Implications are that the extrinsic factor such as environmental from groundwater extraction. Review of number of runoff events recharging the perturbation). the Texas Water Development Board aquifer with a higher concentration of Our Response: Although we do not data indicates no Edwards formation toxic pollutants than past events will be consider small population sizes to be a water wells are in the area. occurring more frequently, likely in an threat in and of itself to any of the Our Response: Numerous variables aquifer with a lower overall volume of Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau affect the extent to which any given water to dilute pollutants. salamanders, we do believe that small spring may be impacted by surrounding Understanding high concentration population sizes make them more land uses and human activities that toxicity needs to be evaluated in light of vulnerable to extinction from other occur both within the immediate this. existing or potential threats, such as watershed and in areas of groundwater Our Response: We agree that climate major stochastic events. change will likely result in less frequent recharge. Some springs may be more Taxonomy resistant or resilient to increased recharge, affecting both water quantity pollution loading due to high flow and quality of springs throughout the (77) Comment: The level of genetic volume, extensive subsurface habitat, or aquifer. We have added language in the divergence among the Jollyville Plateau, other physical, chemical, or biological final listing rule to further describe the Georgetown, and Salado salamanders is features that ameliorate the effects of threat of climate change and impacts to not sufficiently large to justify environmental stressors. Impervious water quality. recognition of three species. The DNA cover estimates are a useful tool to (74) Comment: The section of the papers indicate a strong genetic indicate the likelihood of injury to proposed rule addressing climate relationship between individual aquatic resources, but there are change fails to include any salamanders found across the area. Such exceptions. However, the scientific consideration or description of a a strong relationship necessarily means literature overwhelmingly indicates a baseline central Texas climate. The that on an ecosystem-wide basis, the strong pattern of lower water quality proposed rule describes flooding and salamanders are exchanging genetic and aquatic biodiversity in the presence drought as threats, but fails to provide material on a regular basis. There is no of increasing levels of impervious cover. any serious contextual analysis of the evidence that any of these salamanders role of droughts and floods in the life are unique species. Disease history of the central Texas Our Response: The genetic (71) Comment: The Service concludes salamanders. relatedness of the Georgetown in the proposed rule that chytrid fungus Our Response: The proposed and final salamander, Jollyville Plateau is not a threat to any of the salamanders. listing rules discuss the threats of salamander, and Salado salamanders is The Service’s justification for this drought conditions and flooding, both not disputed. The three species are conclusion is that they have no data to in the context of naturally occurring included together on a main branch of indicate whether impacts from this weather patterns and as a result of the tree diagrams of mtDNA data disease may increase or decrease in the anthropogenic activities. (Chippindale et al. 2000, Figs. 4 and 6). future. There appears to be (75) Comment: The flooding analysis The tree portraying relationships based inconsistency in how the information is one of several examples in the on allozymes (genetic markers based on regarding threats is used. proposed rule in which the Service cites differences in proteins coded by genes) Our Response: Threats are assessed by events measured on micro-scales of time is concordant with the mtDNA trees their imminence and magnitude. and area, and fails to comprehend the (Chippindale et al. 2000, Fig. 5). These Currently, we have no data to indicate larger ecosystem at work. For example, trees support the evolutionary that chytrid fungus is a significant threat the proposed rule describes one flood relatedness of the three species, but not to the species. The few studies that have event causing ‘‘erosion, scouring the their identity as a single species. The looked for chytrid fungus in central streambed channel, the loss of large lack of sharing of mtDNA haplotype Texas Eurycea found the fungus, but no rocks, and creation of several deep markers, existence of unique allozyme associated pathology was found within pools.’’ Scouring and depositing alleles in each of the three species, and several populations and among different sediment are both normal results of the multiple morphological characters salamander species. intense rainfall events in central Texas. diagnostic of each of the three species (72) Comment: The statement about Our Response: While we agree that are inconsistent with the assertion that chytrid fungus having been documented scouring and sediment deposition are they are exchanging genetic material on on Austin blind salamanders in the wild normal hydrologic processes, when the a regular basis. The Austin blind is incorrect. Chytrid fungus has only frequency and intensity of these events salamander is on an entirely different been documented on captive Austin is altered by climate change, branch of the tree portraying genetic blind salamanders. The appropriate urbanization, or other anthropogenic relationships among these species based citation for this is Chamberlain 2011, forces, the resulting impacts to on mtDNA and has diagnostic, COA, (pers. comm.), not O’Donnell et al. ecosystems can be more detrimental morphological characters that 2006, as cited in the proposed rule. than what would occur naturally. distinguish it from other Texas Our Response: This statement has salamanders (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 267). Other Threats been corrected in the final listing rule. Based on our review of these (76) Comment: The risk of extinction differences, and taking into account the Climate Change is negatively or inversely correlated views expressed in peer reviews by (73) Comment: Climate change has with population size. Also, small expert taxonomists, we believe that the already increased the intensity and population size, in and of itself, can currently available evidence is sufficient frequency of extreme rainfall events increase the risk of extinction due to for recognizing these salamanders as globally (numerous references) and in demographic stochasticity, mutation four separate species. central Texas. This increase in rainfall accumulation, and genetic drift. The (78) Comment: A genetics professor extremes means more runoff possibly correlation between extinction risk and commented that Forstner’s report (2012) overwhelming the capacity of recharge population size is not necessarily disputing the taxonomy of the Austin

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51296 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

blind, Georgetown, Jollyville Plateau, than to salamanders generally. number of species, it seems imprudent and Salado salamanders represents a Moreover, there is perhaps a problem to elevate the salamanders to highly flawed analysis that has not with the Harlan and Zigler (2009) data. endangered. undergone peer review. It is not a true They sequenced 10 specimens of E. Our Response: The Service must base taxonomic analysis of the Eurycea lucifuga, all from Franklin County, its listing determinations on the best complex and does not present any Tennessee; 9 of these show genetic available scientific and commercial evidence that call into question the distances between each other from 0.1 information, and such information current taxonomy of the salamanders. to 0.3 percent, which is very low. One includes considerations of correct Forstner’s (2012) report is lacking key specimen shows genetic distance to all taxonomy. To ensure the information regarding exact other nine individuals from 1.7 to 1.9 appropriateness of our own analysis of methodology and analysis. It is not percent, an order of magnitude higher. the relevant taxonomic literature, we entirely clear what resulting length of This single specimen is what causes the sought peer reviews from highly base pairs was used in the phylogenetic high level of genetic divergence to qualified taxonomists, particularly with analysis and the extent to which the which Forstner compares the Eurycea. specialization on salamander taxonomy, data set was supplemented with missing This discrepancy is extremely obvious of our interpretation of the available or ambiguous data. The amount of in the Harlan and Zigler (2009) paper, taxonomic literature and unpublished sequence data versus missing data is but was not mentioned by Forstner reports. We believe that careful analysis important for understanding and (2012). A difference of an order of and peer review is the best way to interpreting the subsequent analysis. It magnitude in 1 specimen of 10 is highly determine whether any particular also appears as though Forstner suspect, and, therefore, these data taxonomic arrangement is likely to be included all individuals with available, should not be used as a benchmark in generally accepted by experts in the unique sequence when, in fact, comparing Eurycea. field. The peer reviews that we received taxonomic sampling—that is, the The second argument in Forstner provide overall support, based on the number of individuals sampled within a (2012) is that the phylogenetic tree does available information, for the species particular taxon compared with other not group all individuals of a given that we accept as valid in the final taxa—can also affect the accuracy of the species into the same cluster or lineage. listing rule. resulting topology. The Forstner (2012) Forstner’s (2012) conclusions are overly Technical Information report only relies on mitochondrial simplistic. The failure of all sequences DNA whereas the original taxonomic of Eurycea tonkawae to cluster closely (81) Comment: Clarify whether the descriptions of these species relied on a with each other is due to the amount of distance given for the Austin blind combination of nuclear DNA, missing data in some sequences. It is salamander extending ‘‘at least 984 feet mitochondrial DNA, as well as well known in the phylogenetics (ft) (300 meters (m) underground’’ is a morphology (Chippindale et al. 2000, literature that analyzing sequences with vertical depth or horizontal distance. Hillis et al. 2001). Forstner’s (2012) very different data (in other words, large Our Response: It is a horizontal report does not consider non-genetic amounts of missing data) will produce distance. This has been clarified in the factors such as ecology and morphology incorrect results because of this artifact. final listing rule. when evaluating taxonomic differences. As an aside, why is there missing data? (82) Comment: The Service made the Despite the limitations of a The reason is that these data were following statement in the proposed mitochondrial DNA-only analysis, produced roughly 5 years apart. The rule: ‘‘Therefore, the status of subsurface Forstner’s (2012) report actually shorter sequences were made at a time populations is largely unknown, making contradicts an earlier report by the same when lengths of 350 bases for it difficult to assess the effects of threats author that also relied only on mtDNA. cytochrome b were standard because of on the subsurface populations and their Our Response: This comment the limitations of the technology. As habitat.’’ In fact, the difficulty of supports the Service’s and our peer improved and cheaper methods were assessing threats for subsurface reviewers’ interpretation of the best available (about 5 to 6 years later), it populations depends upon the threats. available data (see Responses to became possible to collect sequences One can more easily assess threats of Comments 1 through 5 above). that were typically 1,000 to 1,100 bases chemical pollutants, for example, (79) Comment: Forstner (2012) argues long. It is important to remember that because subterranean populations will that the level of genetic divergence the data used to support the original be affected similarly to surface ones among the three species of Texas description of the three northern species because they inhabit the same or similar Eurycea is not sufficiently large to by Chippindale et al. (2000) were not water. justify recognition of three species. A only cytochrome b sequences, but also Our Response: The statement above genetics professor commented that this data from a different, but effective, was meant to demonstrate the problems conclusion is overly simplistic. It is not analysis of other genes, as well as associated with not knowing how many clear that the populations currently analysis of external characteristics. salamanders exist in subsurface habitat called Eurycea lucifuga in reality Forstner’s (2012) assessment of the rather than how threats are identified. represent a single species, as Forstner taxonomic status (species or not) of the We have removed the statement in the (2012) assumes. Almost all cases of new three species of the northern group is final listing rule to eliminate this species in the United States for the last not supported by the purported confusion. 20 years (E. waterlooensis is a rare evidence that he presents (much of it (83) Comment: In addition to the exception) have resulted from DNA unpublished). references cited in the proposed rule, techniques used to identify new species Our Response: This comment Bowles et al. (2006) also documents that are cryptic, meaning their similarity supports the Service’s and our peer evidence of reproduction throughout the obscured the genetic distinctiveness of reviewers’ interpretation of the best year in Jollyville Plateau salamanders. the species. One could view the data on available data (see Responses to Our Response: We examined the Eurycea lucifuga as supporting that Comments 1 through 5 above). published article by Bowles et al. (2006, cryptic species are also present. (80) Comment: Until the scientific pp. 114, 116, 118), and found that, Moreover, Forstner’s (2012) comparison community determines the appropriate while there were juvenile salamanders was made to only one species, rather systematic approach to identify the observed nearly year-round, there was

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51297

also evidence of a seasonal reproduction determined to be an endangered or degradation can impact both the surface pattern among their study’s findings. threatened species due to one or more and subsurface habitats, depending on We have included this information in of the five factors described in section whether the degrading elements are the final listing rule. 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or moving through groundwater or are (84) Comment: Geologists with the threatened destruction, modification, or running off the ground surface into a COA have extensively reviewed the curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) spring area (surface watershed). Our possibility that a small test well caused overutilization for commercial, assessment of water quality threats from the dewatering of Moss Gully Spring, as recreational, scientific, or educational urbanization is largely focused on discussed in the proposed rule, and purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) surface watersheds. Impacts to have been unable to substantiate that the inadequacy of existing regulatory subsurface areas are also likely to occur theory. In fact, the boring was drilled mechanisms; or (E) other natural or from urbanization over recharge zones near the spring in 1985, and the spring manmade factors affecting its continued within the Edwards Aquifer region; was found to have significant flow and existence. Listing actions may be however, these impacts are more a robust Jollyville Plateau salamander warranted based on any of the above difficult to assess given the limited population in the early 1990s. threat factors, singly or in combination. information available on subsurface Reduction in flow and a smaller Each of these factors is discussed below. flows and drainage areas that feed into salamander population was observed at A. The Present or Threatened these subsurface flows to the springs Moss Gully Spring around 2005 or 2006, Destruction, Modification, or and cave locations. These recharge areas but there had been no changes to the Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range are additional pathways for impacts to boring. Subsequent groundwater tracing the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau also failed to delineate a definitive Habitat modification, in the form of salamanders to occur that we are not connection between the well and the degraded water quality and quantity and able to precisely assess at each known spring. disturbance of spring sites, is the salamander site. However, we can Our Response: Given the existing primary threat to the Austin blind and consider urbanization and various other uncertainty that dewatering at this site Jollyville Plateau salamanders. Water sources of impacts to water quality and was caused by the 1985 test well, we quality degradation in salamander quantity over the larger recharge zone to have removed the discussion of Moss habitat has been cited as the top concern the aquifer (as opposed to individual Gully Spring from the final listing rule. in several studies (Chippindale et al. springs) to assess the potential for (85) Comment: The discussion of the 2000, pp. 36, 40, 43; Hillis et al. 2001, impacts at salamander sites. COA’s Water Treatment Plant 4 project p. 267; Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 118–119; The threats under Factor A will be in the proposed rule could be O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 45–50). These presented in reference to stressors and misconstrued as posing a threat to the salamanders spend their entire life cycle sources. We consider a stressor to be a Jollyville Plateau salamander. in water. All of the species have evolved physical, chemical, or biological Our Response: We agree that under natural aquifer conditions both alteration that can induce an adverse construction and operation of the underground and as the water response from an individual Jollyville Transmission Main tunnel, discharges from natural spring outlets. salamander. These alterations can act including associated vertical shafts, is Deviations from high water quality and directly on an individual or act quantity have detrimental effects on unlikely to adversely affect the Jollyville indirectly on an individual through salamander ecology because the aquatic Plateau salamander due to best impacts to resources the species habitat can be rendered unsuitable for management practices and requires for feeding, breeding, or salamanders by changes in water environmental monitoring implemented sheltering. A source is the origin from chemistry and flow patterns. Substrate by the COA. We have modified this which the stressor (or alteration) arises. modification is also a major concern for discussion in the final listing rule to The majority of the discussion below the salamander species (COA 2001, pp. clarify our assessment. under Factor A focuses on evaluating 101, 126; Geismar 2005, p. 2; O’Donnell the nature and extent of stressors and Changes From Proposed Listing Rule et al. 2006, p. 34). Unobstructed their sources related to urbanization, the On August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50768), we interstitial space is a critical component primary source of water quality published a proposed rule to list the to the surface habitat for the Austin degradation, within the ranges of the Jollyville Plateau salamander as blind and Jollyville Plateau Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau endangered. Based on additional salamanders, because it provides cover salamanders. Additionally, other information we received during the from predators and habitat for their stressors causing habitat destruction and comment period on the proposed rule macroinvertebrate prey items within modification, including water quantity and after further analysis of the surface sites. When the interstitial degradation and physical disturbance to magnitude and imminence of threats to spaces become compacted or filled with surface habitat, will be addressed. the species, we are listing the Jollyville fine sediment, the amount of available Plateau salamander as a threatened foraging habitat and protective cover for Water Quality Degradation species in this final rule. For more salamanders is reduced (Welsh and Urbanization detailed information, please see Listing Ollivier 1998, p. 1,128). Determination for the Jollyville Plateau Threats to the habitat of the Austin Urbanization is the concentration of Salamander below. blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders human populations into discrete areas, (including those that affect water leading to transformation of land for Summary of Factors Affecting the quality, water quantity, or the physical residential, commercial, industrial, and Species habitat) may affect only the surface transportation purposes. It is one of the Section 4 of the Act and its habitat, only the subsurface habitat, or most significant sources of water quality implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) both habitat types. For example, degradation that can affect the future set forth the procedures for adding substrate modification degrades the survival of central Texas salamanders species to the Federal Lists of surface springs and spring-runs, but (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 119; Chippindale Endangered and Threatened Wildlife does not impact the subsurface and Price 2005, pp. 196–197). Urban and Plants. A species may be environment, while water quality development leads to various stressors

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51298 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

on spring systems, including increased streamflow to storm events) resulting impact for the Jollyville Plateau frequency and magnitude of high flows from urban development have been salamander that is expected to increase in streams, increased sedimentation, associated with the disruption of in the future as development within its increased contamination and toxicity, biological communities, particularly the range expands. and changes in stream morphology and loss of sensitive aquatic species (Coles Impervious cover is another source of water chemistry (Coles et al. 2012, pp. et al. 2012, p. 1). water quality degradation and is directly 1–3, 24, 38, 50–51). Urbanization can Several researchers have also correlated with urbanization (Coles et also impact aquatic species by examined the negative impact of al. 2012, p. 30). For this reason, negatively affecting their invertebrate urbanization on stream salamander impervious cover is often used as a prey base (Coles et al. 2012, p. 4). habitat by making connections between surrogate for urbanization (Schueler et The ranges of the Austin blind and salamander abundances and levels of al. 2009, p. 309), even though it does not Jollyville Plateau salamanders reside development within the watershed. In account for many sources of water within increasingly urbanized areas of 1972, Orser and Shure (p. 1,150) were quality degradation associated with Travis and Williamson Counties that are among the first biologists to show a urbanization, including human experiencing rapid human population decrease in stream salamander density population density, fertilizer and growth. For example, the population of with increasing urban development. A pesticide use, septic tanks, and fuel the COA grew from 251,808 people in similar relationship between storage and transport. Impervious cover 1970 to 656,562 people in 2000. By salamanders and urbanization was is any surface material that prevents 2007, the population had grown to found in North Carolina (Price et al. water from filtering into the soil, such 735,088 people (COA 2007b, p. 1). This 2006, pp. 437–439; Price et al. 2012, p. as roads, rooftops, sidewalks, patios, represents a 192 percent increase over 198), Maryland, and Virginia (Grant et paved surfaces, or compacted soil the 37-year period. Population al. 2009, pp. 1,372–1,375). Willson and (Arnold and Gibbons 1996, p. 244). projections from the Texas State Data Dorcas (2003, pp. 768–770) Once vegetation in a watershed is Center (2012, pp. 496–497) estimate that demonstrated the importance of replaced with impervious cover, rainfall Travis County will increase in examining disturbance within the entire is converted to surface runoff instead of population from 1,024,266 in 2010, to watershed as opposed to areas just filtering through the ground (Schueler 1,990,820 in 2050. This would be a 94 adjacent to the stream by showing that 1991, p. 114). Such urbanized percent increase in the human salamander abundance is most closely development in a watershed may: (1) population size over this 40-year period. related to the amount and type of Alter the hydrology or movement of The Texas State Data Center also habitat within the entire watershed. In water through a watershed, (2) increase estimates an increase in human central Texas, Bowles et al. (2006, p. the inputs of contaminants to levels that population in Williamson County from 117) found lower Jollyville Plateau greatly exceed those found naturally in 422,679 in 2010 to 2,015,294 in 2050, salamander densities in tributaries with streams, and (3) alter habitats in and exceeding the size of Travis County. developed watersheds as compared to near streams that provide living spaces This would represent a 477 percent tributaries with undeveloped for aquatic species (Coles et al. 2012, p. increase over a 40-year timeframe. All watersheds. Developed tributaries also 38), such as the Austin blind and human population projections from the had higher concentrations of chloride, Jollyville Plateau salamanders. During Texas State Data Center presented here magnesium, nitrate-nitrogen, potassium, periods of high precipitation levels, are under a high growth scenario, which sodium, and sulfate (Bowles et al. 2006, stormwater runoff in urban areas can assumes that migration rates from 2000 p. 117). enter recharge areas of the Edwards to 2010 will continue through 2050 The impacts that result from Aquifer and rapidly transport sediment, (Texas State Data Center and the Office urbanization can affect the physiology fertilizer nutrients, and toxic of the State Demographer 2012, p. 9). By of individual salamanders. An contaminants (such as pesticides, comparison, the national United States’ unpublished study (Gabor 2012, Texas metals, and petroleum hydrocarbons) to population is expected to increase from State University, pers. comm.) has salamander habitat. 310,233,000 in 2010, to 439, 010,000 in demonstrated that Jollyville Plateau Both nationally and locally, 2050, which is about a 42 percent salamanders in disturbed habitats have consistent relationships between increase over the 40-year period (U.S. greater stress levels than those in impervious cover and water quality Census Bureau 2008, p. 1). Growing undisturbed habitats, as determined by degradation through contaminant human populations increase demand for measurements of water-borne stress loading have been documented. In a residential and commercial hormones in disturbed (urbanized) and study of contaminant input from various development, drinking water supply, undisturbed streams (Gabor 2012, Texas land use areas in Austin, stormwater wastewater disposal, flood control, and State University, pers. comm.). Chronic runoff loads were found to increase with other municipal goods and services that stress can decrease survival of increasing impervious cover (COA 1990, alter the environment, often degrading individuals and may lead to a decrease pp. 12–14). This study also found that salamander habitat by changing in reproduction. Both of these factors contaminant input rates of the more hydrologic regimes, and affecting the may partially account for the decrease urbanized watersheds were higher than quantity and quality of water resources. in abundance of salamanders in streams those of the small suburban watersheds. As development increases within the within disturbed environments (Gabor Soeur et al. (1995, p. 565) determined watersheds where the Austin blind and 2012, Texas State University, pers. that stormwater contaminant loading Jollyville Plateau salamanders occur, comm.). positively correlated with development more opportunities exist for the Urbanization occurring within the intensity in Austin. In a study of 38 detrimental effects of urbanization to watersheds of the Austin blind and small watersheds in the Austin area, impact salamander habitat. A Jollyville Plateau salamanders could several different contaminants were comprehensive study by the USGS cause irreversible declines or found to be positively correlated with found that, across the United States, extirpation of salamander populations impervious cover (5-day biochemical contaminants, habitat destruction, and with continuous exposure over a oxygen demand, chemical oxygen increasing streamflow flashiness (rapid relatively short time span. We consider demand, ammonia, dissolved response of large increases of this to be an ongoing threat of high phosphorus, copper, lead, and zinc)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51299

(COA 2006, p. 35). Using stream data long-term trend of the population at example, water quality parameters and from 1958 to 2007 at 24 Austin-area each site. However, based on the threats stream channel modification). The most sites, some of which are located within and evidence from the literature, the commonly reported impervious cover watersheds occupied by Austin blind declines in counts seen at urban level at which noticeable degradation to salamanders and Jollyville Plateau Jollyville Plateau salamander sites are aquatic ecosystems begins to occur is salamanders, Glick et al. (2009, p. 9) likely real declines in the population. approximately 10 percent, with more found that the COA’s water quality We expect downward trends in recent studies reporting levels of 10 index had a strong negative correlation salamander populations to continue into percent and lower. Recent studies in the with impervious cover. Veenhuis and the future as human population growth eastern United States have reported Slade (1990, pp. 18–61) also reported and urbanization drive further declines large declines in aquatic mean concentrations of most water in habitat quality and quantity. macroinvertebrates (the prey base of quality constituents, such as total Impervious Cover Analysis salamanders) at impervious-cover levels suspended solids and other pollutants, as low as 0.5 percent (King and Baker are lower in undeveloped watersheds For this final rule, we calculated 2010, p. 1002; King et al. 2011, p. 1664). than those for urban watersheds. impervious cover within the watersheds Bowles et al. (2006, pp. 113, 117–118) Impervious cover has demonstrable occupied by the Austin blind and found lower Jollyville Plateau impacts on biological communities Jollyville Plateau salamanders. In this salamander densities in watersheds within streams. Schueler (1994, p. 104) analysis, we delineated the surface areas with more than 10 percent impervious found that sites receiving runoff from that drain into spring sites and which of cover. To our knowledge, this is the high impervious cover drainage areas these sites may be experiencing habitat only peer-reviewed study that examined had sensitive aquatic macroinvertebrate quality degradation as a result of watershed impervious-cover effects on species replaced by species more impervious cover in the surface salamanders in our study area. This is tolerant of pollution and hydrologic drainage area. However, we only also in agreement with the Center for stress (high rate of changes in discharges examined surface drainage areas for Watershed Protection’s impervious- over short periods of time). An analysis each spring site for the Jollyville Plateau cover model, which predicts that stream of nine regions across the United States salamander because we did not know health begins to decline at 5 to 10 found considerable losses of algal, the recharge area for specific spring or percent impervious cover in small invertebrate, and fish species in cave sites. This information was watersheds (Schueler et al. 2009, pp. response to stressors brought about by available for the Austin blind 309, 313). Their prediction is based on salamander and the Barton Springs urban development (Coles et al. 2012, p. a meta-analysis of 35 recent research system. Another limitation of this 58). In an analysis of 43 North Carolina studies (Schueler et al. 2009, p. 310). analysis is that we did not account for streams, Miller et al. (2007, pp. 78–79) However, a USGS investigation found riparian (stream edge) buffers or found a strong negative relationship immediate declines in aquatic stormwater runoff control measures, between impervious cover and the invertebrate communities as soon as the both of which have the potential to abundance of larval southern two-lined percentage of developed land increased mitigate some of the effects of salamanders (Eurycea cirrigera). The from background levels, including areas impervious cover on streams (Schueler COA cited five declining salamander with less than 10 percent impervious et al. 2009, pp. 312–313). Please see the populations from 1997 to 2006: cover (Coles et al. 2012, p. 64). Balcones District Park Spring, Tributary Service’s Refined Impervious Cover 3, Tributary 5, Tributary 6, and Analysis (Service 2013, pp. 2–7) for a Various levels of impervious cover Spicewood Tributary (O’Donnell et al. description of the methods used to within watersheds have been cited as 2006, p. 4). All of these populations conduct this analysis. This analysis is having detrimental effects to water occur within surface watersheds most likely an underestimation of quality and biological communities containing more than 10 percent current impervious cover because small within streams (Schueler et al. 2009, pp. impervious cover (Service 2013, pp. 9– areas of impervious cover may have 312–313; Coles et al. 2012, p. 65). An 11). Springs with relatively low gone undetected at the resolution of our impervious-cover model generated amounts of impervious cover (6.77 and analysis and additional areas of using data from relevant literature by 0 percent for Franklin and Wheless impervious cover may have been added Schueler et al. (2009, p. 313) indicates Springs, respectively) in their surface since 2006, which is the year the that stream degradation generally drainage areas tend to have generally impervious-cover data for our analysis increases as impervious cover increases, stable or increasing salamander was generated. We compared our results and occurs at impervious cover of 5 to populations (Bendik 2011a, pp. 18–19). with the results of similar analyses 10 percent. This model predicts that Bendik (2011a, pp. 26–27) reported completed by SWCA and COA, and streams transition from an ‘‘impacted’’ statistically significant declines in impervious-cover percentages at status (clear signs of declining stream Jollyville Plateau salamander individual sites from both analyses were health) to a ‘‘nonsupporting’’ status (no populations over a 13-year period at six generally higher than our own (Service longer support their designated uses in monitored sites with high impervious 2013, Appendix C). terms of hydrology, channel stability, cover (18 to 46 percent) compared to habitat, water quality, or biological Impervious Cover Categories two sites with low impervious cover diversity) at impervious-cover levels (less than 1 percent). These results are We examined studies that report from 20 to 25 percent. However, a recent consistent with Bowles et al. (2006, p. ecological responses to watershed national-scale investigation of the 111), who found lower densities of impervious- cover levels based on a effects of urban development on stream Jollyville Plateau salamanders at variety of degradation measurements ecosystems revealed that degradation of urbanized sites compared to non- (Service 2013, Table 1, p. 4). Most invertebrate communities can begin at urbanized sites. studies examined biological responses the earliest levels of urban development We recognize that the long-term to impervious cover (for example, (Coles et al. 2012, p. 64), thereby survey data of Jollyville Plateau aquatic invertebrate and fish diversity), contradicting the resistance thresholds salamanders using simple counts may but several studies measured chemical described by Schueler (1994, pp. 100– not give conclusive evidence on the and physical responses as well (for 102). Therefore, the lack of a resistance

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51300 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

threshold in biological responses delineated. Barton Springs is the percent (King and Baker 2010, p. 1002; indicates that no assumptions can be principal discharge point for the Barton King et al. 2011, p. 1,664). Several made with regard to a ‘‘safe zone’’ of Springs Segment of the Edwards authors have argued negative effects to impervious cover less than 10 percent Aquifer, and recharge throughout most stream ecosystems are seen at low levels (Coles et al. 2012, p. 64). In light of of the aquifer converges to this of impervious cover and gradually these studies, we created the following discharge point (Slade et al. 1986, p. 28; increase as impervious cover increases impervious cover categories: Johnson et al. 2012, p. 2). Most of the (Booth et al. 2002, p. 838; Groffman et • None: 0 percent impervious cover water recharging the Barton Springs al. 2006, pp. 5–6; Schueler et al. 2009, in the watershed Segment of the Edwards Aquifer was p. 313; Coles et al. 2012, pp. 4, 64). • Low: Greater than 0 percent to 10 believed to be derived from percolation Although general percentages of percent impervious cover in the through six creeks that cross the impervious cover within a watershed watershed recharge zone (Slade et al. 1986, pp. 43, are helpful in determining the general • Medium: Greater than 10 percent to 51), but more recent work shows that a level of impervious cover within 20 percent impervious cover in the significant amount of recharge occurs in watersheds, it does not tell the complete watershed the upland areas (Hauwert 2009, pp. story of how urbanization may be • High: Greater than 20 percent 212–213). Approximately 75 percent of affecting salamanders or their habitat. impervious cover in the watershed the Barton Springs Segment of the Understanding how a salamander might Sites in the Low category may still be recharge zone has no impervious cover. be affected by water quality degradation experiencing impacts from urbanization, Overall, the recharge zone of the Barton within its habitat requires an as cited in studies such as Coles et al. Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer examination of where the impervious (2012, p. 64), King et al. (2011, p. 1664), has 6.9 percent impervious cover. The cover occurs and what other threats to and King and Baker (2010, p. 1002). In contributing zone of the Barton Springs water quality (for example, non-point- accordance with the findings of Bowles Segment has 1.81 percent impervious source runoff, highways and other et al. (2006, pp. 113, 117–118), sites in cover overall. sources of hazardous materials, the Medium category are likely For the Jollyville Plateau salamander, livestock and feral hogs, and gravel and experiencing impacts from urbanization a total of 93 watersheds were limestone mining) are present within that are negatively impacting delineated, representing 106 surface the watershed. salamander densities. Sites in the High sites. The watersheds varied greatly in In addition, several studies have category are so degraded that habitat size, ranging from the 3-ac (1-ha) demonstrated that the spatial recovery will either be impossible or watershed of Cistern (Pipe) Spring to the arrangement of impervious cover has very difficult (Schueler et al. 2009, pp. 49,784-ac (20,147-ha) watershed of impacts on aquatic ecosystems. An 310, 313). Brushy Creek Spring. Impervious cover analysis of 42 watersheds in the State of Washington found that certain urban Results of Our Impervious Cover also varied greatly among watersheds. pattern variables, such as land use Analysis Twelve watersheds had no impervious cover. Eighty-one of the 93 watersheds intensity, land cover composition, We estimated impervious cover had some level of impervious cover, landscape configuration, and percentages for each surface drainage with 31 watersheds categorized as High, connectivity of the impervious area are area of a spring known to have at least 26 as Medium, and 21 as Low. The important in predicting effects to one population of either an Austin blind highest level of impervious cover (48 aquatic ecosystems (Alberti et al. 2007, or Jollyville Plateau salamander (cave percent) was found in the watershed of pp. 355–359). King et al. (2005, pp. 146– locations were omitted). These estimates Troll Spring. 147) found that the closer developed and maps of the surface drainage area of Based on our analysis of impervious- land was to a stream in the Chesapeake spring locations are provided in our cover levels in land draining across the Bay watershed, the larger the effect it refined impervious cover analysis surface into salamander surface habitat had on stream macroinvertebrates. On a (Service 2013, pp. 1–25). A total of 114 (Service 2013, pp. 1–25), the Jollyville national scale, watersheds with watersheds were analyzed, Plateau salamander had a high development clustered in one large area encompassing a total of 543,269 acres proportion of watersheds (47 of 93 (versus being interspersed throughout (ac) (219,854 hectares (ha)). analyzed) with medium and high levels the watershed), and development The Austin blind salamander had of impervious cover. Conversely, the located closer to streams had higher three watersheds delineated, one for watersheds encompassing the Austin frequency of high-flow events (Steuer et each of the springs where the species is blind salamander were relatively low in al. 2010, pp. 47–48, 52). Based on these found. Eliza and Parthenia Springs had impervious cover. No watersheds for the studies, it is likely that the way nearly identical large surface drainage Austin blind salamander were classified development is situated in the areas, while the watershed of Sunken as medium or high (that is, greater than landscape of a surface drainage area of Garden (Old Mill) was found to be a 10 percent impervious cover). In a salamander spring site plays a large much smaller area. Even though the addition, the recharge and contributing role in how that development impacts level of impervious cover was Low in zones of the Barton Springs segment of salamander habitat. Eliza and Parthenia watersheds, most of the Edwards Aquifer were classified as One major limitation of this analysis the impervious cover occurs within 5 mi low. is that we only examined surface (8 km) of the springs. Although some watersheds in our drainage areas (watersheds) for each We also calculated the impervious analysis were classified as low, it is spring site for the Jollyville Plateau cover levels for the contributing and important to note that low levels of salamander. In addition to the surface recharge zones of the Barton Springs impervious cover (that is, less than 10 habitat, this salamander uses the Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. Unlike percent) may degrade salamander subsurface habitat. Moreover, the base the known locations for the Jollyville habitat. Recent studies in the eastern flow of water discharging from the Plateau salamander, the sources of United States have reported large springs on the surface comes from subsurface water feeding the sites of declines in aquatic macroinvertebrates groundwater sources, which are in turn Austin blind salamander (Barton (the prey base of salamanders) at replenished by recharge features on the Springs complex) are fairly well- impervious cover levels as low as 0.5 surface. As Shade et al. (2008, pp. 3–4)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51301

points out, ‘‘. . . little is known of how pipelines (particularly gas and sewer populations or possibly the entire water recharges and flows through the lines) can accidentally discharge. Any species. Because the Austin blind subsurface in the Northern Segment of activity that involves the extraction, salamander resides in only one spring the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater flow storage, manufacture, or transport of system, a catastrophic spill in its surface in karst is often not controlled by potentially hazardous substances, such and subsurface habitat could cause the surface topography and crosses beneath as fuels or chemicals, can contaminate extinction of this species in the wild. surface water drainage boundaries, so water resources and cause harm to However, because the Jollyville Plateau the sources and movements of aquatic life. Spill events can involve a salamander occurs in 106 surface and 16 groundwater to springs and caves short release with immediate impacts, cave populations over a broad range, the inhabited by the Jollyville Plateau such as a collision that involves a tanker potential for a catastrophic hazardous salamander are poorly understood. Such truck carrying gasoline. Alternatively, materials spill to cause the extinction of information is critical to evaluating the the release can be long term, involving this species in the wild is highly degree to which Jollyville Plateau the slow release of chemicals over time, unlikely. Even so, a hazardous materials salamander sites can be protected from such as a leaking underground storage spill has the potential to cause localized urbanization.’’ So a recharge area for a tank. Jollyville Plateau salamander spring may occur within the surface A peer reviewer for the proposed rule populations to be extirpated. In watershed, or it could occur many miles provided information from the National combination with the other threats away in a completely different Response Center’s database of incidents identified in this final rule, a watershed. A site completely of chemical and hazardous materials catastrophic hazardous materials spill surrounded by development may still spills (http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/ could contribute to the Jollyville Plateau contain unexpectedly high water quality foia.html) from anthropogenic activities salamanders’ risk of extinction by because that spring’s base flow is including, but not limited to, reducing its overall probability of coming from a distant recharge area that automobile or freight traffic accidents, persistence. Furthermore, we consider is free from impervious cover. While intentional dumping, storage tanks, and hazardous material spills to be a some dye tracer work has been done in industrial facilities. The number of potential significant threat to the Austin the Northern Segment (Shade et al. incidents is likely to be an blind salamanders due to their limited 2008, p. 4), clearly delineated recharge underestimate of the total number of distributions, the number of potential areas that flow to specific springs in the incidents because not all incidents are sources, and the amount of damage that Northern Segment have not been discovered or reported. The database could be done by a single event. identified for any of these spring sites; produced 450 records of spill events therefore, we could not examine (145 that directly affected a body of Underground Storage Tanks impervious-cover levels on recharge water) in Travis County between 1990 The risk of hazardous material spills areas to better understand how and 2012 and 189 records of spill events from underground storage tanks is development in those areas may impact (33 that directly affected a body of widespread in Texas and is expected to water) in Williamson County during the salamander habitat. increase as urbanization continues to Impervious cover by itself within the same time period. Spills that did not occur. As of 1996, more than 6,000 watersheds of the Austin blind and directly affect aquatic environments leaking underground storage tanks in Jollyville Plateau salamanders could may have indirectly done so by Texas had resulted in contaminated cause irreversible declines or contaminating soils or lands that drain groundwater (Mace et al. 1997, p. 2). In extirpation of populations with to water bodies (Gillespie 2012, 1993, approximately 6,000 gallons continuous exposure to water quality University of Texas, pers. comm.). The (22,712 liters) of gasoline leaked from an degradation stressors over a relatively risk of this type of contamination is underground storage tank located near short timespan. Given the current levels currently ongoing and expected to Krienke Springs in southern Williamson of impervious cover within the surface increase with increasing activities watersheds for the Jollyville Plateau associated with urbanization in central County, Texas, which is known to be salamander, we consider this to be a Texas. occupied by the Jollyville Plateau threat of high impact for this species Hazardous material spills pose a salamander (Manning 1994, p. 1). that is expected to increase in the future significant threat to the Austin blind Leaking underground storage tanks as development within its range and Jollyville Plateau salamanders, and have been documented as a problem expands. Although the impervious impacts from spills could increase within the Jollyville Plateau cover level for the Austin blind substantially under drought conditions salamander’s range (COA 2001, p. 16). salamander remains relatively low at the due to lower dilution and buffering The threat of water quality degradation present time, impacts from this threat capability of impacted water bodies. from an underground storage tank could could increase in the future as Spills under low flow conditions are by itself cause irreversible declines or urbanization expands. predicted to have an impact at much extirpation in local populations or smaller volumes (Turner and O’Donnell significant declines in habitat quality of Hazardous Material Spills 2004, p. 26). For example, it is predicted the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau The Edwards Aquifer is at risk from that at low flows (10 cubic feet per salamanders with only one exposure a variety of sources of contaminants and second (cfs)) a spill of 360 gallons event. This is considered to be an pollutants (Ross 2011, p. 4), including (1,362.7 liters) of gasoline 3 mi (4.8 km) ongoing threat of high impact to the hazardous materials that have the from Barton Springs could be Jollyville Plateau salamander. Although potential to be spilled or leaked, catastrophic for the Austin blind we are unaware of any information that resulting in contamination of both salamander population (Turner and indicates underground storage tanks surface and groundwater resources O’Donnell 2004, p. 26). have resulted in spills within the (Service 2005, pp. 1.6–14–1.6–15). For A significant hazardous materials vicinity of Austin blind salamander example, a number of point-sources of spill within stream drainages of the sites, they are likely present within the pollutants exist within the Jollyville Austin blind salamander could have the watersheds that recharge Barton Springs Plateau salamander’s range. Utility potential to threaten its long-term given its urbanized environment. We structures such as storage tanks or survival and sustainability of multiple expect this to become a more significant

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51302 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

threat in the future as urbanization potential for a catastrophic spill in the cause rapid mortality of large numbers continues to expand. Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards of salamanders (Turner and O’Donnell Aquifer, due to the presence of the 2004, p. 27). Fecal coliform bacteria Highways Longhorn pipeline (Turner and cause diseases in salamanders and their The transport of hazardous materials O’Donnell 2004, pp. 2–3). Although a prey base (Turner and O’Donnell 2004, is common on many highways, which number of mitigation measures were p. 27). Approximately 7,600 wastewater are major transportation routes employed to reduce the risk of a leak or main pipelines totaling 349 mi (561.6 (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 1). Every year, spill from the Longhorn pipeline, such km) are present in the Barton Springs thousands of tons of hazardous a spill could enter the aquifer and result Segment of the Edwards Aquifer materials are transported over Texas in the contamination of salamander (Herrington et al. 2010, p. 16). In highways (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 1). habitat at Barton Springs (EPA 2000, pp. addition, there are 9,470 known septic Transporters of hazardous materials 9–29–9–30). facilities in the Barton Springs Segment (such as gasoline, cyclic hydrocarbons, A contaminant spill could travel as of 2010 (Herrington et al. 2010, p. 5), fuel oils, and pesticides) carry volumes quickly through the aquifer to Barton up from 4,806 septic systems in 1995 ranging from a few gallons up to 10,000 Springs, where it could impact Austin (COA 1995, pp. 3–13). In one COA gallons (37,854 liters) or more of blind salamander populations. survey of these septic systems, over 7 hazardous material (Thompson et al. Depending on water levels in the percent were identified as failing (no 2011, p. 1). An accident involving aquifer, groundwater flow rates through longer functioning properly, causing hazardous materials can cause the the Barton Springs Segment of the water from the septic tank to leak) (COA release of a substantial volume of Edwards Aquifer can range from 0.6 mi 1995, pp. 3–18). material over a very short period of (1 km) per day to over 4 mi (6 km) per Sewage spills from pipelines also time. As such, the capability of standard day. The relatively rapid movement of have been documented in watersheds stormwater management structures (or groundwater under any flow conditions supporting Jollyville Plateau salamander best management practices) to trap and provides little time for mitigation efforts populations (COA 2001, pp. 16, 21, 74). treat such releases might be to reduce potential damage from a For example, in 2007, a sewage line overwhelmed (Thompson et al. 2011, p. hazardous spill anywhere within the overflowed an estimated 50,000 gallons 2). Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards (190,000 liters) of raw sewage into the Interstate Highway 35 crosses the Aquifer (Turner and O’Donnell 2004, Stillhouse Hollow drainage area of Bull watersheds that contribute groundwater pp. 11–13). Creek (COA 2007c, pp. 1–3). Because to spring sites occupied by the Austin The threat of water quality the location of the spill was a short blind and Jollyville Plateau degradation from energy pipelines could distance downstream of currently salamanders. A catastrophic spill could by itself cause irreversible declines, known salamander locations, no occur if a transport truck overturned extirpation, or significant declines in salamanders were thought to be and its contents entered the recharge habitat quality of the Austin blind affected. zone of the Northern or Barton Springs salamander with only one exposure The threat of water quality Segments of the Edwards Aquifer. event. Because the Austin blind degradation from water and sewage Transportation accidents involving salamander is found only at one lines could by itself cause irreversible hazardous materials spills at bridge location and can be extirpated by one declines or extirpation in local crossings are of particular concern catastrophic energy pipeline leak, we populations or significant declines in because recharge areas in creek beds can consider this to be an ongoing threat of habitat quality of the Austin blind and transport contaminants directly into the high impact that will likely continue in Jollyville Plateau salamanders with only aquifer (Service 2005, pp. 1.6–14). The the future. However, we are unaware of one exposure event. We consider this to threat of water quality degradation from any information that indicates energy be an ongoing threat of high impact to highways could by itself cause pipelines are located within the range of the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau irreversible declines or extirpation in the Jollyville Plateau salamander and, salamanders that is likely to increase in local populations or significant declines therefore, do not consider this to be a the future as urbanization expands in habitat quality of the Austin blind threat for this species at this time. within the ranges of these species. and Jollyville Plateau salamanders with Water and Sewage Lines Swimming Pools only one exposure event. We consider this to be an ongoing threat to the Multiple municipality water lines also If water from swimming pools is Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau run through the surrounding areas of drained into waterways or storm drains salamanders. Barton Springs. A water line break without dechlorination, impacts to could potentially flow directly into Eurycea salamanders could occur (COA Energy Pipelines Barton Springs, exposing salamanders to 2001, p. 130). This is due to the Energy pipelines are another source of chlorine concentrations that are concentrations of chlorine commonly potential hazardous material spills. potentially toxic (Herrington and Turner used in residential swimming pools, They carry crude oil and refined 2009, pp. 5, 6). Sewage spills are the which far exceed the lethal products made from crude oil, such as most common type of spill within the concentrations observed in experiments gasoline, home heating oil, diesel fuel, Barton Springs watershed and represent with the San Marcos salamander and kerosene. Liquefied ethylene, a potential catastrophic threat (Turner (Eurycea nana) (COA 2001, p. 130). propane, butane, and some and O’Donnell 2004, p. 27). Sewage Saltwater pools have also grown in petrochemicals are also transported spills often include contaminants such popularity and pose a similar risk to through energy pipelines (U.S. as nutrients, polycyclic aromatic water quality, because saltwater can be Department of Transportation Pipeline hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals, harmful to freshwater organisms and Hazardous Materials Safety pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and high (Duellman and Trueb 1986, p. 165; Administration 2013, p. 1). Austin blind levels of fecal coliform bacteria. Ingersoll et al. 1992, pp. 507–508; salamander habitat is at risk from Increased ammonia levels and reduced Bendik 2012, COA, pers. comm.). hazardous material spills that could dissolved oxygen are the most likely Residential swimming pools can be contaminate groundwater. There is impacts of a sewage spill that could found throughout the watersheds of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51303

several Jollyville Plateau salamander affect the Austin blind and Jollyville Glen Rose formation (COA 2010b, p. 42; sites and may pose a risk to the Plateau salamanders and their habitats. Toohey 2011, p. 1; COA 2011c, pp. 36, salamanders if discharged into the storm Also, the physical construction of 46), the threat to the salamander from drain system or waterways. pipelines, shafts, wells, and similar this particular tunnel is considered low. Water quality degradation from structures that penetrate the subsurface Of the four Water Treatment Plant No. swimming pools in combination with has the potential to negatively affect 4 shafts, only the one at the Four Points other impacts could contribute to subsurface habitat for salamander location appeared to be a potential significant declines in habitat quality. species. It is known that these threat to any Jollyville Plateau Although swimming pools occur salamanders inhabit the subsurface salamanders. However, construction on throughout the range of the Jollyville environment and that water flows this shaft is now completed, and there Plateau salamander, using 2012 Google through the subsurface to the surface have been no observed impacts to any Earth aerial images we identified only habitat. Tunneling for underground springs or other downstream Jollyville two sites for this species (Krienke pipelines can destroy potential habitat Plateau habitat (COA 2012, pers. Spring and Long Hog Hollow Tributary) by removing subsurface material, comm.). Within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the with swimming pools located within 50 thereby destroying subsurface spaces/ Four Points shaft location are 8 of 92 m (164 ft). We did not identify any other conduits in which salamanders can live, known Jollyville Plateau salamander swimming pools within 50 m (164 ft) of grow, forage, and reproduce. Additional sites. The closest locations (Spring 21 any other salamander site. Therefore, we material can become dislodged and and Spring 24) are about 2,000 ft (610 do not consider this to be an ongoing result in increased sediment loading m) or greater from the shaft. Best threat to the Austin blind or Jollyville into the aquifer and associated spring management practices designed to Plateau salamanders at this time. systems. In addition, disruption of water protect groundwater resources have flow to springs inhabited by been implemented into the design and Construction Activities salamanders can occur through the construction of the Jollyville Short-term increases in pollutants, construction of tunnels and vertical Transmission Main shafts. These particularly sediments, can occur during shafts to access them. Because of the practices include, but are not limited to: construction in areas of new complexity of the aquifer and monitoring groundwater quality and development. When vegetation is subsurface structure and because spring flow, minimizing sediment removed and rain falls on unprotected detailed maps of the underground discharges during construction, conduits that feed springs in the developing a groundwater impact soils, large discharges of suspended Edwards Aquifer are not available, contingency plan, locating working sediments can erode from newly tunnels and shafts have the possibility shafts in areas where the chance of exposed areas resulting in increased of intercepting and severing those encountering conduits to salamander sedimentation in downstream drainage conduits (COA 2010b, p. 28). Affected springs is reduced, relocating the channels (Schueler 1987, pp. 1–4; springs could rapidly become dry and treatment plant from its original Turner 2003, p. 24; O’Donnell et al. would not support salamander location near Jollyville Plateau 2005, p. 15). This increased populations. The closer a shaft or tunnel salamander sites to within an area that sedimentation from construction location is to a spring, the more likely has no known Jollyville Plateau activities has been linked to declines in that the construction will impact a salamander sites, dedicating 102 ac (41 Jollyville Plateau salamander counts at spring (COA 2010b, p. 28). Even small ha) that was originally purchased for the multiple sites (Turner 2003, p. 24; shafts pose a threat to nearby spring Water Treatment Plant No. 4 project as O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34). systems. We consider subsurface conservation land in perpetuity as part Cave sites are also impacted by construction to be a threat to the surface of the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve construction, as Testudo Tube Cave and subsurface habitat of the Austin system, creating contingency plans for (Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat) blind and Jollyville Plateau unexpectedly high groundwater inflow showed an increase in nickel, calcium, salamanders. to the shafts during their construction, nitrates, and nitrites after nearby road Examples of recent subsurface and rerouting conduit flow paths construction (Richter 2009, pp. 6–7). construction activities that had the around the shaft if encountered (COA Barton Springs (Austin blind potential to pose a threat to salamander 2010b, pp. 51–55). salamander habitat) is also under the surface and subsurface habitat are the In 2012, the COA began construction threat of pollutant loading due to its Water Treatment Plant No. 4 pipeline in Barton Springs Pool to repair and proximity to construction activities and and shaft construction and the Barton stabilize a bypass tunnel that allows the spring’s location at the downstream Springs Pool bypass tunnel repairs. In both normal flow from Barton Creek and side of the watershed (COA 1997, p. 2011, construction began on the frequent small floods to bypass the 237). The COA (1995, pp. 3–11) Jollyville Transmission Main (JTM), a swimming area to protect water quality estimated that construction-related tunnel designed to transport treated within the pool. This project had the sediment and in-channel erosion drinking water from Water Treatment potential to affect both Barton Springs accounted for approximately 80 percent Plant No. 4 to the Jollyville Reservoir. and Austin blind salamanders by of the average annual sediment load in The project also includes four working directly injuring individuals found the Barton Springs watershed. In shafts along the tunnel route (COA within the construction area, drying out addition, the COA (1995, pp. 3–10) 2010b, p. 1) that provide access points areas of habitat during pool drawdowns, estimated that total suspended sediment from the surface down to the tunnel. and subjecting them to potentially loads have increased 270 percent over While this type of project has the harmful chemicals and sediment predevelopment loadings within the potential to impact salamanders and (Service 2011, p. 27). However, the COA Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards their habitat, the COA took the took the Barton Springs and Austin Aquifer. Construction is intermittent salamanders into consideration and blind salamanders into careful and temporary, but it affects both designed measures to avoid or minimize consideration when planning this surface and subsurface habitats. impacts. Because the tunnel is being project and ultimately implemented a Therefore, we have determined that this constructed below the Edwards Aquifer variety of protective measures to threat is ongoing and will continue to and below the permeable portion of the minimize threats to these species. Some

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51304 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

of these measures included, but are not collapse of karst caverns, as well as given the low exposure risk to the limited to: (1) Regular monitoring of impacts to water quality through Jollyville Plateau salamander that could water depth, water quality and siltation and sedimentation, and increase in the future. Physical temperature, discharge of the Barton impacts to water quantity through water modification of surface habitat from Springs complex, and salamander diversion, dewatering, and reduced quarries is not considered an ongoing habitat; (2) limiting drawdown to only flows (Ekmekci 1990, p. 4; van Beynan threat to the Austin blind salamander at 2 ft (0.6 m) under conditions of 40 cfs and Townsend 2005, p. 104). The this time. The Austin blind or greater; (3) daily surveying for mobilization of fine materials from salamander’s range is located in salamanders to ensure none were quarries can lead to the occlusion of downtown Austin, and there are no present in an area where construction voids and the smothering of surface active limestone quarries within the activities would be conducted; (4) habitats for aquatic species downstream species’ range or in its surface relocating salamanders found during (Humphreys 2011, p. 295). Quarry watershed. these surveys to undisturbed habitat activities can also generate pollution in Contaminants and Pollutants areas; (5) carefully evaluating the types the aquatic ecosystem through leaks or of materials used during construction spills of waste materials from mining Contaminants and pollutants are and choosing those that were the least operations (such as petroleum products) stressors that can affect individual toxic to the aquatic ecosystem; and (6) (Humphreys 2011, p. 295). For example, salamanders or their habitats or their using sediment and pollution control in 2000, a spill of almost 3,000 gallons prey. These stressors find their way into measures, such as silt fences, (11,356 liters) of diesel from an above- aquatic habitat through a variety of containment booms, and turbidity ground storage tank occurred on a ways, including stormwater runoff, curtains (Service 2011, pp. 14–18). limestone quarry in New Braunfels, point (a single identifiable source) and Because the COA implemented these Texas (about 4.5-mi (7.2 km) from non-point (coming from many diffuse protective measures, impacts to the Comal Springs in the Southern Segment sources) discharges, and hazardous Barton Springs and Austin blind of the Edwards Aquifer) (Ross et al. material spills (Coles et al. 2012, p. 21). salamanders were minimized. 2005, p. 14). For example, sediments eroded from The threat of water quality Quarrying of limestone is another soil surfaces can concentrate and degradation from construction activities activity that has considerable potential transport contaminants (Mahler and could by itself cause irreversible to negatively affect the physical Lynch 1999, p. 165). The Austin blind declines or extirpation in local environments where salamanders are and Jollyville Plateau salamanders and populations or significant declines in known to occur. Quarrying and mineral their prey species are directly exposed habitat quality of the Austin blind and extractions are known to cause the to sediment-borne contaminants present Jollyville Plateau salamanders with only downstream mobilization of sediment within the aquifer and discharging one exposure event (if subsurface flows (Humphreys 2011, p. 295), which can through the spring outlets. For example, were interrupted or severed) or with occlude the interstitial spaces that in addition to sediment, trace metals repeated exposure over a relatively short salamanders use for protective cover. such as arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, timespan. From information available in Quarrying can alter landforms, reduce nickel, and zinc were found in Barton our files and provided to us during the spring discharge, cause drawdown of Springs in the early 1990s (COA 1997, peer review and public comment period the water table, produce sinkholes, and pp. 229, 231–232). Such contaminants for the proposed rule, we found that all destroy caves (van Beynen and associated with sediments are known to of the Austin blind salamander sites Townsend 2005, p. 104). As quarries negatively affect survival and growth of have been known to have had continue to expand, the risk of an amphipod species, which are part of construction on their perimeters. impacting salamander habitat increases. the prey base of the Austin blind and Likewise, we are aware of physical One quarry occurs in one of the surface Jollyville Plateau salamanders (Ingersoll habitat modification from construction watersheds (Brushy Creek Spring) et al. 1996, pp. 607–608; Coles et al. activities at one of the known Jollyville where Jollyville Plateau salamanders are 2012, p. 50). As a karst aquifer system, Plateau surface sites. Therefore, we known to occur. This assessment was the Edwards Aquifer is more vulnerable consider construction activities to be an based on examining Google Earth 2012 to the effects of contamination due to: ongoing threat of medium impact to the aerial photos of each site from the (1) A large number of conduits that offer Austin blind salamander and low surface drainage basins (surface no filtering capacity, (2) high impact to Jollyville Plateau salamanders watersheds) of each surface site. There groundwater flow velocities, and (3) the given their low exposure risk. may be additional avenues of potential relatively short amount of time that impacts to the springs or cave sites water is inside the aquifer system (Ford Quarries through subsurface drainage basins that and Williams 1989, pp. 518–519). These Construction activities within rock were not documented through this characteristics of the aquifer allow quarries can permanently alter the analysis. contaminants entering the watershed to geology and groundwater hydrology of The threat of physical modification of enter and move through the aquifer the immediate area and adversely affect surface habitat from quarrying by itself more easily, thus reaching salamander springs that are hydrologically could cause irreversible declines in habitat within spring sites more quickly connected to impacted sites (Ekmekci population sizes or habitat quality at than other types of aquifer systems. 1990, p. 4; van Beynan and Townsend any of the Austin blind or Jollyville Various industrial and municipal 2005, p. 104; Humphreys 2011, p. 295). Plateau salamander sites. It could also activities result in the discharge of Limestone rock is an important raw work in combination with other threats treated wastewater or unintentional material that is mined in quarries all to contribute to significant declines of release of industrial contaminants as over the world due to its popularity as salamander populations or habitat point source pollution. Urban a building material and its use in the quality. Currently quarries are located in environments are host to a variety of manufacture of cement (Vermeulen and the surface watersheds of 1 of the 106 human activities that generate many Whitten 1999, p. 1). The potential assessed Jollyville Plateau salamander types of sources for contaminants and environmental impacts of quarries surface sites. Therefore, we consider pollutants. These substances, especially include destruction of springs or this an ongoing threat of low impact when combined, often degrade nearby

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51305

waterways and aquatic resources within Petroleum and petroleum byproducts several PAH compounds in seven the watershed (Coles et al. 2012, pp. 44– can adversely affect living organisms by Austin-area streams, including Barton, 53). causing direct toxic action, altering Bull, and Walnut Creeks, downstream of Amphibians, especially their eggs and water chemistry, reducing light, and coal tar sealant parking lots (Scoggins et larvae (which are usually restricted to a decreasing food availability (Albers al. 2007, p. 697). Sites with high small area within an aquatic 2003, p. 349). Exposure to PAHs at concentrations of PAHs (located in environment), are sensitive to many levels found within the Jollyville Barton and Walnut Creeks) had fewer different aquatic pollutants (Harfenist et Plateau salamander’s range can cause macroinvertebrate species and lower al. 1989, pp. 4–57). Contaminants found impaired reproduction, reduced growth macroinvertebrate density (Scoggins et in aquatic environments, even at and development, and tumors or cancer al. 2007, p. 700). This form of sublethal concentrations, may interfere in species of amphibians, reptiles, and contamination has also been detected at with a salamander’s ability to develop, other organisms (Albers 2003, p. 354). Barton Springs, which is the Austin grow, or reproduce (Burton and Coal tar pavement sealant slowed blind salamander’s habitat (COA 1997, Ingersoll 1994, pp. 120, 125). Central hatching, growth, and development of a p. 10). Texas salamanders are particularly frog (Xenopus laevis) in a laboratory The threat of water quality vulnerable to contaminants, because setting (Bryer et al. 2006, pp. 244–245). degradation from PAH exposure could they have evolved under very stable High concentrations of PAHs from coal by itself cause irreversible declines or environmental conditions, remain tar sealant negatively affected the extirpation in local populations or aquatic throughout their entire life righting ability (amount of time needed significant declines in habitat quality of cycle, have highly permeable skin, have to flip over after being placed on back) the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau severely restricted ranges, and cannot of adult eastern newts (Notophthalmus salamanders with continuous or escape contaminants in their viridescens) and may have also damaged repeated exposure. In some instances, environment (Turner and O’Donnell the newt’s liver (Sparling et al. 2009, pp. exposure to PAH contamination could 2004, p. 5). In addition, 18–20). For juvenile spotted negatively impact a salamander macroinvertebrates, such as small salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum), population in combination with freshwater crustaceans (amphipods and PAHs reduced growth in the lab exposure to other sources of water copepods), that aquatic salamanders (Sparling et al. 2009, p. 28). In a lab quality degradation, resulting in feed on are especially sensitive to water study using the same coal tar sealant significant habitat declines or other pollution (Phipps et al. 1995, p. 282; once used by the COA, Bommarito et al. significant negative impacts (such as Miller et al. 2007, p. 74; Coles et al. (2010, pp. 1,151–1,152) found that loss of invertebrate prey species). We 2012, pp. 64–65). Studies in the Bull spotted salamanders displayed slower consider this to be a threat of high Creek watershed in Austin, Texas, growth rates and diminished swimming impact to the Austin blind and Jollyville found a loss of some sensitive ability when exposed to PAHs. These Plateau salamanders now and in the macroinvertebrate species, potentially contaminants are also known to cause future as urbanization increases within due to contaminants of nutrient death, reduced survival, altered these species’ surface watersheds. enrichment and sediment accumulation physiological function, inhibited Pesticides (COA 2001, p. 15; COA 2010a, p. 16). reproduction, and changes in Below, we discuss specific Pesticides (including herbicides and community composition of freshwater insecticides) are also associated with contaminants and pollutants that may invertebrates (Albers 2003, p. 352). Due be impacting the Austin blind and urban areas. Sources of pesticides to their similar life histories, it is Jollyville Plateau salamanders. include lawns, road rights-of-way, and reasonable to assume that effects of managed turf areas, such as golf courses, Petroleum Aromatic Hydrocarbons PAHs on other species of amphibians, parks, and ballfields. Pesticide Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons reptiles, and other organisms could also application is also common in (PAHs) are a common form of aquatic occur in Austin blind and Jollyville residential, recreational, and contaminants in urbanized areas that Plateau salamanders. agricultural areas. Pesticides have the could affect salamanders, their habitat, Limited sampling by the COA has potential to leach into groundwater or their prey. This form of pollution can detected PAHs at concentrations of through the soil or be washed into originate from petroleum products, such concern at multiple sites within the streams by stormwater runoff. as oil or grease, or from atmospheric range of the Jollyville Plateau Some of the most widely used deposition as a byproduct of salamander. Most notable were the pesticides in the United States— combustion (for example, vehicular levels of nine different PAH compounds atrazine, carbaryl, diazinon, and combustion). These pollutants at the Spicewood Springs site in the simazine (Mahler and Van Metre 2000, accumulate over time on impervious Shoal Creek drainage area, which were p. 1)—were documented within the cover, contaminating water supplies above concentrations known to Austin blind salamander’s habitat through urban and highway runoff (Van adversely affect aquatic organisms (Barton Springs Pool and Eliza Springs) Metre et al. 2000, p. 4,067; Albers 2003, (O’Donnell et al. 2005, pp. 16–17). The in water samples taken at Barton pp. 345–346). The main source of PAH Spicewood Springs site is located Springs during and after a 2-day storm loading in Austin-area streams is within an area with greater than 30 event (Mahler and Van Metre 2000, pp. parking lots with coal tar emulsion percent impervious cover and down 1, 6, 8). They were found at levels below sealant, even though this type of lot gradient from a commercial business criteria set in the aquatic life protection only covers 1 to 2 percent of the that changes vehicle oil. This is also one section of the Texas Surface Water watersheds (Mahler et al. 2005, p. of the sites where salamanders have Quality Standards (Mahler and Van 5,565). A recent analysis of the rate of shown declines in abundance (from an Metre 2000, p. 4). In addition, elevated wear on coal tar lots revealed that the average of 12 individuals per visit in concentrations of organochlorine sealcoat wears off relatively quickly and 1997 to an average of 2 individuals in pesticides were found in Barton Springs contributes more to PAH loading than 2005) during the COA’s long-term sediments (Ingersoll et al. 2001, p. 7). A previously thought (Scoggins et al. monitoring studies (O’Donnell et al. later water quality study at Barton 2009, p. 4,914). 2006, p. 47). Another study found Springs from 2003 to 2005 detected

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51306 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

several pesticides (atrazine, simazine, additional studies on more species (EPA likely become more susceptible to the prometon, and deethylatrazine) in low 2012, p. 35). The 2012 SAP expressed effects of excessive nutrients within concentrations (Mahler et al. 2006, p. concern that some studies were their habitats because their exposure 63). The presence of these contaminants discounted in the 2007 SAP analysis, increases. To illustrate, an estimated in Barton Springs indicates the including studies like Hayes (2002) that 102,262 domestic dogs and cats (pet vulnerability of salamander habitat to indicated that atrazine is linked to waste is a potential source of excessive contamination. endocrine (hormone) disruption in nutrients) were known to occur within Another study by the USGS detected amphibians (EPA 2012, p. 35). In the Barton Springs Segment of the insecticides (diazinon and malathion) addition, the 2007 SAP noted that their Edwards Aquifer in 2010 (Herrington et and herbicides (atrazine, prometone, results on clawed frogs are insufficient al. 2010, p. 15). Their distributions were and simazine) in several Austin-area to make global conclusions about the correlated with human population streams, most often at sites with urban effects of atrazine on all amphibian density (Herrington et al. 2010, p. 15). and partly urban watersheds (Veenhuis species (EPA 2012, p. 33). Accordingly, Feral hogs have also been cited as a and Slade 1990, pp. 45–47). Twenty-two the 2012 SAP has recommended further source of elevated bacteria, nitrates, and of the 42 selected synthetic organic testing on at least three amphibian phosphorus in streams in the Austin compounds analyzed in this study were species before a conclusion can be area (Timmons et al. 2011, pp. 1–2). detected more often and in larger reached that atrazine has no effect on Finally, livestock grazing near streams concentrations at sites with more urban amphibians at concentrations less than can negatively affect stream systems by watersheds compared to undeveloped 100 mg/L (EPA 2012, p. 33). Due to influencing nutrients, bacteria, and watersheds (Veenhuis and Slade 1990, potential differences in species aquatic species diversity (COA 1995, pp. p. 61). Other pesticides sensitivity, exposure scenarios that may 3–62). (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, include dozens of chemical stressors Various residential properties and golf chlordane, hexachlorobenzene, and simultaneously, and multigenerational courses are known to use fertilizers to dieldrin) have been detected at multiple effects that are not fully understood, we maintain turf grass within watersheds Jollyville Plateau salamander sites (COA continue to view pesticides, including where Jollyville Plateau salamander 2001, p. 130). carbaryl, atrazine, and many others to populations are known to occur (COA While pesticides have been detected which aquatic organisms may be 2003, pp. 1–7). Analysis of water quality at Austin blind salamander and exposed, as a potential threat to water attributes conducted by the COA (1997, Jollyville Plateau salamander sites, we quality, salamander health, and the pp. 8–9) showed significant differences do not know the extent to which health of aquatic organisms that in nitrate, ammonia, total dissolved pesticides and other waterborne comprise the diet of salamanders. solids, total suspended solids, and contaminants have affected salamander The threat of water quality turbidity concentrations between survival, development, and degradation from pesticide exposure watersheds dominated by golf courses, reproduction, or their prey. However, could by itself cause irreversible residential land, and rural land. Golf pesticides are known to impact declines or extirpation in local course tributaries were found to have amphibian species in a number of ways. populations or significant declines in higher concentrations of these For example, Reylea (2009, p. 370) habitat quality of the Austin blind and constituents than residential tributaries, demonstrated that diazinon reduces Jollyville Plateau salamanders with and both golf course and residential growth and development in larval continuous or repeated exposure. In tributaries had substantially higher amphibians. Another pesticide, some instances, exposure to pesticide concentrations for these five water carbaryl, causes mortality and contamination could negatively impact quality attributes than rural tributaries deformities in larval streamside a salamander population in combination (COA 1997, pp. 8–9). salamanders (Ambystoma barbouri) with exposure to other sources of water Residential irrigation of wastewater (Rohr et al. 2003, p. 2,391). The quality degradation, resulting in effluent is another source leading to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) significant habitat declines or other excessive nutrient input into the (2007, p. 9) also found that carbaryl is significant negative impacts (such as recharge and contributing zones of the likely to adversely affect the Barton loss of invertebrate prey species). We Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Springs salamander both directly and consider this an ongoing threat of high Aquifer (Ross 2011, pp. 11–18; Mahler indirectly through reduction of prey. impact for the Austin blind salamander et al. 2011, pp. 16–23). Wastewater Additionally, atrazine has been shown because this species occurs only in one effluent permits do not require to impair sexual development in male location. For the Jollyville Plateau treatment to remove metals, amphibians (clawed frogs (Xenopus salamanders, this is currently a threat of pharmaceutical chemicals, or the wide laevis)) at concentrations as low as 0.1 low impact that is likely to increase in range of chemicals found in body care parts per billion (Hayes 2002, p. 5,477). the future. products, soaps, detergents, pesticides, Atrazine levels were found to be greater or other cleaning products (Ross 2011, than 0.44 parts per billion after rainfall Nutrients p. 6). These chemicals remaining in in Barton Springs Pool (Mahler and Van Nutrient input (such as phosphorus treated wastewater effluent can enter Mere 2000, pp. 4, 12). and nitrogen) to watershed drainages, streams and the aquifer and alter water We acknowledge that in 2007 a which often results in abnormally high quality within salamander habitat. A Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) of the organic growth in aquatic ecosystems, USGS study found nitrate Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can originate from multiple sources, concentrations in Barton Springs and reviewed the available information on such as human and animal wastes, the five streams that provide most of its atrazine effects on amphibians and industrial pollutants, and fertilizers recharge much higher during 2008 to concluded that atrazine concentrations (from lawns, golf courses, or croplands) 2010 than before 2008 (Mahler et al. less than 100 mg/L had no effects on (Garner and Mahler 2007, p. 29). As the 2011, pp. 1–4). Additionally, nitrate clawed frogs. However, the 2012 SAP is human population grows and levels in water samples collected currently reexamining the conclusions subsequent urbanization occurs within between 2003 and 2010 from Barton of the 2007 SAP using a meta-analysis the ranges of the Austin blind and Creek tributaries exceeded TCEQ of published studies along with Jollyville Plateau salamanders, they screening levels and were identified as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51307

screening level concerns (TCEQ 2012b, level concerns (TCEQ 2012b, p. 38, 41). current and can be used to approximate p. 344). The rapid development over the For comparison, nitrate levels in the concentration of dissolved inorganic Barton Springs contributing zone since undeveloped Edwards Aquifer springs solids in water that can alter the internal 2000 was associated with an increase in (watersheds without high levels of water balance in aquatic organisms, the generation of wastewater (Mahler et urbanization) are typically close to 1 mg affecting the Austin blind and Jollyville al. 2011, p. 29). Septic systems and L¥1 (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 26). The Plateau salamanders’ survival. land-applied treated wastewater effluent source of the nitrates in Stillhouse Conductivity levels in the Edwards are likely sources contributing nitrate to Hollow is thought to be lawn fertilizers Aquifer are naturally low, ranging from the recharging streams (Mahler et al. (Turner 2005b, p. 11). Salamanders approximately 550 to 700 micro 2011, p. 29). As of November 2010, the observed at the Stillhouse Hollow Siemens per centimeter (mS cm¥1) permitted volume of irrigated flow in monitoring sites have shown high (derived from several conductivity the contributing zone of the Barton incidences of deformities, such as measurements in two references: Turner Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer curved spines, missing eyes, missing 2005a, pp. 8–9; O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. was 3,300,000 gallons (12,491 kiloliters) limbs or digits, and eye injuries 29). As ion concentrations such as per day. About 95 percent of that (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 26). These chlorides, sodium, sulfates, and nitrates volume was permitted during 2005 to deformities often result in the rise, conductivity will increase. These 2010 (Mahler et al. 2011, p. 30). salamander’s inability to feed, compounds are the chemical products, Excessive nutrient input into aquatic reproduce, or survive. The Stillhouse or byproducts, of many common systems can increase plant growth Hollow location was also cited as pollutants that originate from urban (including algae blooms), which pulls having the highest observation of dead environments (Menzer and Nelson 1980, more oxygen out of the water when the salamanders (COA 2001, p. 88). p. 633), which are often transported to dead plant matter decomposes, resulting Although no statistical correlations were streams via stormwater runoff from in less oxygen being available in the found between the number of impervious cover. This, combined with water for salamanders to breathe deformities and nitrate concentrations the stability of the measured ions, (Schueler 1987, pp. 1.5–1.6; Ross 2011, (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 26), makes conductivity an excellent p. 7). A reduction in dissolved oxygen environmental toxins are the suspected monitoring tool for assessing the concentrations could not only affect cause of salamander deformities impacts of urbanization to overall water respiration in salamander species, but (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 25). Nitrate quality. Measurements by the COA also lead to decreased metabolic toxicity studies have indicated that between 1997 and 2006 found that functioning and growth in juveniles salamanders and other amphibians are conductivity averaged between 550 and ¥1 (Woods et al. 2010, p. 544), or death sensitive to these pollutants (Marco et 650 mS cm at rural springs with low (Ross 2011, p. 6). Excessive plant al. 1999, p. 2,837). Some studies have or no development and averaged ¥1 material can also reduce stream indicated that concentrations of nitrate between 900 and 1000 mS cm at velocities and increase sediment between 1.0 and 3.6 mg/L can be toxic monitoring sites in watersheds with deposition (Ross 2011, p. 7). When the to aquatic organisms (Rouse 1999, p. urban development (O’Donnell et al. interstitial spaces become compacted or 802; Camargo et al. 2005, p. 1,264; 2006, p. 37). filled with fine sediment, the amount of Hickey and Martin 2009, pp. ii, 17–18). Conductivity can be influenced by available foraging habitat and protective The threat of water quality weather. Rainfall serves to dilute ions cover is reduced (Welsh and Ollivier degradation from excessive nutrient and lower conductivity while drought 1998, p. 1,128). Studies in the Bull exposure could by itself cause has the opposite effect. The trends of Creek watershed found a loss of some irreversible declines or extirpation in increasing conductivity in urban sensitive macroinvertebrate species, local populations or significant declines watersheds were evident under potentially due to nutrient enrichment in habitat quality of the Austin blind baseflow conditions and during a period and sediment accumulation (COA and Jollyville Plateau salamanders with when precipitation was above average 2001b, p. 15). continuous or repeated exposure. At in all but 3 years, so drought was not a Increased nitrate levels have been least five surface watersheds of the factor (NOAA 2013, pp. 1–7). The COA known to affect amphibians by altering known Jollyville Plateau salamander’s also monitored water quality as feeding activity and causing impervious cover increased in several surface sites contain golf courses that disequilibrium and physical subdivisions with known Jollyville could be contributing to excessive abnormalities (Marco et al. 1999, p. Plateau salamander sites between 1996 nutrient loads. In some instances, 2,837). Poor water quality, particularly and 2007. They found increasing ions exposure to excessive nutrient exposure elevated nitrates, may also be a cause of (calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate) could negatively impact a salamander morphological deformities in individual and nitrates with increasing impervious population in combination with Jollyville Plateau salamanders. The COA cover at four Jollyville Plateau exposure to other sources of water has documented very high levels of salamander sites and as a general trend quality degradation, resulting in nitrates (averaging over 6 milligrams per during the course of the study from ¥ significant habitat declines or other liter (mg L 1) with some samples 1997 to 2006 (Herrington et al. 2007, pp. exceeding 10 mg L¥1) and high significant negative impacts (such as 13–14). These results indicate that conductivity at two monitoring sites in loss of morphological deformities). We developed watersheds can alter the the Stillhouse Hollow drainage area consider this an ongoing threat of water chemistry within salamander (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 26, 37). medium impact for the Austin blind habitats. Additionally, as reported in the 2012 salamander and low impact for the High conductivity has been associated Texas Integrated Report of Surface Jollyville Plateau salamanders that will with declining salamander abundance. Water Quality, nitrate levels in water likely increase in the future. For example, three of the four sites with samples collected between 2003 and Changes in Water Chemistry statistically significant declining 2010 from Stillhouse Hollow, Barrow Jollyville Plateau salamander counts Preserve, and Spicewood stream Conductivity from 1997 to 2006 are cited as having segments exceeded TCEQ screening Conductivity is a measure of the high conductivity readings (O’Donnell levels and were identified as screening ability of water to carry an electrical et al. 2006, p. 37). Similar correlations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51308 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

were shown in studies comparing analysis of more recent data found Barton Springs Pool and other Barton developed and undeveloped sites from similar declines in water quality as the Springs outlets where Austin blind 1996 to 1998 (Bowles et al. 2006, pp. flow of Barton Springs dropped into the salamanders are found (Sunken Gardens 117–118). This analysis found 20 to 30 cfs range (Johns 2006, pp. 6– and Eliza Springs) over a general period significantly lower numbers of 7). As mentioned earlier, reduced of the mid-1990s to the summer of 2009. salamanders and significantly higher groundwater levels would also increase Herrington and Hiers (2010, pp. 41–42) measures of specific conductance at the concentration of pollutants in the found that dissolved oxygen decreased developed sites as compared to aquifer. Flows at Barton Springs over time in the Barton Springs Pool, undeveloped sites (Bowles et al. 2006, dropped below 17 cfs as recently as while conductivity and nitrogen pp. 117–118). Tributary 5 of Bull Creek mid-November 2011 (Barton Springs/ increased. However, this decline in has had an increase in conductivity, Edwards Aquifer Conservation District water quality was not seen in Sunken chloride, and sodium and a decrease in 2011, p. 1), and no Austin blind Gardens Spring or Eliza Spring invertebrate diversity from 1996 to 2008 salamanders were observed during (Herrington 2010, p. 42). (COA 2010a, p. 16). Only one Jollyville surveys at any of their three known Low dissolved oxygen can affect Plateau salamander has been observed locations during this time. salamanders and other amphibians by here from 2009 to 2010 in quarterly This saline water encroachment is reducing respiratory efficiency, surveys (Bendik 2011a, p. 16). A detrimental to the freshwater biota in metabolic energy, reproductive rate, and separate analysis found that ions such the springs and the aquifer, including ultimately survival (Norris et al. 1963, as chloride and sulfate increased in the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau p. 532; Hillman and Withers 1979, p. Barton Creek despite the enactment of salamanders and their prey. Most 2,104; Boutilier et al. 1992, pp. 81–82). city-wide water quality control amphibian larvae cannot survive saline The screening level for dissolved ordinances (Turner 2007, p. 7). Poor conditions (Duellman and Trueb 1986, oxygen (5.0 mg/L) that is used by TCEQ water quality, as measured by high p. 165). Ingersoll et al. (1992, pp. 507– for their analysis of water quality specific conductance and elevated 508) found that increased salinity samples is similar to that recommended levels of ion concentrations, is cited as caused mortality in amphipods and by the Service in 2006 to be protective one of the likely factors leading to some freshwater fish species. Saline of federally listed salamanders (White et statistically significant declines in conditions in the Edwards Aquifer al. 2006, p. 51). In 2012, the TCEQ salamander counts at the COA’s long- could, therefore, pose a risk to the reported that stream segments located term monitoring sites (O’Donnell et al. salamanders and their prey species. within watersheds occupied by the 2006, p. 46). The threat of water quality Austin blind (Barton Spring pool) and The threat of water quality degradation from saline water Jollyville Plateau (Bull Creek) degradation from high conductivity encroachments could by itself cause salamanders had depressed dissolved could by itself cause irreversible irreversible declines or extirpation in oxygen levels that were not meeting declines or extirpation in local local populations or significant declines screening level criteria (TCEQ 2012b, populations or significant declines in in habitat quality of the Austin blind pp. 35–36; 2012c, p. 733). habitat quality of the Austin blind and and Jollyville Plateau salamanders with The threat of water quality Jollyville Plateau salamanders with continuous or repeated exposure. In degradation from low dissolved oxygen continuous or repeated exposure. In some instances, exposure to saline could by itself cause irreversible some instances, exposure to high conditions could negatively impact a declines or extirpation in local conductivity could negatively impact a salamander population in combination populations or significant declines in salamander population in combination with exposure to other sources of water habitat quality of the Austin blind and with exposure to other sources of water quality degradation, resulting in Jollyville Plateau salamanders with quality degradation, resulting in significant habitat declines or another continuous or repeated exposure. In significant habitat declines. We consider significant negative impact (such as loss some instances, exposure to low this an ongoing threat of high impact for of prey species). We consider this an dissolved oxygen could negatively the Jollyville Plateau salamander that is ongoing threat of high impact for the impact a salamander population in likely to increase in the future. Austin blind salamander that will combination with exposure to other Although we are unaware of any continue in the future. At this time, we sources of water quality degradation, information that indicates increased are unaware of any information that resulting in significant habitat declines. conductivity is occurring within the indicates low saline water We consider this an ongoing threat of ranges of the Austin blind salamander, encroachment is occurring within the high impact for the Austin blind we expect this to become a significant range of the Jollyville Plateau salamander due to their limited range. threat in the future for this species as salamander. However, we consider this to be a threat urbanization continues to expand of low impact to the Jollyville Plateau Dissolved Oxygen within its surface watersheds. salamanders given the low risk of In an analysis performed by the COA exposure. Salinity (Turner 2005a, p. 6), significant changes As groundwater levels decline, a over time were reported for several Water Quantity Degradation decrease in hydrostatic pressure occurs chemical constituents and physical Water quantity decreases and spring and saline water is able to move into parameters in Barton Springs Pool, flow declines are considered threats to groundwater flow paths of the aquifer which could be attributed to impacts Eurycea salamanders (Corn et al. 2003, (Pavlicek et al. 1987, p. 2). Water quality from watershed urbanization. p. 36; Bowles et al. 2006, p. 111), in the Barton Springs Segment of the Conductivity, turbidity, sulfates, and because drying spring habitats can cause Edwards Aquifer has been degraded in total organic carbon increased over a 20- salamanders to be stranded, resulting in the past due to saline water to 25-year time period while the death of individuals (O’Donnell et al. encroachment (Slade et al. 1986, p. 62). concentration of dissolved oxygen 2006, p. 16). It is also known that prey This water quality degradation occurred decreased (Turner 2005a, pp. 8–17). A availability for carnivores is low when Barton Springs discharge was less similar analysis by Herrington and Hiers underground due to the lack of primary than 30 cfs (Slade et al. 1986, p. 64). An (2010, p. 2) examined water quality at production (Hobbs and Culver 2009, p.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51309

392). Therefore, relying entirely on municipalities convert from runoff. With increasing stormwater subsurface habitat during dry conditions groundwater to surface water supplies runoff, the amount of baseflow available on the surface may negatively impact (TWDB 2003, p. 65). To meet the to sustain water supplies during drought the salamanders’ feeding abilities and increasing water demand, the 2012 State cycles is diminished and the frequency slow individual and population growth, Water Plan recommends more reliance and severity of flooding increases (Poff which can exacerbate the risk of on surface water, including existing and et al. 1997, p. 773). The increased extirpation in the face of other threats new reservoirs, rather than groundwater quantity and velocity of runoff increases occurring at the site. (TWDB 2012, p. 190). For example, one erosion and streambank destabilization, recommended project conveys water Urbanization which in turn, leads to increased from Lake Travis to Williamson County sediment loadings, channel widening, Increased urbanization in the (TWDB 2012, pp. 192–193). Another and detrimental changes in the watershed has been cited as one factor, recommendation would augment the morphology and aquatic ecology of the particularly in combination with surface water of Lake Granger in affected stream system (Hammer 1972, drought that causes declines in spring Williamson County with groundwater pp. 1,535–1,536, 1,540; Booth 1990, pp. flows (COA 2006, pp. 46–47; TPWD from Burleson County and the Carrizo- 407–409, 412–414; Booth and Reinelt 2011, pp. 4–5). This is partly due to Wilcox Aquifer (TWDB 2012, pp. 164, 1993, pp. 548–550; Schueler 1994, pp. reductions in baseflow due to 192–193). However, it is unknown if 106–108; Pizzuto et al. 2000, p. 82; impervious cover. Urbanization removes this reduction in groundwater use will Center for Watershed Protection 2003, the ability of a watershed to allow slow occur, and if it does, how that will affect pp. 41–48; Coles et al. 2012, pp. 37–38). filtration of water through soils spring flows for salamanders. Changes in flow regime can have a following rain events. Instead rainfall The COA found a negative correlation direct impact on salamander runs off impervious surfaces and into between urbanization and spring flows populations. For example, Barrett et al. stream channels at higher rates, at Jollyville Plateau salamander sites (2010, pp. 2,002–2,003) observed that increasing downstream ‘‘flash’’ flows (Turner 2003, p. 11). Field studies have the density of aquatic southern two- and decreasing groundwater recharge also shown that a number of springs that lined salamanders (Eurycea cirrigera) and subsequent baseflows from springs support Jollyville Plateau salamanders declined more drastically in streams (Miller et al. 2007, p. 74; Coles et al. have already gone dry periodically and with urbanized watersheds compared to 2012, pp. 2, 19). Urbanization can also that spring waters resurface following streams with forested or pastured impact water quantity by increasing rain events (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. watersheds. A statistical analysis groundwater pumping and altering the 46–47). Through a site-by-site indicated that this decline in urban natural flow regime of streams. These assessment from information available streams was due to an increase in stressors are discussed in more detail in our files and provided during the flooding frequency from stormwater below. peer review and public comment period runoff. Barrett et al. (2010, p. 2,003) also Urbanization can also result in for the proposed rule, we found that 51 used artificial stream experiments to increased groundwater pumping, which out of the 106 Jollyville Plateau demonstrate that salamander larvae has a direct impact on spring flows, salamander surface sites have gone dry were flushed from sand-based particularly under drought conditions. for some period of time. Because we sediments at significantly lower Groundwater availability models lack flow data for some of the spring velocities, as compared to gravel, demonstrate that 1 cfs of pumping will sites, it is possible that even more sites diminish Barton Springs flow by 1 cfs have gone dry for a period of time as pebble, or cobble-based sediments. under drought-of-record (1950s drought) well. Sand-based substrates are common to conditions (Smith and Hunt 2004, pp. Flow is a major determining factor of urban streams due to high 24, 36). Under the same conditions, physical habitat in streams, which in sedimentation rates (see these models suggest that present-day turn, is a major determining factor of ‘‘Sedimentation’’ section above). The pumping rates will temporarily cease aquatic species composition within combined effects of increased sand- Barton Springs flow for at least a 4- streams (Bunn and Arthington 2002, p. based substrates due to high month period under a repeat of drought- 492). Various land-use practices, such as sedimentation rates and increased flow of-record conditions (Smith and Hunt urbanization, conversion of forested or velocities from impervious cover result 2004, pp. 24, 36). prairie habitat to agricultural lands, in effectively flushing salamander larvae From 1980 to 2000, groundwater excessive wetland draining, and from their habitat. pumping in the Northern Segment of the overgrazing can reduce water retention The Service has determined that Edwards Aquifer nearly doubled (TWDB within watersheds by routing rainfall impervious cover due to urbanization in 2003, pp. 32–33). Total water use for quickly downstream, increasing the size the salamanders’ watersheds causes Williamson County where the Jollyville and frequency of flood events and streamflow to shift from predominately Plateau salamander occurs was 82,382 reducing baseflow levels during dry baseflow to predominately stormwater acre feet (ac ft) in 2010, and is projected periods (Poff et al. 1997, pp. 772–773). runoff. For example, an examination of to increase to 109,368 ac ft by 2020, and Over time, these practices can degrade 24 stream sites in the Austin area to 234,936 ac ft by 2060, representing a in-channel habitat for aquatic species revealed that increasing impervious 185 percent increase over the 50-year (Poff et al. 1997, p. 773). cover in the watersheds resulted in period (TWDB 2011, p. 78). Similarly, a Baseflow is defined as that portion of decreased base flow, increased high- 91 percent increase in total groundwater streamflow that originates from shallow, flow events of shorter duration, and use over the same 50-year period is subsurface groundwater sources, which more rapid rises and falls of the stream expected in Travis County (TWDB 2011, provide flow to streams in periods of flow (Glick et al. 2009, p. 9). Increases pp. 5, 72). little rainfall (Poff et al. 1997, p. 771). in impervious cover within the Walnut While the demand for water is The land-use practices mentioned above Creek watershed (Jollyville Plateau expected to increase with human can cause streamflow to shift from salamander habitat) have likely caused population growth, one prediction of predominately baseflow, which is a shift to more rapid rises and falls of future groundwater use in this area derived from natural filtration that stream flow (Herrington 2010, p. suggests a large drop in pumping as processes, to predominately stormwater 11).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51310 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

The threat of water quantity record, multiyear drought in the 1950s availability for carnivores, such as these degradation from urbanization could by (COA 1998, p. 13). During the 2011 salamanders, is low underground due to itself cause irreversible declines in drought, 10-day average flows at Barton the lack of sunlight and primary population sizes or habitat quality for Springs reached 20 cfs (0.5 cubic meters production (Hobbs and Culver 2009, p. the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau per second) (Hunt et al. 2012, pp. 190, 392). Complete loss of surface habitat salamanders. Also, it could by itself 195). Discharge at Barton Springs may lead to the extirpation of cause irreversible declines or the decreases as water levels in the Barton predominately subterranean extirpation of a salamander population Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer populations that depend on surface at a site with continuous exposure. We drop. Decreased discharge is associated flows for biomass input (Bendik 2012, consider this to be an ongoing threat of with increases in water temperature, COA, pers. comm.). In addition, length high impact for the Austin blind and decreases in spring flow velocity, and measurements taken during a COA Jollyville Plateau salamanders that is increases in sedimentation (COA 2011d, mark-recapture study at Lanier Spring likely to increase in the future. pp. 19, 24, 27). demonstrated that individual Jollyville The specific effects of low flow on Plateau salamanders exhibited negative Drought central Texas salamanders can be growth (shrinkage) during a 10-month Drought conditions cause lowered inferred by examining studies on the period of retreating to the subsurface groundwater tables and reduced spring Barton Springs salamander. Drought from 2008 to 2009 (Bendik 2011b, COA, flows. The Northern Segment of the decreases spring flow and dissolved pers. comm.; Bendik and Gluesenkamp Edwards Aquifer, which supplies water oxygen levels and increases temperature 2012, pp. 3–4). The authors of this study to the Jollyville Plateau salamander’s in Barton Springs (Turner 2004, p. 2; hypothesized that the negative growth habitat, is vulnerable to drought Turner 2009, p. 14). Low dissolved could be the result of soft tissue (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 36). In oxygen levels decrease reproduction in contraction and/or bone loss, but more particular, the portion of the Edwards Barton Springs salamanders (Turner research is needed to determine the Aquifer underlying the Jollyville Plateau 2004, p. 6; 2009, p. 14). Turner (2009, physical mechanism with which the is relatively shallow with a high p. 14) also found that Barton Springs shrinkage occurs (Bendik and elevation, thus being unlikely to sustain salamander counts decline with Gluesenkamp 2012, p. 5). Although this spring flows during periods of drought decreasing discharge. The number of shrinkage in body length was followed (Cole 1995, pp. 26–27). Drought has Barton Springs salamanders observed by positive growth when normal spring been cited as causing declines in spring during surveys decreased during a flow returned, the long-term flows within Jollyville Plateau and prolonged drought from June 2008 consequences of catch-up growth are Austin blind salamander habitat through September 2009 (COA 2011d, unknown for these salamanders (Bendik (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 46–47; pp. 19, 24, 27). The drought in 2011 also and Gluesenkamp 2012, pp. 4–5). Bendik 2011a, p. 31; Hunt et al. 2012, resulted in dissolved oxygen Therefore, threats to surface habitat at a pp. 190, 195). A drought lasting from concentrations so low that COA used an given site may not extirpate populations 2008 to 2009 was considered one of the aeration system to maintain oxygenated of these salamander species in the short worst droughts in central Texas history water in Eliza and Sunken Gardens term, but this type of habitat and caused numerous Jollyville Plateau Springs (Dries 2011, COA, pers. comm.). degradation may severely limit salamander sites to go dry (Bendik Drought also lowered water quality in population growth and increase a 2011a, p. 31). An even more Barton Springs due to saline water population’s overall risk of extirpation pronounced drought throughout Texas encroachments in the Barton Springs from other stressors occurring in the began in 2010, with the period from Segment of the Edwards Aquifer (Slade surface watershed. October 2010 through September 2011 et al. 1986, p. 62; Johns 2006, p. 8). The threat of water quantity being the driest 12-month period in The Austin blind and Jollyville degradation from drought by itself could Texas since rainfall records began (Hunt Plateau salamanders may be able to cause irreversible declines in et al. 2012, p. 195). Rainfall in early persist through temporary surface population sizes or habitat quality for 2012 lessened the intensity of drought habitat degradation because of their the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau conditions, but 2012 monthly summer ability to retreat to subsurface habitat. salamanders. Also, it could negatively temperatures continued to be higher Drought conditions are common to the impact salamander populations in than average (NOAA 2013, p. 6). region, and the ability to retreat combination with other threats and Moderate to extreme drought conditions underground may be an evolutionary contribute to significant declines in the have continued into 2013 in the central adaptation to such natural conditions size of the populations or habitat Texas region (LCRA 2013, p. 1). Weather (Bendik 2011a, pp. 31–32). However, it quality. For example, changes in water forecasts call for near to slightly less is important to note that, although quantity will have direct impacts on the than normal rainfall across Texas salamanders may survive a drought by quality of that water, in terms of through August, but not enough rain to retreating underground, this does not concentrations of contaminants and break the drought is expected (LCRA necessarily mean they are resilient to pollutants. Therefore, we consider this 2013, p. 1). long-term drought conditions to be a threat of high impact for the Low flow conditions during drought (particularly because sites may already Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau also have negative impacts to the Austin be affected by other, significant salamanders now and in the future. blind salamander and its ecosystem in stressors, such as water quality the Edwards Aquifer and at Barton declines). Climate Change Springs. The long-term average flow at Drought may also affect surface The effects of climate change could the Barton Springs outlets is habitats that are important for prey potentially lead to detrimental impacts approximately 53 cfs (1.5 cubic meters availability as well as individual and on aquifer-dependent species, especially per second) (COA 1998, p. 13; Smith population growth. Therefore, sites with coupled with other threats on water and Hunt 2004, p. 10; Hunt et al. 2012, suitable surface flow and adequate prey quality and quantity. Recharge, p. 194). The lowest flow recorded at availability are likely able to support pumping, natural discharge, and saline Barton Springs was about 10 cfs (0.2 larger population densities (Bendik intrusion of groundwater systems could cubic meters per second) during a 2012, COA, pers. comm.). Prey all be affected by climate change (Mace

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51311

and Wade 2008, p. 657). According to recharging rainfall events occur in deposition of sediment in streams can the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate winter when ambient temperature is physically reduce the amount of Change (IPCC 2007, p. 1), ‘‘warming of low, mean monthly water temperature available habitat and protective cover the climate system is unequivocal, as is at Barton Springs and Eliza Spring can for aquatic organisms, by filling the now evident from observations of drop as low as 65.5 °F (18.6 °C) and interstitial spaces of gravel and rocks increases in global averages of air and remain below the annual average where they could otherwise hide. As an ocean temperatures, widespread melting temperature of 70.1 °F (21.2 °C) for example, a California study found that of snow and ice, and rising global several months (Gillespie 2011, p. 24). densities of two salamander species average sea level.’’ Localized projections The threat of water quantity were significantly lower in streams that suggest the southwestern United States degradation from climate change could experienced a large infusion of sediment may experience the greatest temperature negatively impact a population of any of from road construction after a storm increase of any area in the lower 48 the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau event (Welsh and Ollivier 1998, pp. States (IPCC 2007, p. 8), with warming salamanders in combination with other 1,118–1,132). The vulnerability of the increases in southwestern States greatest threats and contribute to significant salamander species in this California in the summer. The IPCC also predicts declines in population sizes or habitat study was attributed to their reliance on hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy quality. We consider this to be a threat interstitial spaces in the streambed precipitation will increase in frequency of moderate impact for the Austin blind habitats (Welsh and Ollivier 1998, p. (IPCC 2007, p. 8). Evidence of climate and Jollyville Plateau salamanders now 1,128). change has been observed in Texas, and in the future. Excessive sedimentation has contributed to declines in Jollyville such as the record-setting drought of Physical Modification of Surface Plateau salamander populations in the 2011, with extreme droughts becoming Habitat much more probable than they were 40 past. Monitoring by the COA found that, to 50 years ago (Rupp et al. 2012, pp. The Austin blind and Jollyville as sediment deposition increased at 1053–1054). Plateau salamanders are sensitive to several sites, salamander abundances Climate change could compound the direct physical modification of surface significantly decreased (COA 2001, pp. threat of decreased water quantity at habitat from sedimentation, 101, 126). Additionally, the COA found salamander spring sites. An increased impoundments, flooding, feral hogs, that sediment deposition rates have risk of drought could occur if livestock, and human activities. Direct increased significantly along one of the evaporation exceeds precipitation levels mortality to salamanders can also occur long-term monitoring sites (Bull Creek in a particular region due to increased as a result of these threats, such as being Tributary 5) as a result of construction greenhouse gases in the atmosphere crushed by feral hogs, livestock, or activities upstream (O’Donnell et al. (CH2M HILL 2007, p. 18). The Edwards humans. 2006, p. 34). This site has had Aquifer is also predicted to experience Sedimentation significant declines in salamander additional stress from climate change abundance, based on 10 years of that could lead to decreased recharge Elevated mobilization of sediment monitoring, and the COA attributes this (Loa´iciga et al. 2000, pp. 192–193). (mixture of silt, sand, clay, and organic decline to the increases in CH2M HILL (2007, pp. 22–23) identified debris) is a stressor that occurs as a sedimentation (O’Donnell et al. 2006, possible effects of climate change on result of increased velocity of water pp. 34–35). The location of this water resources within the Lower running off impervious surfaces monitoring site is within a large Colorado River Watershed (which (Schram 1995, p. 88; Arnold and preserved tract. However, the contributes recharge to Barton Springs). Gibbons 1996, pp. 244–245). Increased headwaters of this drainage are outside A reduction of recharge to aquifers and rates of stormwater runoff also cause the preserve and the development in a greater likelihood for more extreme increased erosion through scouring in this area increased sedimentation droughts, such as the droughts of 2008 headwater areas and sediment downstream and impacted salamander to 2009 and 2011 mentioned above, deposition in downstream channels habitat within the preserved tract. were identified as potential impacts to (Booth 1991, pp. 93, 102–105; Schram Effects of sedimentation on the Austin water resources (CH2M HILL 2007, p. 1995, p. 88). Waterways are adversely blind salamander is expected to be 23). affected in urban areas, where similar to the effects on the Jollyville Furthermore, climate change could impervious cover levels are high, by Plateau salamander based on affect rainfall and ambient temperatures, sediment loads that are washed into similarities in their ecology and life which are factors that may limit streams or aquifers during storm events. history needs. Analogies can also be salamander populations. Different Sediments are either deposited into drawn from data on the Barton Springs ambient temperatures in the season that layers or become suspended in the salamander. Barton Spring salamander rainfall occurs can influence spring water column (Ford and Williams 1989, population numbers are adversely water temperature if aquifers have fast p. 537; Mahler and Lynch 1999, p. 177). affected by high turbidity and transmission of rainfall to springs Sediment derived from soil erosion has sedimentation (COA 1997, p. 13). (Martin and Dean 1999, p. 238). been cited as the greatest single source Sediments discharge through Barton Gillespie (2011, p. 24) found that of pollution of surface waters by volume Springs, even during baseflow reproductive success and juvenile (Menzer and Nelson 1980, p. 632). conditions (not related to a storm event) survivorship in the Barton Springs Excessive sediment from stormwater (Geismar 2005, p. 12). Storms can salamander, which occurs at the three runoff is a threat to the physical habitat increase sedimentation rates spring sites where the Austin blind of salamanders because it can cover substantially (Geismar 2005, p. 12). salamander is known to occur, may be substrates (Geismar 2005, p. 2). Areas in the immediate vicinity of the significantly influenced by fluctuations Sediments suspended in water can clog spring outflows lack sediment, but the in mean monthly water temperature. gill structures in aquatic animals, which remaining bedrock is sometimes This study also found that groundwater can impair breathing and reduce their covered with a layer of sediment several temperature is influenced by the season ability to avoid predators or locate food inches thick (Geismar 2005, p. 5). in which rainfall events occur over the sources due to decreased visibility Sedimentation is a direct threat for the recharge zone of the aquifer. When (Schueler 1987, p. 1.5). Excessive Austin blind salamander because its

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51312 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

surface habitat in Barton Springs would and 13 rectangular vents along the edges surface habitat from becoming fill with sediment if it were not for of the concrete, which were created by embedded (COA 2007a, p. 4). regular maintenance and removal the COA to help restore flow. While the Flooding can alter the surface (Geismar 2005, p. 12). Further manmade structures help retain water in salamander habitat by deepening stream development in the Barton Creek the spring pools during low flows, they channels, which may increase habitat watershed, which contributes recharge have altered the salamander’s natural for predaceous fish. Much of the Austin to Barton Springs, will most likely be environment. The impoundments have blind and Jollyville Plateau associated with diminished water changed the Barton Springs ecosystem salamanders’ surface habitat is clarity and a reduction in biodiversity of from a stream-like system to a more characterized by shallow water depth flora (COA 1997, p. 7). Additional lentic (still water) environment, thereby (COA 2001, p. 128; Pierce 2011a, p. 3), threats from sediments as a source of reducing the water system’s ability to with the exception of the Austin blind contaminants were discussed in the flush sediments downstream and out of salamander at Main and Sunken Garden ‘‘Contaminants and Pollutants’’ under salamander habitat. Although a natural Springs. However, deep pools are the ‘‘Water Quality Degradation’’ section surface flow connection between sometimes formed within stream above. Sunken Gardens Spring and Barton channels from the scouring of floods. The threat of physical modification of Creek has been restored recently (COA Tumlison et al. (1990, p. 172) found that surface habitat from sedimentation by 2007a, p. 6), the Barton Springs system the abundance of one Eurycea species itself could cause irreversible declines as a whole remains highly modified. decreased as water depth increased. in population sizes or habitat quality for The threat of physical modification of This relationship may be caused by an any of the Austin blind and Jollyville surface habitat from impoundments by increase in predation pressure, as Plateau salamanders’ populations. It itself may not be likely to cause deeper water supports predaceous fish could also negatively impact the species significant population declines, but it populations. However, several central in combination with other threats to could negatively impact the species in Texas Eurycea species are able to contribute to significant declines. We combination with other threats and survive in deep water environments in consider this to be an ongoing threat of contribute to significant declines in the the presence of many predators. For high impact for the Austin blind and population size or habitat quality. We example, San Marcos salamander in Jollyville Plateau salamanders that is consider impoundments to be an Spring Lake, Eurycea sp. in Landa Lake, likely to increase in the future. ongoing threat of moderate impact to the and Barton Springs salamander in Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau Barton Springs Pool. All of these sites Impoundments salamanders and their surface habitats have vegetative cover, which may allow Impoundments can alter the that will likely continue in the future. salamanders to avoid predation. Anti- salamanders’ physical habitat in a predator behaviors may allow these Flooding variety of ways that are detrimental. species to co-exist with predaceous fish, They can alter the natural flow regime Flooding as a result of rainfall events but the effectiveness of these behaviors of streams, increase siltation, and can considerably alter the substrate and may be species-specific (reviewed in support larger, predatory fish (Bendik hydrology of salamander habitat. Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. 18–19) and 2011b, COA, pers. comm.), leading to a Extreme flood events have occurred in many of the shallow, surface habitats of variety of impacts to the salamanders the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau the Jollyville Plateau salamander do not and their surface habitats. For example, salamander’s surface habitats (Pierce have much vegetative cover. a low-water crossing on a tributary of 2011a, p. 10; TPWD 2011, p. 6; Turner The threat of physical modification of Bull Creek occupied by the Jollyville 2009, p. 11; O’Donnell et al. 2005, p. surface habitat from flooding by itself Plateau salamander resulted in sediment 15). The increased flow rate from may not be likely to cause significant buildup above the impoundment and a flooding causes unusually high population declines, but it could scour hole below the impoundment that dissolved oxygen concentrations, which negatively impact the species in supported predaceous fish (Bendik may exert direct or indirect, sublethal combination with other threats and 2011b, COA, pers. comm.). As a result, effects (reduced reproduction or contribute to significant declines in the Jollyville Plateau salamanders were not foraging success) on salamanders population size or habitat quality. We found in this degraded habitat after the (Turner 2009, p. 11). Salamanders also consider this to be a threat of moderate impoundment was constructed. When may be flushed from the surface habitat impact to the Austin blind and Jollyville the crossing was removed in October by strong flows during flooding. Bowles Plateau salamanders that may increase 2008, the sediment buildup was et al. (2006, p. 117) observed no in the future as urbanization and removed, the scour hole was filled, and Jollyville Plateau salamanders in riffle impervious cover increases within the salamanders were later observed habitat at one site during high water surface watersheds of these species, (Bendik 2011b, COA, pers. comm.). velocities and hypothesized that causing more frequent and more intense Many low-water crossings are present individual salamanders were either streamflow flash flooding (see near other Jollyville Plateau salamander flushed downstream or retreated to the discussion in the ‘‘Urbanization’’ sites (Bendik 2011b, COA, pers. comm.). subsurface. section under ‘‘Water Quality All spring sites for the Austin blind An increase in the frequency of flood Degradation’’ above). salamander (Main, Eliza, and Sunken events causes streambank and Garden Springs) have been impounded streambed erosion (Coles et al. 2012, p. Feral Hogs for recreational use. These sites were 19), which can deposit sediment into There are between 1.8 and 3.4 million impounded in the early to mid-1900s. salamander habitat. For example, feral hogs (Sus scrofa) in Texas (Texas For example, a circular, stone Geismar (2005, p. 2) found that flooding A&M University (TAMU) 2011, p. 2), amphitheater was built around Eliza increases contaminants and sediments which is another source of physical Springs in the early 1900s. A concrete in Barton Springs. In 2007, flooding habitat disturbance to salamander bottom was installed over the natural resulted in repeated accumulation of surface sites. They prefer to live around substrate at this site in the 1960s. It now sediment in the Barton Springs Pool that moist areas, including riparian areas discharges from 7 openings (each 1 ft was so rapid that cleaning by COA staff near streams, where they can dig into (0.3 m) in diameter) in the concrete floor was not frequent enough to keep the the soft ground for food and wallow in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51313

mud to keep cool (Mapson 2004, pp. 11, been directly modified by human- section 6 of the Act, the WCCF 14–15). Feral hogs disrupt these related activities. Frequent human developed the Williamson County ecosystems by decreasing plant species visitation of sites occupied by the Regional HCP to obtain a section diversity, increasing invasive species Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau 10(a)(1)(B) permit for incidental take of abundance, increasing soil nitrogen, and salamanders may negatively affect the federally listed endangered species in exposing bare ground (TAMU 2012, p. species and their habitat. Williamson County, Texas. This HCP 4). Feral hogs negatively impact surface Documentation from the COA of became final in October 2008. Although salamander habitat by digging and disturbed vegetation, vandalism, and Jollyville Plateau salamanders present wallowing in spring heads, which the destruction of travertine deposits in southern Williamson County are increases sedimentation downstream (fragile rock formations formed by likely influenced by the Edwards (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 34, 46). This deposit of calcium carbonate on stream Aquifer Recharge Zone in northern activity can also result in direct bottoms) by foot traffic has been Williamson County, the Williamson mortality of amphibians (Bull 2009, p. documented at one of their Jollyville County Regional HCP does not include 243). Plateau salamander monitoring sites in considerations for this species. Feral hogs have become abundant in the Bull Creek watershed (COA 2001, p. However, in 2012, the WCCF began some areas where the Jollyville Plateau 21) and may have resulted in direct contracting to gather information on the salamander occurs. O’Donnell et al. destruction of small amounts of the Jollyville Plateau salamander in (2006, p. 34) noted that feral hog activity salamander’s habitat. Other Jollyville Williamson County. was increasing in the Bull and Cypress Plateau salamander sites have also been Travis County and COA also have a Creeks watersheds. Fortunately, feral impacted. Both Stillhouse Hollow regional HCP (the Balcones hogs cannot access Austin blind Spring and Balcones District Park Canyonlands Conservation Plan) and salamander sites due to fencing and regularly receive visitors that modify the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit that covers their location in downtown Austin. available cover habitat (by removing or incidental take of federally listed The threat of physical modification of arranging substrates). Balcones District species in Travis County. While the surface habitat from feral hogs by itself Park is also regularly disturbed by off- Jollyville Plateau salamander is not a may not be likely to cause significant leash dog traffic (Bendik 2012, COA, covered species under that permit, the population declines, but it could pers. comm.). Eliza Spring and Sunken Balcones Canyonlands Preserve system negatively impact the species in Garden Spring, two of the three offers some benefits to the Jollyville combination with other threats and locations of the Austin blind Plateau salamander in portions of the contribute to significant declines in the salamander, also experience vandalism, Bull Creek, Brushy Creek, Cypress population size or habitat quality. We despite the presence of fencing and Creek, and Long Hollow Creek drainages consider this to be an ongoing threat of signage (Dries 2011, COA, pers. comm.). through preservation of open space moderate impact to the Jollyville The deep water of the third location (Service 1996, pp. 2–28, 2–29). Sixty- Plateau salamander that will likely (Parthenia Springs) likely protects the seven of 106 surface sites for the continue in the future. We do not Austin blind salamander’s surface Jollyville Plateau salamander are within consider physical habitat modification habitat from damage from frequent Balcones Canyonlands Preserves. from feral hogs to be a threat to the human recreation. All of these activities However, eight of the nine COA Austin blind salamander at this time or can reduce the amount of cover monitoring sites occupied by the in the future. available for salamander breeding, Jollyville Plateau salamander within the feeding, and sheltering. Balcones Canyonlands Preserve have Livestock The threat of physical modification of experienced water quality degradation Similar to feral hogs, livestock can surface habitat from human visitation, from disturbances occurring upstream negatively impact surface salamander recreation, and alteration by itself may and outside of the preserved tracts habitat by disturbing the substrate and not be likely to cause significant (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 29, 34, 37, increasing sedimentation in the spring population declines, but it could 49; COA 1999, pp. 6–11; Travis County run where salamanders are often found. negatively impact the species in 2007, p. 4). Poorly managed livestock grazing combination with other threats and Additionally, the Buttercup Creek results in changes in vegetation (from contribute to significant declines in the HCP was established to avoid, grass-dominated to brush-dominated), population size or habitat quality. We minimize, and mitigate for the potential which leads to increased erosion of the consider this to be an ongoing threat of negative effects of construction and soil profile along stream banks (COA moderate impact to the Austin blind operation of single and multifamily 1995, pp. 3–59) and sediment in and Jollyville Plateau salamanders that residences and a school near and salamander habitat. However, the will likely continue in the future. adjacent to currently occupied habitat of Austin blind salamander’s habitat is the endangered Tooth Cave ground inside a COA park, and livestock are not Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat beetle (Rhadine persephone) and other allowed in the spring areas. Also, much Destruction, Modification, or rare cave and karst species, including of the Jollyville Plateau salamander Curtailment of Its Range the Jollyville Plateau salamander, and to habitat is in suburban areas, and we are When considering the listing contribute to conservation of the listed not aware of livestock access to or determination of species, it is important and non-listed cave or karst fauna. The damage in those areas. Therefore, we do to consider conservation efforts that Buttercup HCP authorizes incidental not consider physical habitat have been made to reduce or remove take of endangered karst invertebrates, if modification from livestock to be a threats, such as the threats to the Austin encountered during construction. Under threat to the Austin blind or Jollyville blind and Jollyville Plateau Texas the Buttercup HCP, mitigation for take Plateau salamanders at this time or in salamanders’ habitat. A number of of the karst invertebrates was the future. efforts have aimed at minimizing the implemented by setting aside 12 habitat destruction, modification, or separate cave preserves (130 ac (53 ha), Other Human Activities curtailment of the salamanders’ ranges. 37 caves) and two greenbelt flood plains Some sites of the Austin blind and In a separate undertaking, and with (33 ac (13 ha)) for a total of 163 ac (66 Jollyville Plateau salamanders have the help of a grant funded through ha), which remain in a natural

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51314 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

undisturbed condition and are salamander numbers, (5) public that are already small enough to preserved in perpetuity for the benefit of outreach and education, and (6) experience reduced reproduction and the listed and non-listed species. There establishment and maintenance of a survival due to inbreeding depression or are 21 occupied endangered karst captive-breeding program, which become extirpated due to environmental invertebrate caves and 10 Jollyville includes the Austin blind salamander. or demographic stochasticity and other Plateau salamander caves in the As part of this HCP, the COA completed catastrophic events (see the discussion preserves. The shape and size of each habitat restoration of Eliza Spring and on small population sizes under Factor preserve was designed to include the main pool of Barton Springs in 2003 E—Other Natural or Manmade Factors surface drainage basins for all caves, the and 2004. A more natural flow regime Affecting Its Continued Existence subsurface extent of all caves, and was reconstructed in these habitats by below) can pose a risk to the continued connectivity between nearby caves and removing large obstructions to flow. existence of these populations. features. Additionally, for those more This HCP has recently been proposed Additionally, there are no regulations sensitive cave preserves, particularly for revision to include coverage for the currently in place to prevent or restrict with regard to recharge, 7 of the 12 Austin blind salamander and to extend the collections of salamanders from preserves are to be fenced off to restrict the COA’s permit for another 20 years their habitat in the wild for scientific or access for only maintenance, (78 FR 23780, April 22, 2013). other purposes, and we know of no monitoring, and research. All preserves Although these conservation efforts plans within the scientific community are regularly monitored, fences and likely contribute water quality benefits to limit the amount or frequency of gates are checked and repaired, and red to surface flow, surface habitats can be collections at known salamander imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) influenced by land use throughout the locations. We recognize the importance controlled. Surface water drainage from recharge zone of the aquifer that of collecting for scientific purposes, streets and parking areas will be supplies its spring flow. Furthermore, such as for research, captive assurance diverted by permanent diversion the surface areas influencing subsurface programs, taxonomic analyses, and structures to treatment systems and water quality (that is draining the museum collections. However, detention ponds or will discharge surface and flowing to the subsurface removing individuals from small, down-gradient of the cave preserves. An habitat) is not clearly delineated for localized populations in the wild, additional 3 to 4 in (76 to 102 mm) of many of the sites (springs or caves) for without any proposed plans or topsoil are added in yards and the Austin blind or Jollyville Plateau regulations to restrict these activities, landscaped areas for additional salamanders. Because we are not able to could increase the population’s filtration and absorption of fertilizers, precisely assess additional pathways for vulnerability and decrease its resiliency pesticides, and other common negative impacts to these salamanders and ability to withstand stochastic constituents, and an education and to occur, many of their sites may be events. outreach program informs homeowners affected by threats that cannot be Currently, we do not consider about the proper use of fertilizers and mitigated through the conservation overutilization from collecting pesticides, the benefits of native efforts that are currently ongoing. salamanders in the wild to be a threat by itself, but it may contribute to landscaping, and the disposal of Conclusion of Factor A household hazardous waste. significant population declines, and In addition, several individual Degradation of habitat, in the form of could negatively impact the species in 10(a)(1)(B) permit holders in Travis reduced water quality and quantity and combination with other threats. County have established preserves and disturbance of spring sites (physical C. Disease or Predation included provisions that are expected to modification of surface habitat), is the benefit the Jollyville Plateau primary threat to the Austin blind and Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus) is a salamander. Twelve of the 16 known Jollyville Plateau salamanders. This fungal disease that is responsible for caves for the Jollyville Plateau threat may affect only the surface killing amphibians worldwide (Daszak salamander are located within habitat, only the subsurface habitat, or et al. 2000, p. 445). The chytrid fungus preserves. Similar to the Williamson both habitat types. In consideration of has been documented on the feet of County Regional HCP and Balcones the stressors currently impacting the Jollyville Plateau salamanders from 15 Canyonlands Conservation Plan, there is salamander species and their habitats different sites in the wild (O’Donnell et potential for adverse effects to along with their risk of exposure to al. 2006, pp. 22–23; Gaertner et al. 2009, salamander sites from land use activities potential sources of this threat, we have pp. 22–23) and on Austin blind outside the covered areas under the found the threat of habitat destruction salamanders in captivity (Chamberlain HCPs. and modification within the ranges of 2011, COA, pers. comm.). However, the Furthermore, the COA is the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders are not displaying any implementing the Barton Springs Pool salamanders to have severe impacts on noticeable health effects (O’Donnell et HCP to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these species, and we expect this threat al. 2006, p. 23). We do not consider incidental take of the Barton Springs to continue into the future. chytridiomycosis to be a threat to the salamander resulting from the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau continued operation and maintenance of B. Overutilization for Commercial, salamanders at this time. We have no Barton Springs Pool and adjacent Recreational, Scientific, or Educational data to indicate that impacts from this springs (COA 1998, pp. 1–53). Many of Purposes disease may increase or decrease in the the provisions of the plan also benefit There is little available information future. the Austin blind salamander. These regarding overutilization of the Austin A condition affecting Barton Springs provisions include: (1) Training blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders salamanders may also affect the Austin lifeguard and maintenance staff to for commercial, recreational, scientific, blind salamander. In 2002, 19 Barton protect salamander habitat, (2) or educational purposes, although we Springs salamanders, which co-occur controlling erosion and preventing are aware that some individuals of these with the Austin blind salamander, were surface runoff from entering the springs, species have been collected from their found at Barton Springs with bubbles of (3) ecological enhancement and natural habitat for a variety of purposes. gas occurring throughout their bodies restoration, (4) monthly monitoring of Collecting individuals from populations (Chamberlain and O’Donnell 2003, p.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51315

17). Three similarly affected Barton Centrarchid fish are currently present in State law as endangered or threatened Springs salamanders also were found in two of three Austin blind salamander without the issuance of a permit. The 2003 (Chamberlain and O’Donnell 2003, sites (Gillespie 2011, p. 87). Crayfish Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau pp. 17–18). Of the 19 salamanders (another predator) occur in much of the salamanders are not listed on the Texas affected in 2002, 12 were found dead or habitat occupied by Jollyville Plateau State List of Endangered or Threatened died shortly after they were found. Both salamanders. Both the Austin blind and Species (TPWD 2013, p. 3). Even if they adult and juvenile Barton Springs Jollyville Plateau salamanders have were, State threatened and endangered salamanders have been affected been observed retreating into gravel species laws do not contain protective (Chamberlain and O’Donnell 2003, pp. substrate after cover was moved, provisions for habitat. At this time, 10, 17). suggesting these salamanders display these species are receiving no direct The incidence of gas bubbles in antipredation behavior (Bowles et al. protection from State of Texas salamanders at Barton Springs is 2006, p. 117). Another study found that regulations. consistent with a disorder known as gas San Marcos salamanders (Eurycea nana) Under authority of the T.A.C. (Title bubble disease, or gas bubble trauma, as have the ability to recognize and show 30, Chapter 213), the TCEQ regulates described by Weitkamp and Katz (1980, antipredator response to the chemical activities having the potential for pp. 664–671). In animals with gas cues of introduced and native polluting the Edwards Aquifer and bubble trauma, bubbles below the centrarchid fish predators (Epp and hydrologically connected surface surface of the body and inside the Gabor 2008, p. 612). However, we do streams through the Edwards Aquifer cardiovascular system produce lesions not have enough data to indicate Protection Program or ‘‘Edwards Rules.’’ and dead tissue that can lead to whether predation is a significant The Edwards Rules require a number of secondary infections (Weitkamp and limiting factor for the Austin blind and water quality protection measures for Katz 1980, p. 670). Death from gas Jollyville Plateau salamanders. new development occurring in the bubble trauma is apparently related to In summary, while disease and recharge, transition, and contributing an accumulation of internal bubbles in predation may be affecting individuals zones of the Edwards Aquifer. The the cardiovascular system (Weitkamp of these salamander species, these are Edwards Rules were enacted to protect and Katz 1980, p. 668). Pathology not significant factors affecting the existing and potential uses of reports on affected animals at Barton species’ continued existence in healthy, groundwater and maintain Texas Springs found that the symptoms were natural ecosystems. Neither disease nor Surface Water Quality Standards. consistent with gas bubble trauma predation is occurring at a level that we Specifically, a water pollution (Chamberlain and O’Donnell 2003, pp. consider to be a threat to the continued abatement plan (WPAP) must be 17–18). The cause of gas bubble trauma existence of the Austin blind and submitted to the TCEQ in order to is unknown, but its incidence has been Jollyville Plateau salamanders now or in conduct any construction-related or correlated with water temperature. Gas the future. post-construction activities on the bubble trauma has been observed in recharge zone. The WPAP must include D. The Inadequacy of Existing wild Barton Springs salamanders only a description of the site and location Regulatory Mechanisms on rare occasions (Chamberlain, maps, a geologic assessment conducted unpublished data) and has been The primary threats to the Austin by a geologist, and a technical report observed in Austin blind salamanders in blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders describing, among other things, captivity only when exposed to water are habitat degradation related to a temporary and permanent best temperatures approaching 80 °F (26.7 reduction of water quality and quantity management practices (BMPs). °C) (Chamberlain 2011, COA, pers. and disturbance at spring sites (see However, the permanent BMPs and comm.). Given these limited discussion under Factor A above). measures identified in the WPAP are observations, we do not consider gas Therefore, regulatory mechanisms that designed, constructed, operated, and bubble trauma to be a threat to the protect water from the Trinity and maintained to remove 80 percent of the Austin blind salamander now or in the Edwards Aquifers are crucial to the incremental increase in annual mass future. future survival of these species. Federal, loading of total suspended solids from To our knowledge, gas bubble trauma State, and local laws and regulations the site caused by the regulated activity. has not been observed in Jollyville have been insufficient to prevent past This necessarily results in some level of Plateau salamanders. However, if an and ongoing impacts to the Austin blind water quality degradation since up to 20 increase in water temperature is a and Jollyville Plateau salamanders and percent of total suspended solids are causative factor, this species may also their habitats from water quality ultimately discharged from the site into be at risk during droughts or other degradation, reduction in water receiving waterways. Separate Edwards environmental stressors that result in quantity, and surface disturbance of Aquifer protection plans are required for increases in water temperature. spring sites, and are unlikely to prevent organized sewage collection systems, Regarding predation, COA biologists further impacts to the species in the underground storage tank facilities, and found Jollyville Plateau salamander future. aboveground storage tank facilities. abundances were negatively correlated Regulated activities exempt from the with the abundance of predatory State and Federal Regulations requirements of the Edwards Rules are: centrarchid fish (carnivorous freshwater Laws and regulations pertaining to (1) The installation of natural gas lines; fish belonging to the sunfish family), endangered or threatened animal (2) the installation of telephone lines; such as black bass (Micropterus spp.) species in the State of Texas are (3) the installation of electric lines; (4) and sunfish (Lepomis spp.) (COA 2001, contained in Chapters 67 and 68 of the the installation of water lines; and (5) p. 102). Predation of a Jollyville Plateau Texas Parks and Wildlife Department the installation of other utility lines that salamander by a centrarchid fish was (TPWD) Code and Sections 65.171– are not designed to carry and will not observed during a May 2006 field 65.176 of Title 31 of the Texas carry pollutants, storm water runoff, survey (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 38). Administrative Code (T.A.C.). TPWD sewage effluent, or treated effluent from However, Bowles et al. (2006, pp. 117– regulations prohibit the taking, a wastewater treatment facility. 118) rarely observed these predators in possession, transportation, or sale of any Temporary erosion and sedimentation Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat. of the animal species designated by controls are required to be installed and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51316 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

maintained for any exempted activities (MS4) (TPDES General Permit of water quality degradation, including located on the recharge zone. Individual #TXR040000) and (2) construction sites nonpoint-source pollution and the land owners who seek to construct (TPDES General Permit #TXR150000). exceptions mentioned above, that have single-family residences on sites are The MS4 permit covers small municipal the potential to negatively impact the exempt from the Edwards Aquifer separate storm sewer systems that were Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau protection plan application fully or partially located within an salamanders. requirements provided the plans do not urbanized area, as determined by the In reviewing the 2010 and 2012 Texas exceed 20 percent impervious cover. 2000 Decennial Census by the U.S. Water Quality Integrated Reports Similarly, the Executive Director of the Census Bureau, and the construction prepared by the TCEQ, the Service TCEQ may waive the requirements for general permit covers discharges of identified 14 of 28 (50 percent) stream permanent BMPs for multifamily storm water runoff from small and large segments located within surface residential subdivisions, schools, or construction activities impacting greater watersheds occupied by the Austin small businesses when 20 percent or than 1 acre of land. In addition, both of blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders less impervious cover is used at the site. these permits require new discharges to where parameters within water samples The best available science indicates meet the requirements of the Edwards exceeded screening level criteria (TCEQ that measurable degradation of stream Rules. 2010a, pp. 546–624; TCEQ 2010b, pp. habitat and loss of biotic integrity To be covered under the MS4 general 34–68; TCEQ 2012b, pp. 35–70; TCEQ occurs at levels of impervious cover permit, a municipality must submit a 2012c, pp. 646–736). Four of these 28 within a watershed much less than this Notice of Intent (NOI) and a copy of (14 percent) stream segments have been (see Factor A discussion above). The their Storm Water Management Program identified as impaired waters as single known location of the Austin (SWMP) to TCEQ. The SWMP must required under sections 303(d) and blind salamander and half of the known include a description of how that 304(a) of the Clean Water Act ‘‘. . .for Jollyville Plateau salamander locations municipality is implementing the seven which effluent limitations are not occur within those portions of the minimum control measures, which stringent enough to implement water Edwards Aquifer regulated by the include the following: (1) Public quality standards’’ (TCEQ 2010c, pp. 77, TCEQ. The TCEQ regulations do not education and outreach; (2) public 82–83; TCEQ 2012d, pp. 67, 73). The address land use, impervious cover involvement and participation; (3) analysis of surface water quality limitations, some nonpoint-source detection and elimination of illicit monitoring data collected by TCEQ pollution, or application of fertilizers discharges; (4) construction site indicated ‘‘screening level concerns’’ for and pesticides over the recharge zone stormwater runoff control (when greater nitrate, dissolved oxygen, impaired (30 TAC 213.3). In addition, these than 1 ac (0.4 ha) is disturbed); (5) post- benthic communities, sediment toxicity, regulations were not intended or construction stormwater management; and bacteria. The TCEQ screening level designed specifically to be protective of (6) pollution prevention and good for nitrate (1.95 mg/L) is within the the salamanders. We are unaware of any housekeeping for municipal operations; range of concentrations (1.0 to 3.6 mg/ water quality ordinances more and (7) authorization for municipal L) above which the scientific literature restrictive than the TCEQ’s Edwards construction activities (optional). indicates may be toxic to aquatic Rules in Travis or Williamson Counties Municipalities located within the range organisms (Camargo et al. 2005, p. outside the COA. of the Austin blind and Jollyville 1,264; Hickey and Martin 2009, pp. ii, Texas has an extensive program for Plateau salamanders that are covered 17–18; Rouse 1999, p. 802). In addition, the management and protection of water under the MS4 general permit include the TCEQ screening level for dissolved that operates under State statutes and the Cities of Cedar Park, Round Rock, oxygen (5.0 mg/L) is similar to that the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). It Austin, Leander, and Pflugerville, as recommended by the Service in 2006 to includes regulatory programs such as well as Travis and Williamson Counties. be protective of federally listed the following: Texas Pollutant Discharge To be covered under the construction salamanders (White et al. 2006, p. 51). Elimination System, Texas Surface general permit, an applicant must Therefore, water quality data collected Water Quality Standards, and Total prepare a stormwater pollution and and summarized by the TCEQ supports Maximum Daily Load Program (under prevention plan (SWP3) that describes our concerns with the adequacy of Section 303(d) of the CWA). the implementation of practices that existing regulations to protect the In 1998, the State of Texas assumed will be used to minimize, to the extent Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau the authority from the Environmental practicable, the discharge of pollutants salamanders from the effects of water Protection Agency (EPA) to administer in stormwater associated with quality degradation. the National Pollutant Discharge construction activity and non- To discharge effluent onto the land, Elimination System. As a result, the stormwater discharges. For activities the TCEQ requires wastewater treatment TCEQ’s TPDES program has regulatory that disturb greater than 5 ac (2 ha), the systems within the Barton Springs authority over discharges of pollutants applicant must submit an NOI to TCEQ Segment of the Edwards Aquifer to Texas surface water, with the as part of the approval process. As recharge and contributing zones to exception of discharges associated with stated above, the two general permits obtain Texas Land Application Permits oil, gas, and geothermal exploration and issued by the TCEQ do not address (TLAP) (Ross 2011, p. 7). Although development activities, which are discharge of pollutants to surface waters these permits are designed to protect the regulated by the Railroad Commission from oil, gas, and geothermal surface waters and underground aquifer, of Texas. In addition, stormwater exploration and geothermal studies have demonstrated reduced discharges as a result of agricultural development activities, stormwater water quality downstream of TLAP sites activities are not subject to TPDES discharges associated with agricultural (Mahler et al. 2011, pp. 34–35; Ross permitting requirements. The TCEQ activities, and from activities disturbing 2011, pp. 11–18). Ross (2011, pp. 18–21) issues two general permits that less than 5 acres (2 ha) of land. Despite attributes this to the TCEQ’s failure to authorize the discharge of stormwater the significant value the TPDES program conduct regular soil monitoring for and non-stormwater to surface waters in has in regulating point-source pollution nutrient accumulation on TLAP sites the State associated with: (1) small discharged to surface waters in Texas, it and the failure to conduct in-depth municipal separate storm sewer systems does not adequately address all sources reviews of TLAP applications. A study

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51317

by the U.S. Geological Survey macroinvertebrate species were found at within the Lake Travis watershed in concluded that baseline water quality in sites with stormwater controls than at northwestern Travis County, as well as the Barton Springs Segment of the sites without controls (Maxted and portions of Burnet and Llano Counties. Edwards Aquifer, which is occupied by Scoggins 2004, p. 11). This ordinance was implemented by the Austin blind salamander, in terms of Local ordinances have not been LCRA beginning in 2006 to protect nitrate had shifted upward between completely effective at protecting water water quality in the Highland Lakes 2001 and 2010 and was at least partially quality to the extent that sedimentation, region. There are 14 Jollyville Plateau the result of an increase in the land contaminants, pollution, and changes in salamander sites located within the application of treated wastewater water chemistry no longer impact northwestern portion of Travis County (Mahler et al. 2011, pp. 34–35). salamander habitat (see ‘‘Stressors and covered by this ordinance. Development Sources of Water Quality Degradation’’ in this area is required to protect water Local Ordinances and Regulations discussion under Factor A above). A quality by: (1) Providing water quality The COA’s water quality ordinances study conducted by the COA of four volume based on the 1-year storm runoff (COA Code, Title 25, Chapter 8) provide Jollyville Plateau salamander spring in approved best management practices some water quality regulatory protection sites within two subdivisions found that (BMPs) (practices that effectively to the Austin blind and Jollyville stricter water quality controls (wet manage stormwater runoff quality and Plateau salamander’s habitat within ponds instead of standard volume), (2) providing buffer zones Travis County. Some of the protections sedimentation/filtration ponds) did not around creeks that remain free of most include buffers around critical necessarily translate into improved construction activities, (3) installing environmental features and waterways groundwater quality (Herrington et al. temporary erosion and sediment (up to 400 ft (122 m)), permanent water 2007, pp. 13–14). In addition, water control, (4) conducting water quality quality control structures quality data analyzed by the COA education, and (5) requiring water (sedimentation and filtration ponds), showed significant increases in quality performance monitoring of wastewater system restrictions, and conductivity, nitrate, and sodium certain BMPs. However, as with TPDES impervious cover limitations (COA between 1997 and 2005 at two Jollyville permitting discussed above, agricultural Code, title 25, Chapter 8; Turner 2007, Plateau salamander long-term activities are exempt from the water pp. 1–2). The ordinances range from monitoring sites, which also had quality requirements contained in the relatively strict controls in its Drinking significant declines in salamander Highland Lakes Watershed Ordinance Water Protection Zones to lesser counts (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 12). (LCRA 2005, pp. 8–21). controls in its Desired Development In addition, Title 7, Chapter 245 of the The Cities of Cedar Park and Round Zones. For example, a 15 percent Texas Local Government Code permits Rock, and Travis and Williamson impervious cover limit is in place for ‘‘grandfathering’’ of certain local Counties have some jurisdiction within new developments within portions of regulations. Grandfathering allows watersheds occupied by either the the Barton Springs Zone, one of the developments to be exempted from new Austin blind or Jollyville Plateau Drinking Water Protection Zones, while requirements for water quality controls salamanders. The Service has reviewed up to 90 percent impervious cover is and impervious cover limits if the ordinances administered by each of permitted within the Suburban City developments were planned prior to the these municipalities to determine if they Limits Zone, one of the Desired implementation of such regulations. contain measures protective of Development Zones. However, these developments are still salamanders above and beyond those In the period after the COA passed obligated to comply with regulations already required through other water quality ordinances in 1986 and that were applicable at the time when regulatory mechanisms (Clean Water 1991, sedimentation and nutrients project applications for development Act, T.A.C., etc.). Each of the cities has decreased in the five major Austin-area were first filed (Title 7, Chapter 245 of implemented their own ordinances that creeks (Turner 2007, p. 7). Peak storm the Texas Local Government Code, p. 1). contain requirements for erosion control flows were also lower after the On January 1, 2006, the COA banned and the management of the volume of enactment of the ordinances, which may the use of coal tar sealant (Scoggins et stormwater discharged from explain the decrease in sedimentation al. 2009, p. 4909), which has been developments within their jurisdictions. (Turner 2007, p. 10). Likewise, a shown to be the main source of PAHs However, as discussed above under separate study on the water quality of in Austin-area streams (Mahler et al. Factor A, measurable degradation of Walnut Creek (Jollyville Plateau 2005, p. 5,565). However, historically stream habitat and loss of biotic salamander habitat) from 1996 to 2008 applied coal tar sealant lasts for several integrity can occur at low levels of found that water quality has either years and can remain a source of PAHs impervious cover within a watershed, remained the same or improved to aquatic systems (DeMott et al. 2010, and there are no impervious cover limit (Scoggins 2010, p. 15). These trends in p. 372). A study that examined PAH restrictions in Travis or Williamson water quality occurred despite a drastic concentrations in Austin streams before Counties or for development within the increase in construction and impervious the ban and 2 years after the ban found municipalities of Cedar Park and Round cover during the same time period no difference, indicating that either Rock where the Jollyville Plateau (Turner 2007, pp. 7–8; Scoggins 2010, p. more time is needed to see the impact salamander occurs. 4), indicating that the ordinances are of the coal tar ban, or that other sources effective at mitigating some of the (for example, airborne and automotive) Groundwater Conservation Districts impacts of development on water are contributing more to PAH loadings The Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer quality. Another study in the Austin (DeMott et al. 2010, pp. 375–377). Conservation District permits and area compared 18 sites with stormwater Furthermore, coal tar sealant is still regulates most wells on the Barton controls (retention ponds) in their legal outside of the COA’s jurisdiction Springs segment of the Edwards watersheds to 20 sites without and may be contributing PAH loads to Aquifer, subject to the limits of the State stormwater controls (Maxted and northern portions of the Jollyville of Texas law. They have established two Scoggins 2004, p. 8). In sites with more Plateau salamander’s habitat. desired future conditions for the than 40 percent impervious cover, more The LCRA Highland Lakes Watershed Freshwater Edwards Aquifer within the contaminant-sensitive Ordinance applies to lands located Northern Subdivision of Groundwater

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51318 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Management Area 10: (1) An extreme species, but mark–recapture studies at surface sites have not yielded as many drought desired future condition of 6.5 some of the highest quality sites for as 5 individuals at any one time in the cubic feet per second (cfs) (0.18 cubic Jollyville Plateau salamanders estimated last 10 years. Furthermore, surveys or meter per second (cms)) measured at surface populations as low as 78 and as salamander counts of only 8 of the 106 Barton Springs, and (2) an ‘‘all- high as 1,024 (O’Donnell et al. 2008, pp. (8 percent) Jollyville Plateau salamander conditions’’ desired future condition of 44–45). surface sites have resulted in more than 49.7 cfs (1.41 cms) measured at Barton At small population levels, the effects 50 individuals at a time over the last 10 Springs. These desired future conditions of demographic stochasticity (the years. We also found that many of the are meant to assure an adequate supply variability in population growth rates salamander population counts have of freshwater for well users and arising from random differences among been low or unknown. adequate flow for endangered species. individuals in survival and For the Austin blind salamander, the There are no groundwater conservation reproduction within a season) alone highest count observed at a single site districts in northern Travis or southern greatly increase the risk of local over the last 10 years was 34 Williamson Counties, so groundwater extinctions (Van Dyke 2008, p. 218). individuals; however, numbers this high pumping continues to be unregulated in Although it remains a complex field of are very rare for this species. Counts of these areas (TPWD 2011, p. 7). study, conservation genetics research three individuals or less have been has demonstrated that long-term reported most frequently since 1995. Conclusion of Factor D inbreeding depression (a pattern of Because most of the sites occupied by Surface water quality data collected reduced reproduction and survival as a the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau by TCEQ and COA indicates that water result of genetic relatedness) can occur salamanders are not known to have quality degradation is occurring within within populations with effective sizes many individuals, any of the threats many of the surface watersheds of 50 to 500 individuals and may also described in this final rule or even occupied by the Austin blind and occur within larger populations as well stochastic events that would not Jollyville Plateau salamanders despite (Frankham 1995, pp. 305–327; Latter et otherwise be considered a threat could the existence of numerous State and al. 1995, pp. 287–297; Van Dyke 2008, extirpate populations. As populations local regulatory mechanisms to manage pp. 155–156). are extirpated, the overall risk of stormwater and protect water quality Current evidence from integrated extinction of the species is increased. (Turner 2005a, pp. 8–17, O’Donnell et work on population dynamics shows Small population sizes can also act al. 2006, p. 29, TCEQ 2010a, pp. 546– that setting conservation thresholds at synergistically with other traits (such as 624; TCEQ 2010b, pp. 34–68; TCEQ only a few hundred individuals does being a habitat specialist and having 2010c, pp. 77, 82–83; TCEQ 2012b, pp. not properly account for the synergistic limited distribution, as is the case with 35–70; TCEQ 2012c, pp. 646–736; TCEQ impacts of multiple threats facing a the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau 2012d, pp. 67, 73). No regulatory population (Traill et al. 2010, p. 32). salamanders) to greatly increase risk of mechanisms are in place to manage Studies across taxonomic groups have extinction (Davies et al. 2004, p. 270). groundwater withdrawals in northern found both the evolutionary and Stochastic events from either Travis or southern Williamson Counties. demographic constraints on populations environmental factors (random events Human population growth and require sizes of at least 5,000 adult such as severe weather) or demographic urbanization in Travis and Williamson individuals to ensure long-term factors (random causes of births and Counties are projected to continue into persistence (Traill et al. 2010, p. 30). deaths of individuals) may also heighten the future as well as the associated Only one site for the Jollyville Plateau the effect of other threats to the impacts to water quality and quantity salamanders at Wheless Spring has an salamander species because of their (see Factor A discussion above). average population estimate of greater limited range and small population Therefore, we conclude that the existing than 500 individuals based on results of sizes (Melbourne and Hastings 2008, p. regulatory mechanisms are not a mark–recapture study (O’Donnell et 100). In conclusion, we do not consider providing adequate protection for the al. 2008, p. 46). Through a review of survey small population size to be a threat in Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau information available in our files and and of itself to the Austin blind or salamanders or their habitats either now provided to us during the peer review Jollyville Plateau salamanders, but their or in the future. and public comment period for the small population sizes make them more E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors proposed rule, we noted the highest vulnerable to extinction from other Affecting Their Continued Existence number of individuals counted during existing or potential threats, such as a survey events that have occurred over major stochastic event. We consider the Small Population Size and Stochastic the last 10 years. We used these survey level of impacts from stochastic events Events counts as an index of salamander to be moderate for the Jollyville Plateau The Austin blind and Jollyville population health and relative salamander, because this species has Plateau salamanders may be more abundance. We recognize these counts more populations over a broader range. susceptible to threats and impacts from do not represent true population counts On the other hand, recolonization stochastic events because of their small or estimates because they are reflective following a stochastic event is not likely population sizes (Van Dyke 2008, p. of only the number of salamanders for the Austin blind salamander due to 218). The risk of extinction for any observed in the surface habitat at a its limited distribution and low species is known to be highly inversely specific point in time. However, the numbers. Therefore, the impact from a correlated with population size data provide the best available stochastic event for the Austin blind (O’Grady et al. 2004, pp. 516, 518; information to consider relative salamander is a significant threat. Pimm et al. 1988, pp. 774–775). In other population sizes of salamanders. words, the smaller the population, the Through this assessment, we Ultraviolet Radiation greater the overall risk of extinction. determined that surveys at many sites Increased levels of ultraviolet-B (UV– Population size estimates that take into have never yielded as many as 50 B) radiation, due to depletion of the account detection probability have not individuals. In fact, 33 of the 106 (31 stratospheric ozone layers, may lead to been generated at most sites for these percent) Jollyville Plateau salamander declines in amphibian populations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51319

(Blaustein and Kiesecker 2002, pp. 598– Deformities in Jollyville Plateau (Fagan et al. 2002, p. 3,255). Although 600). For example, research has Salamanders it may be possible for Eurycea demonstrated that UV–B radiation Jollyville Plateau salamanders salamanders to travel through aquifer causes significant mortality and observed at the Stillhouse Hollow conduits from one surface population to deformities in developing long-toed monitoring sites have shown high another, or that two individuals from salamanders (Ambystoma incidences of deformities, such as different populations could breed in macrodactylum) (Blaustein et al. 1997, curved spines, missing eyes, missing subsurface habitat, there is no direct p. 13,735). Exposure to UV–B radiation limbs or digits, and eye injuries evidence that they currently migrate reduces growth in clawed frogs (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 26). The from one surface population to another on a regular basis. Just because there is (Xenopus laevis) (Hatch and Burton, Stillhouse Hollow location was also 1998, p. 1,783) and lowers hatching detectable gene flow between two cited as having the highest observation success in Cascades frogs (Rana populations does not necessarily mean of dead Jollyville Plateau salamanders cascadae) and western toads (Bufo that there is current or routine dispersal (COA 2001, p. 88). Although water boreas) (Kiesecker and Blaustein 1995, between populations that could allow quality is relatively low in the pp. 11,050–11,051). In lab experiments for recolonization of a site should the Stillhouse Hollow drainage (O’Donnell with spotted salamanders, UV–B population be extirpated by a et al. 2006, pp. 26, 37), no statistical radiation diminished their swimming catastrophic event (Gillespie 2012, correlations were found between the ability (Bommarito et al. 2010, p. 1151). University of Texas, pers. comm.). number of deformities and nitrate Additionally, UV–B radiation may act In conclusion, restricted ranges could concentrations (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. synergistically (the total effect is greater negatively affect any of the Austin blind than the sum of the individual effects) 26). Environmental toxins are the and Jollyville Plateau salamanders’ with other factors (for example, suspected cause of salamander populations in combination with other contaminants, pH, pathogens) to cause deformities (COA 2001, pp. 70–74; threats (such as water quality or water declines in amphibians (Alford and O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 25), but quantity degradation) and lead to the Richards 1999, p. 141; see ‘‘Synergistic deformities in amphibians can also be species being at a higher risk of and Additive Interactions among the result of genetic mutations, parasitic extinction. We consider the level of Stressors’’ below). Some researchers infections, UV–B radiation, or the lack impacts from stochastic events to be have indicated that future increases in of an essential nutrient. More research moderate for the Jollyville Plateau UV–B radiation will have significant is needed to elucidate the cause of these salamander, because even though this detrimental impacts on amphibians that deformities. We consider deformities to species has more populations over a are sensitive to this radiation (Blaustein be a low-level impact to the Jollyville broader range, the range is still and Belden 2003, p. 95). Plateau salamander at this time because restricted and the species’ continued The effect of increased UV–B this stressor is an issue at only one site, existence could be compromised by a radiation on the Austin blind and is not affecting the entire population common event. On the other hand, Jollyville Plateau salamanders is there, and does not appear to be an issue recolonization following a stochastic unknown. It is unlikely the few cave for the other salamander species. event is less likely for the Austin blind populations of Jollyville Plateau Other Natural Factors salamander due to its limited salamanders that are restricted entirely distribution and low numbers. to the subsurface are exposed to UV–B The highly restricted ranges of the Therefore, the impact from a stochastic radiation. In addition, exposure of the salamanders and entirely aquatic event for the Austin blind salamander is Austin blind salamander may be limited environment make them extremely a significant threat. because they largely reside vulnerable to threats such as decreases Synergistic and Additive Interactions underground. Surface populations of in water quality and quantity. This is Among Stressors these species may receive some especially true for the Austin blind protection from UV–B radiation through salamander, which is found in only one The interactions among multiple shading from trees or from hiding under locality comprising three hydrologically stressors (contaminants, UV–B rocks at some spring sites. Substrate connected springs of Barton Springs. radiation, pathogens) may be alteration may put these species at Due to its limited distribution, the contributing to amphibian population greater risk of UV–B exposure and Austin blind salamander is sensitive to declines (Blaustein and Kiesecker 2002, impacts. Because eggs are likely stochastic incidences, such as storm p. 598). Multiple stressors may act deposited underground (Bendik 2011b, events (which can dramatically affect additively or synergistically to have COA, pers. comm.), UV–B radiation may dissolved oxygen levels), catastrophic greater detrimental impacts on have no impact on the hatching success contaminant spills, and leaks of harmful amphibians compared to a single of these species. substances. One catastrophic spill event stressor alone. Kiesecker and Blaustein In conclusion, the effect of increased in Barton Springs could potentially (1995, p. 11,051) found a synergistic UV–B radiation has the potential to cause the extinction of the Austin blind effect between UV–B radiation and a cause deformities or developmental salamander in the wild. pathogen in Cascades frogs and western problems to individuals, but we do not Although rare, catastrophic events toads. Researchers demonstrated that consider this stressor to significantly pose a significant threat to small reduced pH levels and increased levels contribute to the risk of extinction of the populations because they have the of UV–B radiation independently had Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau potential to eliminate all individuals in no effect on leopard frog (Rana pipiens) salamanders at this time. However, UV– a small group (Van Dyke 2008, p. 218). larvae; however, when combined, these B radiation could negatively affect any In the proposed rule, we discussed that two caused significant mortality (Long of the Austin blind and Jollyville the presence of several locations of et al. 1995, p. 1,302). Additionally, Plateau salamanders’ surface Jollyville Plateau salamanders close to researchers demonstrated that UV–B populations in combination with other each other provides some possibility for radiation increases the toxicity of PAHs, threats (such as water quality or water natural recolonization for populations of which can cause mortality and quantity degradation) and contribute to these species if any of these factors deformities on developing amphibians significant declines in population sizes. resulted in a local extirpation event (Hatch and Burton 1998, pp. 1,780–

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51320 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

1,783). Beattie et al. (1992, p. 566) sizes, or limited ranges on the Austin contaminants, as well as dewater demonstrated that aluminum becomes blind and Jollyville Plateau springs by intercepting aquifer conduits. toxic to amphibians at low pH levels. salamanders. Various other threats to habitat exist Also, disease outbreaks may occur only for the Austin blind and Jollyville Cumulative Impacts when there are contaminants or other Plateau salamanders as well. Drought, stressors in the environment that reduce Cumulative Effects From Factors A which may be compounded by the immunity (Alford and Richards 1999, p. Through E effects of global climate change, also degrades water quantity and reduces 141). For example, Christin et al. (2003, Some of the threats discussed in this available habitat for the salamanders. pp. 1,129–1,132) demonstrated that finding could work in concert with one Water quantity can also be reduced by mixtures of pesticides reduced the another to cumulatively create groundwater pumping and decreases in immunity to parasitic infections in situations that impact the Austin blind leopard frogs. baseflow due to increases in impervious and Jollyville Plateau salamanders. Currently, the effect of synergistic cover. Flood events contribute to the Some threats to the species may seem to stressors on the Austin blind and salamanders’ risks of extinction by Jollyville Plateau salamanders is not be of low significance by themselves, degrading water quality through fully known. Furthermore, different but when considered with other threats increased contaminants levels and species of amphibians differ in their that are occurring at each site, such as sedimentation, which may damage or reactions to stressors and combinations small population sizes, the risk of alter substrates, and by removing rocky of stressors (Kiesecker and Blaustein extirpation is increased. Furthermore, substrates or washing salamanders out 1995, p. 11,051; Relyea et al. 2009, pp. we have no direct evidence that of suitable habitat. Impoundments are 367–368; Rohr et al. 2003, pp. 2,387– salamanders currently migrate from one also a threat to the Austin blind and 2,390). Studies that examine the effects population to another on a regular basis, Jollyville Plateau salamanders. Feral of interactions among multiple stressors and many of the populations are hogs are a threat to Jollyville Plateau on the Austin blind and Jollyville situated in a way (that is, they are salamanders, because they can Plateau salamanders are lacking. isolated from one another) where physically alter their surface habitat and However, based on the number of recolonization of extirpated sites is very increase nutrients. Additionally, examples in other amphibians, the unlikely. Cumulatively, as threats to the catastrophic spills and leaks remain a possibility of synergistic effects on these species increase over time in tandem threat for many salamander locations. salamanders cannot be discounted. with increasing urbanization within the All of these threats are projected to surface watersheds of these species, increase in the future as the human Conclusion of Factor E more and more populations will be lost, population and development increases The effect of increased UV–B which will increase the species’ risk of within watersheds that provide habitat radiation is an unstudied stressor to the extinction. for these salamanders. Some of these Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau Overall Threats Summary threats are moderated, in part, by salamanders that has the potential to ongoing conservation efforts, such as cause deformities or development The primary factor threatening the HCPs, preserves, and other programs in problems. The effect of this stressor is Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau place to protect land from the effects of low at this time. Deformities have been salamanders is the present or threatened urbanization and to gather water quality documented in the Jollyville Plateau destruction, modification, or data that would be helpful in designing salamander, but at only one location curtailment of its habitat or range conservation strategies for the (Stillhouse Hollow). We do not know (Factor A). Degradation of habitat, in the salamander species. Overall, we what causes these deformities, and there form of reduced water quality and consider the combined threats of Factor is no evidence that the incidence rate is quantity and disturbance of spring sites A to be ongoing and with a high degree increasing or spreading. Therefore, the (surface habitat), is the primary threat to of impact to the Austin blind and effect of UV–B radiation is low. Finally, the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau Jollyville Plateau salamanders and their small population sizes at most of the salamanders. Reductions in water habitats. sites for the salamanders increases the quality occur primarily as a result of Another factor affecting these risk of local extirpation events. We do urbanization, which increases the salamander species is Factor D, the not necessarily consider small amount of impervious cover in the inadequacy of existing regulatory population size to be a threat in and of watershed and exposes the salamanders mechanisms. Surface water quality data itself to the Austin blind and Jollyville to more hazardous material sources. collected by TCEQ indicates that water Plateau salamanders, but their small Impervious cover increases storm flow, quality degradation is occurring within population sizes make them more erosion, and sedimentation. Impervious many of the surface watersheds vulnerable to extirpation from other cover also changes natural flow regimes occupied by the Austin blind and existing or potential threats, such as within watersheds and increases the Jollyville Plateau salamanders despite stochastic events. Thus, we consider the transport of contaminants common in the existence of numerous State and level of impacts from stochastic events urban environments, such as oils, local regulatory mechanisms to manage to be moderate for the Jollyville Plateau metals, and pesticides. Expanding stormwater and protect water quality. salamander and high for the Austin urbanization results in an increase of Human population growth and blind salamanders due to its more contaminants, such as fertilizers and urbanization in Travis and Williamson limited distribution and low numbers. pesticides, within the watershed, which Counties are projected to continue into degrades water quality at salamander the future as well as the associated Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other spring sites. Additionally, urbanization impacts to water quality and quantity Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting increases nutrient loads at spring sites, (see Factor A discussion above). Its Continued Existence which can lead to decreases in Because existing regulations are not We have no information on any dissolved oxygen levels. Construction providing adequate protection for the conservation efforts currently under activities are a threat to both water salamanders or their habitats, we way to reduce the effects of UV–B quality and quantity because they can consider the existing regulatory radiation, deformities, small population increase sedimentation and exposure to mechanisms inadequate to protect the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51321

Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau are in danger of extinction now (that is, impervious cover, the surface watershed salamanders now and in the future. an endangered species) or are likely to and groundwater recharge and Under Factor E we identified several become in danger of extinction in the contributing zones of Barton Springs stressors that could negatively impact foreseeable future (that is, a threatened have levels of impervious cover that are the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau species). The foreseeable future refers to likely causing habitat degradation. As a salamanders, including the increased the extent to which the Secretary can result, the best available information risk of local extirpation events due to reasonably rely on predictions about the indicates that habitat degradation from small population sizes, UV–B radiation, future in making determinations about urbanization is causing a decline in the and deformities. Although none of these the future conservation status of the Austin blind salamander population stressors rose to the level of being species. A key statutory difference throughout the species’ range now and considered a threat by itself, small between a threatened species and an will cause population declines in the population sizes and restricted ranges endangered species is the timing of future, putting this population at an make the Austin blind and Jollyville when a species may be in danger of elevated risk of extirpation. Plateau salamanders more vulnerable to extinction, either now (endangered Further degradation of water quality extirpation from other existing or species) or in the foreseeable future within the Austin blind salamander’s potential threats, such as stochastic (threatened species). habitat is expected to continue into the events. Thus, we consider the level of future, primarily as a result of an Listing Status Determination for the increase in urbanization. Substantial impacts from stochastic events to be Austin Blind Salamander high for the Austin blind and Jollyville human population growth is ongoing Plateau salamanders due to their low Based on our review of the best within this species’ range, indicating numbers, and especially high for the available scientific and commercial that the urbanization and its effects on Austin blind salamander due to its information, we conclude that the Austin blind salamander habitat will limited distributions. Austin blind salamander is in danger of increase in the future. The Texas State extinction now throughout all of its Data Center (2012, pp. 496–497) has Determination range and, therefore, meets the reported a population increase of 94 Standard for Review definition of an endangered species. percent for Travis County, Texas, from This finding, explained below, is based the year 2010 to 2050. Data indicate that Section 4 of the Act, and its on our conclusions that this species has water quality degradation at Barton implementing regulations at 50 CFR part only one known population that occurs Springs continues to occur despite the 424, set forth the procedures for adding at three spring outlets in Barton Springs, existence of current regulatory species to the Federal Lists of the habitat of this population has mechanisms in place to protect water Endangered and Threatened Wildlife experienced impacts from threats, and quality; therefore, these mechanisms are and Plants. Under section 4(b)(1)(a), the these threats are expected to increase in not adequate to protect this species and Secretary is to make threatened or the future. We find the Austin blind its habitat now, nor do we anticipate endangered determinations required by salamander is at an elevated risk of them to sufficiently protect the species subsection 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of extinction now, and no data indicate in the future (Factor D). the best scientific and commercial data that the situation will improve without An additional threat to the Austin available to her after conducting a significant additional conservation blind salamander is hazardous materials review of the status of the species and intervention. We, therefore, find that the that could be spilled or leaked after taking into account conservation Austin blind salamander warrants an potentially resulting in the efforts by States or foreign nations. The endangered species listing status contamination of both surface and standards for determining whether a determination. groundwater resources. For example, a species is threatened or endangered are Present and future degradation of number of point-sources of pollutants provided in section 3 of the Act. An habitat (Factor A) is the primary threat exist within the Austin blind endangered species is any species that to the Austin blind salamander. This salamander’s range, including 7,600 is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout threat has primarily occurred in the wastewater mains and 9,470 known all or a significant portion of its range.’’ form of reduced water quality from septic facilities in the Barton Springs A threatened species is any species that introduced and concentrated Segment of the Edwards Aquifer as of is ‘‘likely to become an endangered contaminants (for example, PAHs, 2010 (Herrington et al. 2010, pp. 5, 16). species within the foreseeable future pesticides, nutrients, and trace metals), Because this species occurs in only one throughout all or a significant portion of increased sedimentation, and altered population in Barton Springs, a single its range.’’ Per section 4(a)(1) of the Act, stream flow regimes. These stressors are but significant hazardous materials spill in reviewing the status of the species to primarily the result of human within stream drainages of the Austin determine if it meets the definitions of population growth and subsequent blind salamander has the potential to threatened or endangered, we determine urbanization within the watershed and cause this species to go extinct. whether any species is an endangered recharge and contributing zones of the In addition, construction activities species or a threatened species because Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards resulting from urban development may of any of the following five factors: (A) Aquifer. Urbanization is currently negatively impact both water quality The present or threatened destruction, having impacts on Austin blind and quantity because they can increase modification, or curtailment of its salamander habitat. For example, a sedimentation and dewater springs by habitat or range; (B) overutilization for study by the U.S. Geological Survey intercepting aquifer conduits. It has commercial, recreational, scientific, or concluded that baseline water quality in been estimated that total suspended educational purposes; (C) disease or the Barton Springs Segment of the sediment loads have increased 270 predation; (D) the inadequacy of Edwards Aquifer, in terms of nitrate, percent over predevelopment loadings existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) had shifted upward between 2001 and within the Barton Springs Segment of other natural or manmade factors 2010 and was at least partially the result the Edwards Aquifer (COA 1995, pp. 3– affecting its continued existence. of an increase in the land application of 10). The risk of a hazardous material We evaluated whether the Austin treated wastewater (Mahler et al. 2011, spill and effects from construction blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders pp. 34–35). Based on our analysis of activities will increase as urbanization

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51322 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

within the range of the Austin blind threats summarized above, these factors salamander because the overall risk of salamander increases. make the Austin blind salamander extinction is high at this time. The one The habitat of Austin blind population less resilient and more existing population is not sufficiently salamanders is sensitive to direct vulnerable to extinction now. resilient or redundant to withstand physical habitat modification, Because of the fact-specific nature of present and future threats, putting this particularly due to human vandalism of listing determinations, there is no single species in danger of extinction now. the springs and the Barton Springs metric for determining if a species is ‘‘in impoundments. Eliza Spring and danger of extinction’’ now. In the case Listing Determination for the Jollyville Sunken Garden Spring, two of the three of the Austin blind salamander, the best Plateau Salamander spring outlets of the Austin blind available information indicates that In the proposed rule (77 FR 50768, salamander, experience vandalism, habitat degradation has occurred August 22, 2012), the Jollyville Plateau despite the presence of fencing and throughout the only known Austin salamander species was proposed as signage (Dries 2011, COA, pers. comm.). blind salamander population. The threat endangered, rather than threatened, Also, the impoundments have changed of urbanization indicates that this because at that time, we determined the the Barton Springs ecosystem from a Austin blind salamander population is threats to be imminent, and their stream-like system to a more lentic currently at an elevated risk of potential impacts to the species would (still-water) environment, thereby extinction now and will continue to be be catastrophic given the very limited reducing the water system’s ability to at an elevated risk in the future. These range of the species. For this final flush sediments downstream and out of impacts are expected to increase in determination, we took into account salamander habitat. In combination with severity and scope as urbanization data that was made available after the the increased threat from urbanization, within the range of the species proposed rule published, information these threats are likely driving the increases. Also, the combined result of provided by commenters on the Austin blind salamander to the brink of increased impacts to habitat quality and proposed rule, and further discussions extinction now. inadequate regulatory mechanisms leads within the Service to determine whether Future climate change could also us to the conclusion that Austin blind the Jollyville Plateau salamander should affect water quantity and spring flow for salamanders are in danger of extinction be classified as endangered or the Austin blind salamander. Climate now. This Austin blind salamander threatened. Based on our review of the change could compound the threat of population has become degraded from best available scientific and commercial decreased water quantity at salamander urbanization, low resiliency and is information, we conclude that the spring sites by decreasing precipitation, subsequently at an elevated risk from Jollyville Plateau salamander is likely to increasing evaporation, and increasing climate change impacts and catastrophic become in danger of extinction in the the likelihood of extreme drought events (for example, drought, floods, foreseeable future throughout all of its events. The Edwards Aquifer is hazardous material spills). Therefore, range and, therefore, meets the projected to experience additional stress because the only known Austin blind definition of a threatened species, rather from climate change that could lead to salamander population is at an elevated than endangered. This finding, decreased recharge and low or ceased risk of extinction, the Austin blind explained below, is based on our spring flows given increasing pumping salamander is in danger of extinction conclusions that many populations of demands (Loa´iciga et al. 2000, pp. 192– throughout all of its range now, and the species have begun to experience 193). Evidence of climate change has appropriately meets the definition of an impacts from threats to its habitat, and been observed in Texas, such as the endangered species (that is, in danger of these threats are expected to increase in record-setting drought of 2011, with extinction now). the future. As the threats increase, we extreme droughts becoming much more Under the Act and our implementing expect Jollyville Plateau salamander probable than they were 40 to 50 years regulations, a species may warrant populations to be extirpated, reducing ago (Rupp et al. 2012, pp. 1053–1054). listing if it is threatened or endangered the overall representation and Drought lowers water quality in Barton throughout all or a significant portion of redundancy across the species’ range Springs due to saline water its range. The threats to the survival of and increasing the species’ risk of encroachments in the Barton Springs this species occur throughout its range extinction. We find the Jollyville Segment of the Edwards Aquifer (Slade and are not restricted to any particular Plateau salamander will be at an et al. 1986, p. 62; Johns 2006, p. 8). significant portion of its range. elevated risk of extinction in the future, Recent droughts have negatively Accordingly, our assessments and and no data indicate that the situation impacted Austin blind salamander determinations apply to this species will improve without significant abundance (Dries 2012, pp. 16–18), throughout its entire range. additional conservation intervention. reducing the resiliency of the sole In conclusion, as described above, the We, therefore, find that the Jollyville population. Therefore, climate change is Austin blind salamander is subject to Plateau salamander warrants a an ongoing threat to this species and significant threats now, and these threatened species listing status contributes to the likelihood of the threats will continue to become more determination. Austin blind salamander becoming severe in the future. After a review of Present and future degradation of extinct now. the best available scientific information habitat (Factor A) is the primary threat Other natural or manmade factors as it relates to the status of the species to the Jollyville Plateau salamander. (Factor E) affecting the Austin blind and the five listing factors, we find the This threat has primarily occurred in salamander population include UV–B Austin blind salamander is currently on the form of reduced water quality from radiation, small population sizes, the brink of extinction. Therefore, on introduced and concentrated stochastic events (such as floods or the basis of the best available scientific contaminants (for example, PAHs, droughts), and synergistic and additive and commercial information, we list the pesticides, nutrients, and trace metals), interactions among the stressors Austin blind salamander as an increased sedimentation, and altered mentioned above. While these factors endangered species in accordance with stream flow regimes. These stressors are are not threats to the existence of the section 3(6) of the Act. We find that a primarily the result of human Austin blind salamander in and of threatened species status is not population growth and subsequent themselves, in combination with the appropriate for the Austin blind urbanization within the watersheds and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51323

recharge and contributing zones of the In addition, construction activities Other natural or manmade factors groundwater supporting spring and cave resulting from urban development may (Factor E) affecting all Jollyville Plateau sites. Urbanization affects both surface negatively impact both water quality salamander populations include UV–B and subsurface habitat and is currently and quantity because they can increase radiation, small population sizes, having impacts on Jollyville Plateau sedimentation and dewater springs by stochastic events (such as floods or salamander counts. For example, intercepting aquifer conduits. Increased droughts), and synergistic and additive Bendik (2011a, pp. 26–27) demonstrated sedimentation from construction interactions among the stressors that declining trends in counts are activities has been linked to declines in mentioned above. While these factors correlated with high levels of Jollyville Plateau salamander counts at are not threats to the existence of the impervious cover. Based on our analysis multiple sites (Turner 2003, p. 24; Jollyville Plateau salamander in and of of impervious cover (which we use as a O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34). The risk themselves in combination with the proxy for urbanization) throughout the of a hazardous material spill and effects threats summarized above, these factors range of the Jollyville Plateau from construction activities will make Jollyville Plateau salamander salamander, 81 of the 93 surface increase as urbanization within the populations less resilient and more watersheds occupied by Jollyville range of the Jollyville Plateau vulnerable to population extirpations in Plateau salamanders have levels of salamander increases. the foreseeable future. impervious cover that are likely causing The habitat of Jollyville Plateau Because of the fact-specific nature of habitat degradation. As a result, the best salamanders is sensitive to direct listing determinations, there is no single available information indicates that physical habitat modification, such as metric for determining if a species is ‘‘in habitat degradation from urbanization is those resulting from human recreational danger of extinction’’ now. In the case causing declines in Jollyville Plateau activities, impoundments, feral hogs, of the Jollyville Plateau salamander, the salamander populations throughout and livestock. Destruction of Jollyville best available information indicates that most of the species’ range now or will Plateau salamander habitat has been habitat degradation has resulted in cause population declines in the future, attributed to vandalism (COA 2001, p. measureable impacts on salamander putting these populations at an elevated 21), human recreational use (COA 2001, counts. But, given that there are 106 risk of extirpation. p. 21), impoundments (O’Donnell et al. surface and 16 cave populations, it is Further degradation of water quality 2008, p. 1; Bendik 2011b, pers. comm.), unlikely that any of the current threats within the Jollyville Plateau and feral hog activity (O’Donnell et al. are severe enough to impact all of the sites and result in overall species salamander’s habitat is expected to 2006, pp. 34, 46). Because these threats continue into the future, primarily as a extirpation in the near future. The are impacting a limited number of sites, result of an increase in urbanization. Jollyville Plateau salamander’s risk of they are not causing the Jollyville Substantial human population growth is extinction now is not high (it is not in Plateau salamander to be on the brink of ongoing within this species’ range, danger of extinction now). However, the extinction now. However, in indicating that the urbanization and its threat of urbanization will cause the combination with the increased threat effects on Jollyville Plateau salamander Jollyville Plateau salamander to be at an from urbanization, these threats are habitat will increase in the future. The elevated risk of extirpation in the future. likely to drive the Jollyville Plateau Texas State Data Center (2012, pp. 496– Also, the combined result of increased salamander to the brink of extinction in 497, 509) has reported a population impacts to habitat quality and the foreseeable future. increase of 94 percent and 477 percent inadequate regulatory mechanisms leads for Travis and Williamson Counties, Future climate change could also us to the conclusion that Jollyville Texas, respectively, from the year 2010 affect water quantity and spring flow for Plateau salamanders will likely be in to 2050. Data indicate that water quality the Jollyville Plateau salamander. danger of extinction within the degradation in sites occupied by Climate change could compound the foreseeable future. As Jollyville Plateau Jollyville Plateau salamanders continues threat of decreased water quantity at salamander populations become more to occur despite the existence of current salamander spring sites by decreasing degraded, isolated, or extirpated from regulatory mechanisms in place to precipitation, increasing evaporation, urbanization, the species will lose protect water quality; therefore, these and increasing the likelihood of extreme resiliency and be at an elevated risk mechanisms are not adequate to protect drought events. The Edwards Aquifer is from climate change impacts and this species and its habitat now, nor do predicted to experience additional stress catastrophic events, such as drought, we anticipate them to sufficiently from climate change that could lead to floods, and hazardous material spills. protect the species in the future. decreased recharge and low or ceased These events will affect all known Adding to the likelihood of the spring flows given increasing pumping extant populations, putting the Jollyville Jollyville Plateau salamander becoming demands (Loa´iciga et al. 2000, pp. 192– Plateau salamander at a high risk of endangered in the future is the risk from 193). Climate change could cause spring extinction. Therefore, because the hazardous materials that could be sites with small amounts of discharge to resiliency of populations is expected to spilled or leaked, potentially resulting go dry and no longer support decrease in the foreseeable future, the in the contamination of both surface and salamanders, reducing the overall Jollyville Plateau salamander will be groundwater resources. For example, a redundancy and representation for the danger of extinction throughout all of its number of point-sources of pollutants species. Evidence of climate change has range in the foreseeable future, and exist within the Jollyville Plateau been observed in Texas, such as the appropriately meets the definition of a salamander’s range, including leaking record-setting drought of 2011, with threatened species (that is, in danger of underground storage tanks and sewage extreme droughts becoming much more extinction in the foreseeable future). spills from pipelines (COA 2001, pp. 16, probable than they were 40 to 50 years After a review of the best available 21, 74). A significant hazardous ago (Rupp et al. 2012, p. 1,053–1,054). scientific information as it relates to the materials spill within stream drainages Therefore, climate change is an ongoing status of the species and the five listing of the Jollyville Plateau salamander has threat to this species and will add to the factors, we find the Jollyville Plateau the potential to threaten the long-term likelihood of the Jollyville Plateau salamander is not currently in danger of survival and sustainability of multiple salamander becoming endangered extinction, but will be in danger of populations. within the foreseeable future. extinction in the future throughout all of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51324 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

its range. Therefore, on the basis of the measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of from a variety of sources, including best available scientific and commercial the Act requires the Service to develop Federal budgets, State programs, and information, we are listing the Jollyville and implement recovery plans for the cost-share grants for non-Federal Plateau salamander as a threatened conservation of endangered and landowners, the academic community, species, in accordance with section 3(6) threatened species. The recovery and nongovernmental organizations. In of the Act. We find that an endangered planning process involves the addition, pursuant to section 6 of the species status is not appropriate for the identification of actions that are Act, the State of Texas will be eligible Jollyville Plateau salamander because necessary to halt or reverse the decline for Federal funds to implement the species is not in danger of extinction in the species’ status by addressing the management actions that promote the at this time. While some threats to the threats to its survival and recovery. The protection or recovery of the Austin Jollyville Plateau salamander are goal of this process is to restore listed blind and Jollyville Plateau occurring now, the impacts from these species to a point where they are secure, salamanders. Information on our grant threats are not yet at a level that puts self-sustaining, and functioning programs that are available to aid this species in danger of extinction now. components of their ecosystems. species recovery can be found at: http:// Habitat degradation and associated Recovery planning includes the www.fws.gov/grants. salamander count declines have been development of a recovery outline Section 7(a) of the Act requires observed at urbanized sites. shortly after a species is listed and Federal agencies to evaluate their Furthermore, some Jollyville Plateau preparation of a draft and final recovery actions with respect to any species that salamander sites are located within plan. The recovery outline guides the is proposed or listed as endangered or preserves and receive some protections immediate implementation of urgent threatened and with respect to its from threats occurring to the species recovery actions and describes the critical habitat, if any is designated. now. While the populations within process to be used to develop a recovery Regulations implementing this preserves are not free from the impacts plan. Revisions of the plan may be done interagency cooperation provision of the of urbanization, they are at a lower risk to address continuing or new threats to Act are codified at 50 CFR Part 402. of extirpation because of the protections the species, as new substantive Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires in place. Even so, with future information becomes available. The Federal agencies to confer with the urbanization outside of the preserves recovery plan identifies site-specific Service on any action that is likely to and the added effects of climate change, management actions that set a trigger for jeopardize the continued existence of a we expect habitat degradation to review of the five factors that control species proposed for listing or result in continue into the foreseeable future to whether a species remains endangered destruction or adverse modification of the point where the species has an or may be downlisted or delisted, and proposed critical habitat. If a species is increased risk of extinction. methods for monitoring recovery listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of Under the Act and our implementing progress. Recovery plans also establish the Act requires Federal agencies to regulations, a species may warrant a framework for agencies to coordinate ensure that activities they authorize, listing if it is threatened or endangered their recovery efforts and provide fund, or carry out are not likely to throughout all or a significant portion of estimates of the cost of implementing jeopardize the continued existence of its range. The threats to the survival of recovery tasks. Recovery teams the species or destroy or adversely this species occur throughout its range (comprising species experts, Federal modify its critical habitat. If a Federal and are not restricted to any particular and State agencies, nongovernmental action may affect a listed species or its significant portion of its range. organizations, and stakeholders) are critical habitat, the responsible Federal Accordingly, our assessments and often established to develop recovery agency must enter into formal determinations apply to this species plans. When completed, the recovery consultation with the Service. throughout its entire range. outline, draft recovery plan, and the Federal agency actions within the final recovery plan will be available on species habitat that may require Available Conservation Measures our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ conference or consultation or both as Conservation measures provided to endangered), or from our Austin described in the preceding paragraph species listed as endangered or Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR include management, construction, and threatened species under the Act FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). any other activities with the possibility include recognition, recovery actions, Implementation of recovery actions of altering aquatic habitats, groundwater requirements for Federal protection, and generally requires the participation of a flow paths, and natural flow regimes prohibitions against certain practices. broad range of partners, including other within the ranges of the Austin blind Recognition through listing results in Federal agencies, States, tribes, and Jollyville Plateau salamanders. public awareness and conservation by nongovernmental organizations, Such consultations could be triggered Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, businesses, and private landowners. through the issuance of section 404 private organizations, and individuals. Examples of recovery actions include Clean Water Act permits by the Army The Act encourages cooperation with habitat restoration (for example, Corps of Engineers or other actions by the States and requires that recovery restoration of native vegetation), the Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and actions be carried out for all listed research, captive propagation and Bureau of Reclamation; construction species. The protection required by reintroduction, and outreach and and maintenance of roads or highways Federal agencies and the prohibitions education. The recovery of many listed by the Federal Highway Administration; against certain activities are discussed, species cannot be accomplished solely landscape-altering activities on Federal in part, below. on Federal lands because their range lands administered by the Department The primary purpose of the Act is the may occur primarily or solely on non- of Defense; and construction and conservation of endangered and Federal lands. To achieve recovery of management of gas pipelines and power threatened species and the ecosystems these species requires cooperative line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy upon which they depend. The ultimate conservation efforts on private, State, Regulatory Commission. goal of such conservation efforts is the tribal, and other lands. The Act and its implementing recovery of these listed species, so that Once these species are listed, funding regulations set forth a series of general they no longer need the protective for recovery actions will be available prohibitions and exceptions that apply

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 51325

to all endangered wildlife. The predictability, to reduce uncertainty, Data Quality Act prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, and to use the best, most innovative, In developing this rule, we did not codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered and least burdensome tools for conduct or use a study, experiment, or wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any achieving regulatory ends. The survey requiring peer review under the person subject to the jurisdiction of the executive order directs agencies to Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554). United States to take (includes harass, consider regulatory approaches that harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, reduce burdens and maintain flexibility References Cited trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt and freedom of choice for the public A complete list of all references cited any of these), import, export, ship in where these approaches are relevant, in this rule is available on the Internet interstate commerce in the course of feasible, and consistent with regulatory at http://www.regulations.gov or upon commercial activity, or sell or offer for objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes request from the Field Supervisor, sale in interstate or foreign commerce further that regulations must be based Austin Ecological Services Field Office any listed species. Under the Lacey Act on the best available science and that (see ADDRESSES). (18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), the rulemaking process must allow for Author(s) it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, public participation and an open carry, transport, or ship any such exchange of ideas. We have developed The primary author of this document wildlife that has been taken illegally. this rule in a manner consistent with is staff from the Austin Ecological Certain exceptions apply to agents of the these requirements. Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) Service and State conservation agencies. with support from the Arlington, Texas, We may issue permits to carry out Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Ecological Services Field Office. otherwise prohibited activities U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) involving endangered and threatened List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 This rule does not contain any new wildlife species under certain Endangered and threatened species, collections of information that require circumstances. Regulations governing Exports, Imports, Reporting and approval by OMB under the Paperwork permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for recordkeeping requirements, Reduction Act. This rule will not endangered wildlife, and at 50 CFR Transportation. 17.32 for threatened wildlife. With impose recordkeeping or reporting regard to endangered wildlife, a permit requirements on State or local Regulation Promulgation must be issued for the following governments, individuals, businesses, or Accordingly, we amend part 17, purposes: for scientific purposes, to organizations. An agency may not subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the enhance the propagation or survival of conduct or sponsor, and a person is not Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: the species, and for incidental take in required to respond to, a collection of connection with otherwise lawful information unless it displays a PART 17—[AMENDED] activities. currently valid OMB control number. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 Required Determinations National Environmental Policy Act continues to read as follows: Regulatory Planning and Review We have determined that Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) environmental assessments and 1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. Executive Order 12866 provides that environmental impact statements, as ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding entries the Office of Information and Regulatory defined under the authority of the for ‘‘Salamander, Austin blind’’ and Affairs in the Office of Management and National Environmental Policy Act ‘‘Salamander, Jollyville Plateau’’ in Budget (OMB) will review all significant (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not alphabetical order under AMPHIBIANS rules. The Office of Information and be prepared in connection with listing to the List of Endangered and Regulatory Affairs has determined that a species as an endangered or Threatened Wildlife to read as follows: this rule is not significant. threatened species under the Act. We Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the published a notice outlining our reasons § 17.11 Endangered and threatened principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for this determination in the Federal wildlife. for improvements in the nation’s Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR * * * * * regulatory system to promote 49244). (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

******* AMPHIBIANS

******* Salamander, Austin Eurycea U.S.A...... Entire ...... E 817 17.95(d) NA blind. waterlooensis. (TX) ......

******* Salamander, Eurycea tonkawae .. U.S.A...... Entire ...... T 817 17.95(d) NA Jollyville Plateau. (TX) ......

*******

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 51326 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * * Dated: August 5, 2013. Dan Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2013–19715 Filed 8–19–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\20AUR2.SGM 20AUR2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2