Vol. 77 Wednesday, No. 163 August 22, 2012

Part II

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Four Central Texas Salamanders and Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50768 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR from the Austin Ecological Services deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Field Office (see FOR FURTHER Information Relay Service (FIRS) at Fish and Wildlife Service INFORMATION CONTACT). 800–877–8339. The coordinates or plot points or both SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 50 CFR Part 17 from which the maps are generated are Executive Summary [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035; included in the administrative record 4500030114] for this critical habitat designation and Why We Need to Publish a Rule are available at (http://www.fws.gov/ This is a proposed rule to list the RIN 1018–AY22 southwest/es/AustinTexas/), http:// Austin blind salamander (Eurycea regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R2– Endangered and Threatened Wildlife waterlooensis), Jollyville Plateau ES–2012–0035, and at the Austin and Plants; Endangered Status for salamander (Eurycea tonkawae), Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR Four Central Texas Salamanders and Georgetown salamander (Eurycea FURTHER INFROMATION CONTACT). Any Designation of Critical Habitat naufragia), and Salado salamander additional tools or supporting (Eurycea chisholmensis) as endangered. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, information that we may develop for With this rule, we are proposing to Interior. this critical habitat designation will also designate the following critical habitat be available at the above locations. ACTION: Proposed rule. for the four central Texas salamanders: Written Comments: You may submit • Austin Blind salamander: 120 acres SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and written comments by one of the (49 hectares) Wildlife Service (Service), propose to following methods: • Jollyville Plateau salamander: 4,460 list the Austin blind salamander, (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal Jollyville Plateau salamander, acres (1,816 hectares) eRulemaking Portal: http:// • Georgetown salamander: 1,031 Georgetown salamander, and Salado www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket acres (423 hectares) salamander as endangered under the No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035. You may • Salado salamander: 372 acres (152 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as submit a comment by clicking on hectares) amended (Act), and propose to ‘‘Comment Now!’’ The proposed critical habitat is designate critical habitat for the species. (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail located within Travis, Williamson, and In total, we propose to designate or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Bell Counties, Texas. approximately 5,983 acres (2,440 Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2012– hectares) as critical habitat for the four 0035ES–2012–0035; Division of Policy The Basis for Our Action species. The proposed critical habitat is and Directives Management; U.S. Fish Under the Endangered Species Act, located in Travis, Williamson, and Bell and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax we can determine that a species is Counties, Texas. Drive, MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA endangered or threatened based on any DATES: We will accept comments 22203. of the following five factors: (A) received or postmarked on or before We request that you send comments Destruction, modification, or October 22, 2012. Comments submitted only by the methods described above. curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) electronically using the Federal We will post all comments on http:// overutilization for commercial, eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES www.regulations.gov. This generally recreational, scientific, or educational section, below) must be received by means that we will post any personal purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing information you provide us (see the inadequacy of existing regulatory date. We must receive requests for Information Requested section below for mechanisms; or (E) other natural or public hearings, in writing, at the more information). manmade factors affecting the species address shown in the FOR FURTHER Public informational sessions and continued existence. Based on our INFORMATION CONTACT section by October public hearings: The September 5, 2012, analysis under the five factors, we find 9, 2012. public informational session and that the four central Texas salamanders Public Informational Sessions and hearing will be held at the Wingate by are primarily threatened by: factors A Public Hearings: We will hold two Wyndham Round Rock, 1209 N. IH 35 and D. Therefore, these species qualify public informational sessions and two North, Exit 253 at Hwy 79, Round Rock, for listing, which can only be done by public hearings on this proposed rule. Texas 78664. The September 6, 2012, issuing a rule. We will hold a public informational public informational session and The Act requires that the Secretary session from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., hearing will be held at Thompson designate critical habitat for a species, to followed by a public hearing from 7 Conference Center, 2405 Robert Dedman the maximum extent prudent and p.m. to 8:30 p.m., in Round Rock, Texas, Drive, Room 2.102, Austin, Texas determinable, concurrently with making on Wednesday, September 5 (see 78705. People needing reasonable a determination that a species is an ADDRESSES). We will hold a public accommodations in order to attend and endangered or threatened species. informational session from 6:30 p.m. to participate in the public hearings Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that 7:30 p.m., followed by a public hearing should contact Adam Zerrenner, Field the Secretary designate critical habitat from 8 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., in Austin, Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services based upon the best scientific data Texas, on Thursday, September 6 (see Field Office, as soon as possible (see FOR available, and after taking into ADDRESSES). Registration to present oral FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). consideration the economic impact, the comments on the proposed rule at the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: impact on national security, and any public hearings will begin at the start of Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. other relevant impact of specifying any each informational session. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin particular area as critical habitat. ADDRESSES: Document availability: You Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Section 4(b)(2) of the Act provides that may obtain copies of the proposed rule Burnet Rd, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; the Secretary may exclude any area from on the Internet at http:// by telephone 512–490–0057; or by critical habitat if he determines that the www.regulations.gov at Docket No. facsimile 512–490–0974. Persons who benefits of excluding that area outweigh FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035 or by mail use a telecommunications device for the the benefits of including it in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50769

designation, unless such an exclusion U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) including whether understanding, or to better would result in the extinction of the there are threats to the species from accommodate public concerns and species. This ‘‘weighing’’ of human activity, the degree of which can comments. considerations under section 4(b)(2) of be expected to increase due to the Please note that submissions merely the Act is the next step in the designation, and whether that increase stating support for or opposition to the designation process, in which the in threat outweighs the benefit of action under consideration without Secretary may consider particular areas designation, such that the designation of providing supporting information, for exclusion from the final designation. critical habitat may not be prudent. although noted, will not be considered We are preparing an economic (6) Specific information on: in making a determination, as section analysis. To ensure that we consider the (a) The amount and distribution of the 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that economic impacts, we are preparing a four central Texas salamanders’ determinations as to whether any draft economic analysis of the proposed habitats, species is an endangered or critical habitat designations. We will (b) What areas, that are currently threatenedspecies must be made ‘‘solely use information from this analysis to occupied by these species, that contain on the basis of the best scientific and inform the development of our final features essential to their conservation, commercial data available.’’ designation of critical habitat for these (c) Special management You may submit your comments and species. considerations or protection that may be materials concerning this proposed rule We will seek peer review. We are needed in critical habitat areas we are by one of the methods listed in the seeking comments from independent proposing, including managing for the ADDRESSES section. We request that you specialists to ensure that our critical potential effects of climate change, send comments only by the methods habitat designations are based on (d) What areas not occupied at the described in the ADDRESSES section. scientifically sound data, assumptions, time of listing are essential for the If you submit information via http:// and analyses. We have invited these conservation of these species and why, www.regulations.gov, your entire peer reviewers to comment on our (e) How subterranean populations of submission—including any personal specific assumptions and conclusions in these four salamander species are identifying information—will be posted these proposed critical habitat distributed underground, and on the Web site. If your submission is designations. Because we will consider (f) The interconnectedness of made via a hardcopy that includes all comments and information we salamander habitats in terms of personal identifying information, you receive during the comment period, our hydrology, and whether salamanders are may request at the top of your document final determinations may differ from able to move between sites through that we withhold this information from this proposal. underground aquifer conduits. public review. However, we cannot (7) Land use designations and current guarantee that we will be able to do so. Information Requested or planned activities in the subject areas We will post all hardcopy submissions We intend that any final action and their possible impacts on the four on http://www.regulations.gov. Please resulting from this proposed rule will be central Texas salamanders and on include sufficient information with your based on the best scientific and proposed critical habitat. comments to allow us to verify any commercial data available and be as (8) Information on the projected and scientific or commercial information accurate and as effective as possible. reasonably likely impacts of climate you include. Therefore, we request comments or change on the four central Texas Comments and materials we receive, information from other concerned salamanders and proposed critical as well as supporting documentation we governmental agencies, Native habitat. used in preparing this proposed rule, American tribes, the scientific (9) Any probable economic, national will be available for public inspection community, industry, or any other security, or other relevant impacts of on http://www.regulations.gov, or by interested parties concerning this designating any area that may be appointment, during normal business proposed rule. We particularly seek included in the final critical habitat hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife comments concerning: designation; in particular, we seek Service, Austin Ecological Services (1) Biological, commercial trade, or information on any impacts on small Field Office (see FOR FURTHER other relevant data concerning any entities or families, and the benefits of INFORMATION CONTACT). including or excluding areas that exhibit threats (or lack thereof) to these species Previous Federal Actions and regulations that may be addressing these impacts. those threats. (10) Whether any specific areas we are The Austin blind and Salado (2) Additional information concerning proposing for critical habitat salamanders were included in nine the historical and current status, range, designation should be considered for Candidate Notices of Review (67 FR distribution, and population size of exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 24876, May these species, including the locations of Act, and whether the benefits of 4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; 71 any additional populations of these potentially excluding any specific area FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR species. outweigh the benefits of including that 69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176, (3) Any information on the biological area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act; for December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, or ecological requirements of these example, areas that have a 10(a)(1)(B) November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, species, and ongoing conservation permit and habitat conservation plan November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, measures for these species and their (HCP) that covers any of these October 26, 2011). The listing priority habitats. salamanders may be considered for number has remained at 2 throughout (4) Current or planned activities in the exclusion (potentially including the the reviews for both species, indicating areas occupied by the species and Four Points HCP that covers Jollyville that threats to the species were both possible impacts of these activities on Plateau salamanders). imminent and high in magnitude. In these species. (11) Whether we could improve or addition, on May 11, 2004, the Service (5) The reasons why we should or modify our approach to designating received a petition from the Center for should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical critical habitat in any way to provide for Biological Diversity to list 225 species habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 greater public participation and we previously had identified as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50770 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

candidates for listing in accordance candidate species whose listing was Blanco, Bell, Burnet, Lampasas, Mills, with section 4 of the Act, including the precluded by higher priority actions. Hays, Coryell, and Hamilton Counties, Austin blind and Salado salamanders. Texas (Hill Country Foundation 1995, p. Endangered Status for the Four Central The Jollyville Plateau salamander was 1). The three salamander species that Texas Salamanders petitioned to be listed as an endangered occur in the Northern Segment of the species on June 13, 2005, by Save Our Background Edwards Aquifer (Jollyville Plateau, Springs Alliance. Action on this petition It is our intent to discuss below only Georgetown, and Salado salamanders) was precluded by court orders and those topics directly relevant to the have very similar external morphology. settlement agreements for other listing proposed listing of the Austin blind Because of this, they were previously actions until 2006. On February 13, believed to be the same species; salamander, Jollyville Plateau 2007, we published a 90-day petition however, molecular evidence strongly salamander, Georgetown salamander, finding (72 FR 6699) in which we indicates that there is a high level of and Salado salamander as endangered concluded that the petition presented divergence between the three groups in this section of the proposed rule. substantial information indicating that (Chippindale et al. 2000, pp. 15–16). listing may be warranted. On December Species Information The four central Texas salamander species spend varying portions of their 13, 2007, we published the 12-month All four central Texas salamanders finding (72 FR 71040) on the Jollyville life within their surface (in or near (Austin blind, Jollyville Plateau, Plateau salamander, which concluded spring openings and pools as well as Georgetown, and Salado salamanders) that listing was warranted, but spring runs) and subsurface (within are neotenic (do not transform into a precluded by higher priority actions. caves or other underground areas within terrestrial form) members of the family The Jollyville Plateau salamander was the Edwards Aquifer) habitats. They Plethodontidae. Plethodontid subsequently included in all of our travel an unknown depth into salamanders comprise the largest family annual Candidate Notices of Review (73 interstitial spaces (empty voids between of salamanders within the Order FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR rocks) within the spring or streambed Caudata, and are characterized by an 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, substrate that provide foraging habitat absence of lungs (Petranka 1998, pp. November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, and protection from predators and October 26, 2011). Throughout the three 157–158). As neotenic salamanders, drought conditions (Cole 1995, p. 24; reviews, the listing priority number has they retain external feathery gills and Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. 16–17). They remained at 8, indicating that threats to inhabit aquatic habitats (springs, spring- may also use deeper passages of the the species were imminent, but runs, and wet caves) throughout their aquifer that connect to the spring moderate to low in magnitude. On lives (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 1). In opening (Dries 2011, City of Austin September 30, 2010, the Jollyville other words, all four of these (COA), pers. comm.). This behavior Plateau salamander was petitioned to be salamanders are entirely aquatic and makes it difficult to accurately estimate emergency listed by Save Our Springs respirate through gills. Also, all adult population sizes, as only salamanders Alliance and Center for Biological salamanders of these four species are on the surface can be regularly Diversity. We issued a petition response about 2 inches (in) (5 centimeters (cm)) monitored. Therefore, the status of letter to Save Our Springs Alliance and long (Chippindale et al. 2000, pp. 32– subsurface populations is largely Center for Biological Diversity on 42; Hillis et al. 2001, p. 268). unknown, making it difficult to assess December 1, 2011, which stated that Each species inhabits water of high the effects of threats on the subsurface emergency listing a species is not a quality with a narrow range of populations and their habitat. petitionable action under the conditions (for example, temperature, The Austin blind, Jollyville Plateau, Administrative Procedure Act or the pH, and alkalinity) maintained by the Georgetown, and Salado salamanders Act; therefore, we treat a petition Edwards Aquifer. All four species have much in common. All four species requesting emergency listing solely as a depend on this water from the Edwards are entirely aquatic throughout each petition to list a species under the Act. Aquifer in sufficient quantity and portion of their life cycles and highly The Georgetown salamander was quality to meet their life-history dependent on water from the Edwards included in 10 Candidate Notices of requirements for survival, growth, and Aquifer in sufficient quantity and Review (66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001; reproduction. The Edwards Aquifer is a quality to meet their life-history 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR karst aquifer characterized by open requirements for growth, survival, and 24876, May 4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, May chambers such as caves, fractures, and reproduction. Although detailed dietary 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12, other cavities that were formed either studies are lacking for these four 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; directly or indirectly by dissolution of salamander species, their diets are 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR subsurface rock formations. Water for presumed to be similar to other Eurycea 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, the salamanders is provided by species, consisting of small aquatic November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, infiltration of surface water through the invertebrates such as amphipods, October 26, 2011). In the 2008 review, soil or recharge features (caves, faults, copepods, isopods, and insect larvae the listing priority number was lowered fractures, sinkholes, or other open [reviewed in COA 2001, pp. 5–6]. The from 2 to 8, indicating that threats to the cavities) into the Edwards Aquifer, four central Texas salamanders also species were imminent, but moderate to which discharges from springs as share similar predators, which include low in magnitude. This reduction in groundwater (Schram 1995, p. 91). The centrarchid fish (carnivorous freshwater listing priority number was primarily habitat of one species (Austin blind fish belonging to the sunfish family), due to the land acquisition and salamander) occurs in the Barton crayfish, and large aquatic insects conservation efforts of the Williamson Springs Segment of the Edwards (Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. 18–20; County Conservation Foundation. In Aquifer, while the habitats of the three Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117; Cole 1995, p. addition, the Georgetown salamander other species occur in the Northern 26). Because eggs are very rarely found was petitioned by the Center for Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. The on the surface, it is believed that these Biological Diversity to be listed as an recharge and contributing zones of these salamanders deposit their eggs endangered species on May 11, 2004, segments of the Edwards Aquifer are underground for protection (O’Donnell but at that time, it was already a found in portions of Travis, Williamson, et al. 2005, p. 18). The detection of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50771

juveniles in all seasons suggests that patterns and the actual nature of water for the Barton Springs Pool, and reproduction occurs year-round (Bendik connectivity are largely unknown. is operated by the City of Austin as a 2011a, p. 26; Hillis et al. 2001, p. 273). Because the hydrology of central public swimming pool. These spring Dispersal patterns through streams or Texas is very complex and information sites have been significantly modified aquifers for these four salamander on the hydrology of specific spring sites for human use. The area around Main species are relatively unknown. is largely unknown, we are seeking Springs was impounded in the late However, one study of other closely information on spring hydrology and 1920s to create Barton Springs Pool. related Eurycea species in the salamander dispersal during the public Flows from Eliza and Sunken Garden southeastern portion of central Texas comment period (see ‘‘Information Springs are also retained by concrete found that populations of salamanders Requested’’ above). structures, forming small pools on either are genetically isolated from one Each species is discussed in more side of Barton Springs Pool (COA 1998, another and neither aquifers nor streams detail below. p. 6; Service 2005, p. 1.6–25). The serve as dispersal corridors (Lucas et al. Austin Blind Salamander Austin blind salamander has not been 2009, pp. 1,315–1,316). observed at the fourth Barton Springs On the other hand, some evidence The Austin blind salamander has a outlet, known as Upper Barton Springs suggests that the four Texas salamanders pronounced extension of the snout, no (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 273). For more may be able to travel some distance external eyes, and weakly developed tail information on habitat, see the through subsurface aquifer conduits. fins. In general appearance and ‘‘Proposed Critical Habitat Designation Recent genetic work on the Jollyville coloration, the Austin blind salamander for the Four Central Texas Plateau salamander showed evidence of is more similar to the Texas blind Salamanders’’ section of this proposed gene flow between sites that are not salamander (Eurycea rathbuni) that rule. connected by surface flow (Chippindale occurs in the Southern Segment of the From January 1998 to December 2000, 2010, pp. 9, 18–22). This study suggests Edwards Aquifer than its sympatric there were only 17 documented that central Texas salamanders are (occurring within the same range) observations of the Austin blind regionally isolated, but populations species, the Barton Springs salamander. salamander. During this same time- within those regions have some level of The Austin blind salamander has a frame, 1,518 Barton Springs salamander dispersal ability through the subsurface reflective, lightly pigmented skin with a observations were made (Hillis et al. habitat. For example, the Austin blind pearly white or lavender appearance 2001, p. 273). The abundance of Austin salamander is believed to occur (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 271). Before the blind salamanders increased slightly underground throughout the entire Austin blind salamander was formally from 2002–2006, but fewer observations Barton Springs complex (Dries 2011, described, juvenile salamanders were have been made in more recent years pers. comm.). The spring habitats used sighted occasionally in Barton Springs, (2009–2010) (COA 2011a, pp. 51–52). by salamanders of the Barton Springs and thought to be a variation of the When they are observed, Austin blind complex are not connected on the Barton Springs salamander. It was not salamanders occur in relatively low surface, so the Austin blind salamander until 2001, that enough specimens were numbers (COA 2011a, pp. 51–52). Most population extends at least 984 feet (ft) available to formally describe these of the Austin blind salamanders that (300 meters (m)) underground, as this is juveniles as a separate species using were observed during these surveys the approximate distance between the morphological and genetic were juveniles (less than 1 in (2.5 cm) farthest two outlets within the Barton characteristics (Hillis et al. 2001, p. in total length) (Hillis et al. 2001, p. Springs complex known to be occupied 267). Given the reduced eye structure of 273). Although the technology to safely by the species. the Austin blind salamander, and the and reliably mark salamanders for Due to the similar life history of the fact that it is rarely seen at the water’s individual recognition has recently been other three Eurycea species considered surface (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 267), this developed (O’Donnell et al. 2008, p. 3), here, it is plausible that populations of salamander is thought to be more population estimates for this species these species could also extend this subterranean than the surface-dwelling have not been undertaken, because distance through subterranean habitat. Barton Springs salamander. surveying within the Edwards Aquifer is Dye-trace studies have demonstrated The Austin blind salamander occurs not possible at the current time. that some Jollyville Plateau salamander in Barton Springs in Austin, Texas. However, population estimates are sites located miles apart are connected These springs are fed by the Barton possible for aquifer-dwelling species hydrologically (Hauwert and Warton Springs Segment of the Edwards using genetic techniques, and one such 1997), but it remains unclear if Aquifer. This segment covers roughly study is planned for the Austin blind salamanders are able to travel between 155 square miles (mi) (401 square salamander in the near future (Texas those sites. Also, in Salado, a large kilometers (km)) from southern Travis Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) underground conduit conveys County to northern Hays County, Texas 2011a, p. 11). groundwater from the area under the (Smith and Hunt 2004, p. 7). It has a Stagecoach Hotel to Big Boiling Spring storage capacity of over 300,000 acre- Jollyville Plateau Salamander (Mahler 2012, U.S. Geological Survey, feet. The contributing zone for the Surface-dwelling populations of pers. comm.). Additionally, in Barton Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Jollyville Plateau salamanders have Springs, a mark and recapture study Aquifer that supplies water to the large, well-developed eyes; wide, failed to document the movement of salamander’s spring habitat extends into yellowish heads; blunt, rounded snouts; endangered Barton Springs salamanders Travis, Blanco, and Hays Counties, dark greenish-brown bodies; and bright (Eurycea sosorum) between any of the Texas (Ross 2011, p. 3). yellowish-orange tails (Chippindale et springs in the Barton Springs complex The Austin blind salamander is found al. 2000, pp. 33–34). Some cave forms (Dries 2012, pers. comm.), although this in three of the four Barton Springs of Jollyville Plateau salamanders exhibit study has only recently begun and is outlets in the City of Austin’s Zilker cave-associated morphologies, such as relatively small in scope. In conclusion, Park, Travis County, Texas: Main eye reduction, flattening of the head, there is some evidence that populations (Parthenia) Springs, Eliza Springs, and and dullness or loss of color could be connected through Sunken Garden (Old Mill or Zenobia) (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 37). Genetic subterranean habitat, although dispersal Springs. The Main Springs provides analysis suggests a taxonomic split

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50772 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

within this species that appears to rather than on solid bedrock (COA 2001, (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 38). As with correspond to major geologic and p. 128; Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 114–116). the Jollyville Plateau salamander, the topographic features of the region Surface-dwelling Jollyville Plateau Georgetown salamander has recently (Chippindale 2010, p. 2). Chippindale salamanders also occur in subsurface discovered cave-adapted forms with (2010, pp. 5, 8) concluded that the habitat within the underground aquifer reduced eyes and pale coloration Jollyville Plateau salamander exhibits a (COA 2001, p. 65; Bowles et al. 2006, p. (TPWD 2011a, p. 8). strong genetic separation between two 118). For more on habitat, see the The Georgetown salamander is known lineages within the species: A ‘‘Plateau’’ ‘‘Proposed Critical Habitat Designation from springs along five tributaries clade that occurs in the Bull Creek, for the Four Central Texas (South, Middle, and North Forks; Walnut Creek, Shoal Creek, Brushy Salamanders’’ of this proposed rule. Cowan Creek; and Berry Creek) to the Creek, South Brushy Creek, and Some Jollyville Plateau salamander San Gabriel River (Pierce 2011a, p. 2) southeastern Lake Travis drainages; and populations have experienced decreases and from three caves (aquatic, a ‘‘peripheral’’ clade that occurs in the in abundance in recent years. City of subterranean locations) in Williamson Buttercup Creek and northern Lake Austin survey data indicate that four of County, Texas. A groundwater divide Travis drainages (Chippindale 2010, pp. the nine sites that were regularly between the South Fork of the San 5–8). The study also suggests this monitored by City of Austin staff Gabriel River and Brushy Creek to the genetic separation may actually between December 1996 and January south likely creates the division represent two species (Chippindale 2007 had statistically significant between the ranges of the Jollyville 2010, pp. 5, 8). However, a formal, peer- declines in salamander abundance over Plateau and Georgetown salamanders reviewed description of the two possible 10 years (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 4). (Williamson County 2008, p. 3–34). The species has not been published. We The average number of salamanders Service is currently aware of 16 therefore do not recognize a separation counted at each of these 4 sites declined Georgetown salamander localities. This of the Jollyville Plateau salamander into from 27 salamanders counted during species has not been observed in recent two species because this split has not surveys from 1996 to 1999 to 4 years at two locations (San Gabriel been recognized by the scientific salamanders counted during surveys Spring and Buford Hollow), despite community. from 2004 to 2007. In 2007, monthly several visual survey efforts to find it The Jollyville Plateau salamander mark-recapture surveys were conducted (Pierce 2011b,c, Southwestern occurs in the Jollyville Plateau and in concert with surface counts at three University, pers. comm.). The current Brushy Creek areas of the Edwards sites in the Bull Creek watershed (Lanier population status is unknown for four Plateau in Travis and Williamson Spring, Lower Rieblin, and Wheless sites due to restricted access (Cedar Counties, Texas (Chippindale et al. Spring) over a 6–to–8-month period to Breaks, Shadow Canyon, Hogg Hollow 2000, pp. 35–36; Bowles et al. 2006, p. obtain surface population size estimates Spring, and Bat Well). Georgetown 112; Sweet 1982, p. 433). Upon and detection probabilities for each site salamanders continue to be observed at classification as a species, Jollyville (O’Donnell et al. 2008, p. 11). Surface the remaining 10 sites (Swinbank Plateau salamanders were known from population estimates at Lanier Spring Spring, Knight Spring, Twin Springs, Brushy Creek and, within the Jollyville varied from 94 to 249, surface Hogg Hollow Spring, Cowan Creek Plateau, from Bull Creek, Cypress Creek, population estimates at the Lower Spring, Cedar Hollow, Cobbs Cavern Long Hollow Creek, Shoal Creek, and Rieblin site varied from 78 to 126, and Spring, Cobbs Well, Walnut Spring, and Walnut Creek drainages (Chippindale et surface population estimates at Wheless Water Tank Cave) (Pierce 2011c, pers. al. 2000, p. 36). Since it was described, Spring varied from 187 to 1,024 comm.; Gluesenkamp 2011a, TPWD, the Jollyville Plateau salamander has (O’Donnell et al. 2008, pp. 44–45). pers. comm.). Recent mark-recapture also been documented within the Lake These numbers remained fairly studies suggest a population size of 100 Creek drainage (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. consistent in more recent population to 200 adult salamanders at Twin 1). Cave-dwelling Jollyville Plateau estimates for the three sites (Bendik Springs, with a similar population salamanders are known from 1 cave in 2011a, p. 22). estimate at Swinbank Spring (Pierce the Cypress Creek drainage and 12 caves 2011a, p. 18). Population sizes at other Georgetown Salamander in the Buttercup Creek cave system in sites are unknown, but visual surface the Brushy Creek drainage (Chippindale The Georgetown salamander is counts result in comparatively low et al. 2000, p. 49; Russell 1993, p. 21; characterized by a broad, relatively numbers (Williamson County 2008, pp. Service 1999, p. 6; HNTB 2005, p. 60). short head with three pairs of bright-red 3–35). There are numerous other springs The Jollyville Plateau salamander’s gills on each side behind the jaws, a in Williamson County that may support spring-fed habitat is typically rounded and short snout, and large eyes Georgetown salamander populations, characterized by a depth of less than 1 with a gold iris. The upper body is but private land ownership prevents foot (ft) (0.3 meters (m)) of cool, well generally grayish with varying patterns investigative surveys (Williamson oxygenated water (COA 2001, p. 128; of melanophores (cells containing County 2008, pp. 3–35). Bowles et al. 2006, p. 118) supplied by brown or black pigments called Surface-dwelling Georgetown the underlying Northern Segment of the melanin) and iridophores (cells filled salamanders inhabit spring runs, riffles, Edwards Aquifer (Cole 1995, p. 33). The with iridescent pigments called and pools with gravel and cobble rock aquifer that feeds this salamander’s guanine), while the underside is pale substrates (Pierce et al. 2010, pp. 295– habitat is generally small, shallow, and and translucent. The tail tends to be 296). This species prefers larger cobble localized (Chippindale et al. 2000; p. 36, long with poorly developed dorsal and and boulders to use as cover (Pierce et Cole 1995, p. 26). Jollyville Plateau ventral fins that are golden-yellow at the al. 2010, p. 295). Salamanders are found salamanders are typically found near base, cream-colored to translucent within 164 ft (50 m) of a spring opening springs or seep outflows and likely toward the outer margin, and mottled (Pierce et al. 2011a, p. 4), but they are require constant temperatures (Sweet with melanophores and iridophores. most abundant within the first 16.4 ft (5 1982, pp. 433–434; Bowles et al. 2006, Unlike the Jollyville Plateau m) (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 294). p. 117). Salamander densities are higher salamander, the Georgetown salamander Individuals do not exhibit much in pools and riffles and in areas with has a distinct dark border along the movement throughout the year (Pierce rubble, cobble, or boulder substrates lateral margins of the tail fin et al. 2010, p. 294). The water chemistry

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50773

of Georgetown salamander habitat is 2). In total, the Salado salamander is Factor A. The Present or Threatened constant year-round in terms of known from seven springs. A Destruction, Modification, or temperature and dissolved oxygen groundwater divide between Salado Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 294, Biagas et al. Creek and Berry Creek to the south Habitat modification, in the form of in review, p. 8). Little is known about likely creates a division between the degraded water quality and quantity and the ecology of Georgetown salamanders ranges of the Georgetown and Salado disturbance of spring sites, is the that occupy the cave sites (Cobbs salamander (Williamson County 2008, primary threat to the four central Texas Cavern, Bat Well, and Water Tank Cave) p. 3–34). salamander species. Water quality where this species is known to occur or Of the four salamander species, degradation in salamander habitat has the quality and extent of their Salado salamanders are observed the been cited as the top concern in several subterranean habitats. For more on least and are therefore less understood. studies (Chippindale et al. 2000, pp. 36, habitat, see the ‘‘Proposed Critical Biologists were unable to observe this 40, 43; Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 118–119; Habitat Designation for the Four Central species in its type locality (location O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 45–50), Texas Salamanders’’ section of this because these salamanders spend their proposed rule. from which a specimen was first collected and identified as a species) entire life cycle in water. All of the Salado Salamander despite over 20 visits to Big Boiling species have evolved under natural The Salado salamander has reduced Springs that occurred between 1991 and aquifer conditions both underground eyes compared to other spring-dwelling 1998 (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 43). and as the water discharges from natural Eurycea species in north-central Texas Likewise, TPWD surveyed this site spring outlets. Deviations from that high and lacks well-defined melanophores. It weekly from June 2009 until May 2010, water quality have detrimental effects has a relatively long and flat head, and and found one salamander on salamander ecology, because the a blunt and rounded snout. The upper (Gluesenkamp 2010, pers. comm.) at a aquatic habitat can be rendered body is generally grayish-brown with a spring outlet locally referred to as ‘‘Lil’ unsuitable for salamanders by changes slight cinnamon tinge and an irregular Bubbly’’ located just upstream from Big in water chemistry, quantity, and flow pattern of tiny, light flecks. The Boiling Springs. One additional patterns. Substrate modification is also underside is pale and translucent. The unconfirmed sighting of a Salado a major concern for the salamander posterior portion of the tail generally salamander in Big Boiling Springs was species (COA 2001, pp. 101, 126; has a well-developed dorsal fin, but the reported in 2008, by a citizen of Salado, Geismar 2005, p. 2; O’Donnell et al. ventral tail fin is weakly developed Texas. In 2009, TPWD was granted 2006, p. 34). Unobstructed interstitial (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 42). access to Robertson Springs to survey space (the space between the rocks) is The Salado salamander is known for the Salado salamander. This species critical to habitat of all four salamander historically from four spring sites near was reconfirmed at this location in species, because it provides cover from the village of Salado, Bell County, February 2010 (Gluesenkamp 2010, predators and habitat for Texas: Big Boiling Springs (also known pers. comm.). Salado salamander macroinvertebrate prey items. When the as Main, Salado, or Siren Springs), Lil’ populations appear to be larger at spring interstitial spaces become compacted or Bubbly Spring, Lazy Days Fish Farm sites upstream of the Village of Salado, filled with fine sediment, the amount of Spring, and Robertson Springs probably due to the higher quality of the available foraging habitat and protective (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 43; TPWD habitat (Gluesenkamp 2011c, pers. cover for salamanders is reduced (Welsh 2011a, pp. 1–2). These springs bubble comm.). For more on habitat, see the and Ollivier 1998, p. 1,128). Threats to the habitat of the four up through faults in the Northern ‘‘Proposed Critical Habitat Designation central Texas salamanders may target Segment of the Edwards Aquifer and for the Four Central Texas only the surface habitat, only the associated limestone along Salado Creek Salamanders’’ section of this proposed subsurface habitat, or both habitat types. (Brune 1975, p. 31). The four spring rule. sites all contribute to Salado Creek. For example, substrate modification Under Brune’s (1975, p. 5) definition, Summary of Factors Affecting the degrades the surface springs and spring- which identifies springs depending on Species runs but does not impact the subsurface flow, all sites are considered small (4.5 environment, while water quality to 45 gallons per minute (17 to 170 liters Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), degradation impacts both the surface per minute)) to medium springs (45 to and its implementing regulations at 50 and subsurface habitats. Because of their 449 gallons per minute (170 to 1,1700 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures ability to retreat to the subsurface liters per minute)). Several other spring for adding species to the Federal Lists habitat, the four central Texas sites (Big Bubbly Springs, Critchfield of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife salamander species may be able to Springs, and Anderson Springs) are and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the persist through surface habitat located downstream from Big Boiling Act, we may list a species based on any degradation. For example, drought Springs and Robertson Springs. These of the following five factors: (A) The conditions are common to the region, springs have been surveyed by TPWD present or threatened destruction, and these salamanders’ ability to retreat periodically since June 2009, but no modification, or curtailment of its underground may be an evolutionary salamanders have been found habitat or range; (B) overutilization for adaptation to such natural conditions (Gluesenkamp 2010, pers. comm.). In commercial, recreational, scientific, or (Bendik 2011a, pp. 31–32). However, we August 2009, TPWD discovered a educational purposes; (C) disease or do not fully understand the relative population of salamanders at a new site predation; (D) the inadequacy of importance of the surface and (Solana Spring #1) farther upstream on existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) subsurface habitats to salamander Salado Creek in Bell County, Texas other natural or manmade factors populations. The best available (TPWD 2011a, p. 2). Salado salamanders affecting its continued existence. Listing scientific evidence suggests that surface were recently confirmed at two other actions may be warranted based on any habitats are important for prey spring sites (Cistern and Hog Hollow of the above threat factors, singly or in availability and individual growth. Prey Springs) farther upstream on the Salado combination. Each of these factors is availability for carnivores is low Creek in March 2010 (TPWD 2011a, p. discussed below. underground due to the lack of sunlight

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50774 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

and primary production (Hobbs and that Bell County will increase in urban development within the drainage Culver 2009, p. 392). In addition, length population from 237,974 in 2000, to areas of Austin blind and Jollyville measurements taken during a City of 397,741 in 2040, a 67 percent increase Plateau salamander spring sites has Austin mark-recapture study at Lanier over the 40-year period. By comparison, included residential and commercial Spring demonstrated that Jollyville the national United States’ population is structures, golf courses, and the Plateau salamanders had negative expected to increase from 310,233,000 associated roads and utility pipelines growth during a 10-month period of in 2010, to 405,655,000 in 2040, which (Cole 1995, p. 28; COA 2001, pp. 10– retreating to the subsurface from 2008 to is about a 24 percent increase over the 12). 2009 (Bendik 2011b, COA, pers. 30-year period (U.S. Census Bureau Because detrimental effects due to comm.). Therefore, threats to surface 2012, p. 1). Growing human populations urbanization are occurring to the habitat at a given site may not extirpate increase demand for residential and salamanders’ habitats now, and we any populations of these salamander commercial development, drinking expect those effects to increase in the species, but this type of habitat water supply, wastewater disposal, future, we consider urbanization to be a degradation may severely limit flood control, and other municipal threat to each of the species. We discuss population growth and increase the goods and services that alter the below how each source of the stressors species’ overall risk of extinction from environment, often degrading of urbanization causes threats to the other threats. salamander habitat by changing Austin blind, Jollyville Plateau, The majority of the discussion below hydrologic regimes, and affecting the Georgetown, and Salado salamanders’ under Factor A focuses on evaluating quantity and quality of water resources. habitats. These sources of impacts from the nature and extent of stressors related As development increases within the urbanization include impervious cover to urbanization within the watershed, watersheds, more opportunities exist for and stormwater runoff, land application the primary source of water quality the detrimental effects of urbanization contaminants, hazardous material spills, degradation. Additionally, other sources to impact salamander habitat. Urban construction activities, and water of habitat destruction and modification development upstream of salamander quantity reduction. will be addressed. These include habitat leads to various stressors on Impervious Cover and Stormwater physical habitat modification from spring systems, including increased Runoff human activities and feral hogs, and flow velocities, increased environmental events, such as flooding sedimentation, increased Impervious cover is any surface and drought. contamination, changes in stream material, such as roads, rooftops, morphology and water chemistry, and sidewalks, patios, paved surfaces, or Urbanization Within the Watershed decreases in groundwater recharge. compacted soil, that prevents water The ranges of the four salamander Several researchers have examined from filtering into the soil (Arnold and species reside within increasingly the negative impact of urbanization on Gibbons 1996, p. 244). Once natural urbanized areas of Travis, Williamson, stream salamander habitat by making vegetation in a watershed is replaced and Bell Counties that are experiencing connections between salamander with impervious cover, rainfall is rapid human population growth. For abundances and levels of development converted to surface runoff instead of example, the population of the City of within the watershed. In 1972, Orser filtering through the ground (Schueler Austin grew from 251,808 people in and Shure (p. 1,150) were among the 1991, p. 114). 1970, to 656,562 people in 2000. By first biologists to show a decrease in As urbanization increases due to 2007, the population had grown to stream salamander density with human population growth within the 735,088 people (COA 2007a, p. 1). This increasing urban development. A watersheds of salamander habitat, levels represents a 192 percent increase over similar relationship between of impervious cover will rise. Various the 37-year period. The human salamanders and urbanization was levels of impervious cover within population within the City of found in North Carolina (Price et al. watersheds have been cited as having Georgetown, Texas, was 28,339 in 2000, 2006, pp. 437–439; Price et al. 2012, p. detrimental effects to water quality and increased to 47,380 by January 2008 198), Maryland, and Virginia (Grant et within streams. The threshold of (City of Georgetown 2008, pp. 3.3–3.5). al. 2009, pp. 1,372–1,375). In central measurable degradation of stream The human population is expected to Texas, Bowles et al. (2006, p. 117) found habitat and loss of biotic integrity exceed 225,000 by 2033 (City of lower Jollyville Plateau salamander consistently occurs with 6 to 15 percent Georgetown 2008, p. 3.5), which would densities in tributaries with developed impervious cover in contributing be a 375 percent increase over a 33-year watersheds as compared to tributaries watersheds (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 111; period. Population projections from the with undeveloped watersheds. Miller et al. 2007, p. 74). A review of Texas State Data Center (2008, p. 1) Developed tributaries also had higher relevant literature by Schueler (1994, estimate that Travis County will concentrations of chloride, magnesium, pp. 100–102) indicates that stream increase in population from 812,280 in nitrate-nitrogen, potassium, sodium, degradation occurs at impervious cover 2000, to 1,498,569 in 2040. This would and sulfate (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). of 10 to 20 percent, a sharp drop in be an 84 percent increase in the human Several biologists have concluded that habitat quality is found at 10 to 15 population size over this 40-year period. urbanization is one of the largest threats percent impervious cover, and The Texas State Data Center also to the future survival of central Texas watersheds above 15 percent are estimates an increase in human salamanders (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 119; consistently classified as poor, relative population in Williamson County from Chippindale and Price 2005, pp. 196– to biological condition. Schueler (1994, 249,967 in 2000, to 1,742,619 in 2040. 197). p. 102) also concluded that even when This would represent a 597 percent Willson and Dorcas (2003, pp. 768– water quality protection practices are increase over a 40-year timeframe. The 770) demonstrated that to assess the widely applied, an impervious cover human population is not increasing as impact of urbanization on aquatic level of 35 to 60 percent exceeds a rapidly in the range of the Salado salamanders, it is important to examine threshold beyond which water quality salamander, but growth is occurring. development within the entire conditions that existed before Population projections from the Texas watershed as opposed to areas just development occurred cannot be State Data Center (2009, p. 19) estimate adjacent to the stream. For example, maintained.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50775

Increases in impervious cover used the Watershed Boundary Dataset Lake, and Walnut Creek). The Austin resulting from urbanization cause (USGS 2012, p. 1) to delineate the blind salamander occurs within one measurable water quality degradation watersheds where these species are watershed (Lake Austin). The (Klein 1979, p. 959; Bannerman et al. known to occur along with the 2006 Georgetown salamander occurs within 1993, pp. 251–254, 256–258; Center for National Land Cover Dataset (MRLC six watersheds (Dry Berry Creek, Lake Watershed Protection 2003, p. 91). 2012, p. 1). The Watershed Boundary Georgetown, Lower Berry Creek, Lower Stressors from impervious cover have Dataset is a nationally consistent South Fork San Gabriel River, Middle demonstrable impacts on biological watershed dataset developed by the U.S. Fork San Gabriel River, and Smith communities within streams. Schueler Geological Survey (USGS) that is Branch San Gabriel River). The Salado (1994, p. 104) found that sites receiving subdivided into 12-digit hydrologic unit salamander occurs within two runoff from high impervious cover codes, which are the smallest (or finest watersheds (Buttermilk Creek and drainage areas had sensitive aquatic scale) of the hydrologic units available. Mustang Creek). macroinvertebrate species replaced by Each of the 12-digit hydrologic unit An impervious cover value (0 to 100 species more tolerant of pollution and codes represents part or all of a surface percent) is assigned for each 30-meter hydrologic stress (high rate of changes drainage basin or a combination of pixel within the 2006 National Land in discharges over short periods of drainage basins, also referred to in the Cover Dataset. Using these values, we time). In an analysis of 43 North Watershed Boundary Dataset as calculated the overall average value Carolina streams, Miller et al. (2007, pp. ‘‘watersheds.’’ The 2006 National Land (percentage) for each watershed 78–79) found a strong negative Cover Dataset (the most recent of the identified. We also identified three relationship between impervious cover national land cover datasets) was categories of impervious cover for each and the abundance of larval southern developed by the Multi-Resolution Land pixel: (1) 0 percent impervious cover two-lined salamanders (Eurycea Characteristics Consortium to provide (no impervious cover was identified cirrigera). Impervious cover degrades 30-meter spatial resolution estimates for within the 30-meter pixel), (2) 1 to 15 salamander habitat in three ways: (1) tree cover and impervious cover percent impervious cover (between 1 Introducing and concentrating percentages within the contiguous and 15 percent of the 30-meter pixel contaminants in stormwater runoff, (2) United States. was identified as impervious cover), and increasing sedimentation, and (3) We identified 15 of the watersheds (3) greater than 15 percent impervious altering the natural flow regime of delineated within the Watershed cover (more than 15 percent of the 30- streams. Boundary Dataset as being occupied by meter pixel was identified as one of the four central Texas salamander impervious cover). For each watershed, Impervious Cover Analysis species. The Jollyville Plateau we then calculated the percentage of To calculate impervious cover within salamander occurs within six pixels that fell into each of these three the watersheds occupied by the four watersheds (Bull Creek, Cypress Creek, categories. These percentages are central Texas salamander species, we Lake Creek, South Brushy Creek, Town presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1—IMPERVIOUS COVER ESTIMATES

Categories of impervious cover Average Salamander species Number of (IC) percentage impervious (total number of known sites) Watershed salamander cover (IC) sites 0% IC 1–15% IC >15% IC percentage

Jollyville Plateau salamander (92) .... Bull Creek ...... 64 61 14 25 12.00 Cypress Creek ...... 11 79 9 12 5.72 Lake Creek ...... 3 43 17 40 21.35 South Brushy Creek ...... 9 58 17 24 12.52 Town Lake ...... 4 11 30 59 34.32 Walnut Creek ...... 1 34 17 50 28.03 Austin blind salamander (3) ...... Lake Austin ...... 3 54 24 24 11.58 Georgetown salamander (16) ...... Dry Berry Creek ...... 2 92 7 1 0.59 Lake Georgetown...... 6 88 11 2 0.76 Lower Berry Creek ...... 2 73 10 17 3.03 Lower South Fork San Gabriel River 1 84 11 6 2.77 Middle Fork San Gabriel River ...... 4 77 11 12 2.41 Smith Branch San Gabriel River ...... 1 61 20 19 9.60 Salado salamander (7) ...... Buttermilk Creek ...... 3 95 5 1 0.31 Mustang Creek ...... 4 92 7 2 0.91

We also identified areas within each benefits they provide to salamander sites are located within the Bull Creek watershed that we knew to be managed surface habitat during our analysis of watershed, which has an overall average as open space. Open space includes threats caused by impervious cover impervious cover estimate of 12 percent. lands set aside for either low-use within each watershed. When average impervious cover is recreation or wildlife preserves. The The six watersheds within the between 10 and 15 percent within a protection of open space helps preserve Jollyville Plateau salamander’s range watershed, sharp declines in aquatic the quality of water, which is an have overall average impervious cover habitat quality are likely to occur important component of salamander estimates ranging from approximately 6 (Schueler 1994, pp. 100–102). surface habitat. Thus, we considered the percent (Cypress Creek) to 34 percent However, a substantial portion of the amount and location of managed open (Town Lake). The majority (64) of the 92 land area categorized as open space and space, and the potential water quality known Jollyville Plateau salamander protected as part of the Balcones

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50776 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Canyonlands Preserve is located within 1994, pp. 100–102). Nine sites known to Watershed Boundary Dataset. The Lake the Bull Creek watershed. The Balcones be occupied by Jollyville Plateau Austin watershed was estimated to have Canyonlands Preserve is managed under salamanders are located within the an overall average impervious cover the terms and conditions of a regional South Brushy Creek watershed, which estimate of 12 percent. Although each of habitat conservation plan (HCP) (the has an overall average impervious cover the three spring sites where this species Balcones Canyonlands Conservation estimate of 13 percent and very little is known to occur are located within a Plan HCP) jointly held by the City of managed open space. Again, when park managed by the City of Austin, the Austin and Travis County as mitigation average impervious cover is between 10 water quality within the salamander’s lands issued under the authority of an and 15 percent, sharp declines in habitat can be influenced by Endangered Species Act section aquatic habitat quality are likely to development throughout the watershed. 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the protection of occur (Schueler 1994, pp. 100–102). The impervious cover within the Lake endangered birds and karst The Lake Creek watershed with three Austin watershed, which is an indicator invertebrates. A number of cooperating known salamander locations and the of development intensity within the partners own and manage lands Walnut Creek watershed with one area, is within the range that can lead dedicated to the Balcones Canyonlands known salamander location are to water quality declines in aquatic Preserve, including several private estimated to have 21 percent and 28 habitats (Schueler 1994, pp. 100–102). landowners, the Lower Colorado River percent impervious cover, respectively. Some Balcones Canyonlands Preserve Authority, the Nature Conservancy of The Lake Creek watershed has two lands are located within the Lake Austin Texas, and the Travis Audubon Society. tracts (143 ac (58 ha) and 95 ac (38 ha)) watershed, which likely contribute Although the permit that created the of managed open space along with two some water quality benefits to surface Balcones Canyonlands Preserve did not smaller preserve areas and several flow. However, the Austin blind include the Jollyville Plateau municipal parks. Given their small size salamander is, in large part, a salamander, the Balcones Canyonlands in relation to the size of the watershed, subterranean species. Therefore, water Preserve land management strategies it is unknown if these areas provide any quality within this species’ habitat can help maintain water quality within water quality benefits for salamander be influenced by land use throughout salamander habitats on lands within the surface habitat. The single Jollyville the recharge zone of the Barton Springs preserve. Nonetheless, the City of Plateau salamander location within the Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. Austin has reported significant declines Walnut Creek watershed is located on a The Lower Colorado River Authority in Jollyville Plateau salamander 53-ac (21-ha) park that is situated (LCRA 2002, pp. 3–54—3–55) abundance at one of their Jollyville directly adjacent to a residential conducted a water supply study of the Plateau salamander monitoring sites development. There are two small (14 ac recharge and contributing zone areas within Bull Creek (O’Donnell et al. (6 ha) and 67 ac (27 ha)) municipal within the Barton Springs Segment of 2006, p. 45), even though our analysis parks located upstream from this site. the Edwards Aquifer that examined the found that 61 percent of the land within However, the 2006 National Land Cover amount of impervious cover within the this watershed has 0 percent impervious Dataset data indicated that 50 percent of local area. The eight watersheds within cover. The location of this monitoring the 30-m pixels in the Walnut Creek the area had a range of impervious cover site is within a large preserved tract. watershed have impervious cover of 15 from 3 percent to 29 percent in 2000. However, the headwaters of this percent or more and 17 percent of the The projected impervious cover limits drainage are outside the preserve, and 30-m pixels have impervious cover for the same eight watersheds in 2025 the development in this area increased between 1 and 15 percent. Because this ranged from 5 percent to 32 percent sedimentation downstream and watershed is extensively covered by (LCRA 2002, pp. 4–12—4–13). The two impacted salamander habitat in the impervious surfaces, it is unlikely that watersheds, Williamson Creek and preserved tract. these managed open spaces provide Sunset Valley Creek (a tributary to The Cypress Creek watershed is the adequate water quality for the Jollyville Williamson Creek), with the highest least developed of all of the watersheds Plateau salamander. Salamander counts percentage of impervious cover (16 and within the Jollyville Plateau at the Walnut Creek location have been 29 percent, respectively) are also the salamander’s range, and much of it is low. Although surveys are conducted second and third closest to Barton extensively covered by lands that are four times a year, no salamanders were Springs (LCRA 2002, pp. 4–12—4–13). managed as open space. The vast observed from 2006 to 2009, and only The six watersheds within the majority of this open space is part of the six individuals were observed in 2010 Georgetown salamander’s range have Balcones Canyonlands Preserve. There (Bendik 2011a, p. 13). overall average impervious cover are 11 spring sites known to be The Town Lake watershed is the most estimates ranging from 0.59 percent (Dry occupied by the Jollyville Plateau developed of all of the watersheds Berry Creek) to about 10 percent (Smith salamander within this watershed. within the Jollyville Plateau Branch San Gabriel River). The overall Seven of these sites are located directly salamander’s range. Four Jollyville average impervious cover estimates for within or downstream from areas Plateau salamander sites are located each of the six watersheds are below the dominated by impervious surfaces. The within the Town Lake watershed, which levels that have been shown to lead to 2006 National Land Cover Dataset data has an estimated 30 percent of its 30-m sharp water quality declines in aquatic indicated that 12 percent of the 30-m pixels within the 1 to 15 percent habitats (Schueler 1994, pp. 100–102). pixels in the Cypress Creek watershed impervious cover category and 59 Two (Cobbs Spring and Cobbs Spring have impervious cover of 15 percent or percent of its 30-m pixels within the Well) of the 16 sites known to be more and 9 percent of the 30-m pixels greater than 15 percent impervious occupied by the Georgetown salamander have impervious cover between 1 and cover category. We could not identify occur in the headwaters of the Dry Berry 15 percent. any parcels of land that are managed as Creek watershed, which has an overall The other watersheds within the open space within the Town Lake average impervious cover estimate of Jollyville Plateau salamander’s range watershed. 0.59 percent. have impervious cover levels that may The Austin blind salamander occurs Six spring sites known to be occupied lead to water quality declines within within only one of the watersheds (Lake by Georgetown salamander are located salamander surface habitat (Schueler Austin) delineated within the within the Lake Georgetown watershed.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50777

This watershed also has one of the least average impervious cover estimate the Salado salamander or its surface overall average impervious cover within Lower Berry Creek watershed is habitat. Without these, it is unlikely that estimates (0.76 percent) of the six below the level that has been shown to water quality within the Salado watersheds within the Georgetown lead to water quality declines in aquatic salamander’s surface habitat will be salamander’s range. These six sites, habitats (Schueler 1994, pp. 100–102), protected if development occurs in along with three of the four spring sites 17 percent of the watershed has greater these watersheds in the future. known to be occupied by the than 15 percent impervious cover. Although the data for this level of the Georgetown salamander in the Middle These two Georgetown salamander sites impervious cover analysis were derived Fork San Gabriel River watershed (with are located in the most developed area using the finest scale hydrologic units an overall average impervious cover of this watershed. As such, these sites readily available in the Watershed estimate of about 2 percent) and the are vulnerable to water quality Boundary Dataset, they offer no only known Georgetown salamander degradation caused by pollutants reference to the location of salamander- site within the Lower South Fork San associated with highly urbanized areas. occupied spring sites in relation to the Gabriel River watershed (with an overall The Salado salamander occurs within location of impervious cover within the average impervious cover estimate of two of the watersheds delineated within watersheds. Therefore, impervious about 3 percent), are located upstream the Watershed Boundary Dataset. cover occurring within each watershed from the urbanized areas associated Buttermilk Creek and Mustang Creek may not necessarily be an indicator of with the City of Georgetown. Therefore, watersheds have overall average how much impervious cover is these sites are likely not as affected by impervious cover estimates of 0.31 impacting water quality within known water quality degradation currently as percent and 0.91 percent, respectively. salamander sites because this analysis those spring sites occupied by the Although these impervious cover levels does not take into account whether the Georgetown salamander within the are well below that which are likely to salamander sites are found upstream or highly urbanized areas of the City of lead to water quality declines in aquatic downstream of impervious surfaces Georgetown. habitats (Schueler 1994, pp. 100–102), associated with developed areas. We identified two tracts of land three of the seven springs sites known Moreover, because the most recent managed specifically as open space to be occupied by the Salado impervious cover estimates available within the Georgetown salamander’s salamander are directly within within the National Land Cover Dataset range. Williamson County manages a urbanized habitats in the Mustang Creek were provided from 2006 data, more 64-ac (26-ha) conservation easement at watershed (within the Village of impervious cover could be present Cobbs Cavern and owns the 145-ac (59- Salado), and therefore, may be more within the watersheds than are ha) Twin Springs Preserve. The Twin susceptible to spills of hazardous indicated in our analysis. By mapping Springs preserve contains one materials and pollutants from roads that the spring sites where salamanders are Georgetown salamander site. While the are close to locations where known to occur over the 2006 National Cobbs Cavern conservation easement salamanders are known to occur. Land Cover Dataset impervious cover does not include the Cobbs Spring or Four spring sites known to be data layer, we can generally discuss Cobbs well site, it does contain land in occupied by Salado salamanders are which sites may currently be affected by the watershed for these sites. Despite upstream from the urbanized areas water quality degradation due to their the protection of these two tracts, water associated with the Village of Salado. location within the three impervious quality at these sites can be influenced Three of these spring sites are located cover categories mentioned above and by activities occurring throughout the within the Buttermilk Creek watershed identified in Table 1. recharge zone. Without more managed on an approximately 8,126-ac (3,288-ha) To provide a general indication of open space within this species’ range, it ranch that is privately owned and how much impervious cover may be is unlikely that water quality within the almost entirely undeveloped. Another influencing surface water quality at Georgetown salamander’s surface spring site known to be occupied by the individual salamander sites, we used habitat will be protected as Salado salamander within the Mustang 2010 aerial photos to visually estimate development continues in these Creek watershed is located on another the amount of impervious cover watersheds into the future. privately owned and almost entirely upstream of each site known to be Four of the 16 sites known to be undeveloped ranch that is occupied by the Jollyville Plateau, occupied by the Georgetown salamander approximately 827 ac (335 ha) in size. Georgetown, or Salado salamander. By are located in areas identified as having Both ranches are located upstream of visually examining the aerial photos impervious cover estimates (either in the impervious cover areas associated from 2010, we classified the areas the 1 to 15 percent impervious cover with the Village of Salado and entirely within each tributary watershed category or the greater than 15 percent within the recharge zone of the upstream from each known salamander impervious cover category) within the Northern Segment of the Edwards site into one of four categories (that range that can lead to water quality Aquifer. Although impervious cover is represent approximations of impervious declines (10 to 15 percent) or poor water not currently a threat to these upstream cover levels). We defined these quality relative to biological condition sites, a significant portion of the categories as follows: (1) None (a (greater than 15 percent) in aquatic recharge zone extends to areas off of tributary watershed with no visible habitats (Schueler 1994, pp. 100–102). these properties and spring water impervious cover), (2) low (a tributary These include one site in the Middle quality can be impacted by activities watershed with what appeared to be less Fork San Gabriel River watershed, the occurring some distance away. than 10 percent impervious cover), (3) only occupied site within the Smith We could not identify any large tracts moderate (a tributary watershed with Branch San Gabriel River watershed of lands managed specifically as open what appeared to be impervious cover (with an overall average impervious space within the Salado salamander’s between 10 and 30 percent), and (4) cover estimate of about 10 percent), and range, particularly upstream of sites high (a tributary watershed with what the two occupied sites within the Lower where this species is known to occur. In appeared to be greater than 30 percent Berry Creek watershed (with an overall addition, there are no agreements in impervious cover). A summary of the average impervious cover estimate of place to preserve or manage the above- number of salamander sites for each of about 3 percent). Although the overall mentioned properties for the benefit of these three species found to be within

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50778 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

the impervious cover categories is provided below (Table 2).

TABLE 2—IMPERVIOUS COVER ESTIMATES UPSTREAM OF KNOWN SALAMANDER LOCATIONS

Number of Number of sites with impervious cover levels Salamander species salamander sites None Low Moderate High

Jollyville Plateau salamander ...... 92 17 6 21 48 Georgetown salamander ...... 16 4 9 2 1 Salado Salamander ...... 7 2 4 0 1

The Austin blind salamander was not because they have evolved under very combustion). These pollutants considered in the analysis of impervious stable environmental conditions, remain accumulate over time on impervious cover upstream of its known sites, as it aquatic throughout their entire life cover, contaminating water supplies primarily occurs below the surface and cycle, have highly permeable skin, have through urban and highway runoff (Van is more likely to be impacted by water severely restricted ranges, and cannot Metre et al. 2000, p. 4,067; Albers 2003, quality changes due to impervious cover escape contaminants in their pp. 345–346). The main source of PAH throughout the Edward Aquifer’s environment (Turner and O’Donnell loading in Austin-area streams is recharge zone. Using the 2006 National 2004, p. 5). In addition, parking lots with coal tar emulsion Land Cover Database, we determined macroinvertebrates, such as small sealant, even though this type of lot that the recharge zone of the Barton freshwater crustaceans, that aquatic only covers 1 to 2 percent of the Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer salamanders feed on are especially watersheds (Mahler et al. 2005, p. 5565). had an overall average impervious cover sensitive to water pollution (Phipps et A recent analysis of the rate of wear on level of 5.87 percent. However, at least al. 1995, p. 282; Miller et al. 2007, p. coal tar lots revealed that the sealcoat 12 percent of the recharge zone has 74). Studies in the Bull Creek watershed wears off relatively quickly and greater than 15 percent impervious in Austin, Texas, found a loss of some contributes more to PAH loading than cover. sensitive macroinvertebrate species, previously thought (Scoggins et al. potentially due to contaminants of Contaminants in Stormwater Runoff 2009, p. 4914). nutrient enrichment and sediment Urban environments are host to a accumulation (COA 2001, p. 15; COA Petroleum and petroleum byproducts variety of human activities that generate 2010a, p. 16). can adversely affect living organisms by many types of point source (‘‘end of Both nationally and locally, causing direct toxic action, altering pipe’’) and non-point source (coming consistent relationships between water chemistry, reducing light, and from many diffuse sources) impervious cover and water quality decreasing food availability (Albers contaminants. These sources of degradation through contaminant 2003, p. 349). Exposure to PAHs at contaminants, when combined, often loading have been documented. In a levels found within the Jollyville degrade nearby waterways and aquatic study of contaminant loads from various Plateau salamander’s range can cause resources within the watershed. Urban land use areas in Austin, stormwater impaired reproduction, reduced growth contaminants commonly detected in runoff loads were found to increase with and development, and tumors or cancer stormwater include elevated levels of increasing impervious cover (COA 1990, in species of amphibians, reptiles, and suspended solids, nutrients, trace pp. 12–14). This study also found that other organisms (Albers 2003, p. 354). metals, pesticides, and coliform contaminant loading rates of the more Coal tar pavement sealant slowed bacteria. Similarly, various industrial urbanized watersheds were higher than hatching, growth, and development of a and municipal activities result in the those of the small suburban watersheds. frog (Xenopus laevis) in a laboratory discharge of treated wastewater or Soeur et al. (1995, p. 565) determined setting (Bryer et al. 2006, pp. 244–245). unintentional release of industrial that stormwater contaminant loading High concentrations of PAHs from coal contaminants as point source pollution. positively correlated with development tar sealant negatively affected the Stormwater runoff carries these intensity in Austin. In a study of 38 righting ability (amount of time needed contaminants into stream systems small watersheds in the Austin area, 7 to flip over after being placed on back) (Bannerman et al. 1993, pp. 251–254, different contaminants were found to be of adult eastern newts (Notophthalmus 256–258; Schueler 1994, p. 102; Barrett positively correlated with impervious viridescens) and may have also damaged and Charbeneau 1996, p. 87; Center for cover (COA 2006, p. 35). Using stream the newt’s liver (Sparling et al. 2009, pp. Watershed Protection 2003, p. 91). data from 1958 to 2007 at 24 Austin-area 18–20). For juvenile spotted Amphibians, especially their eggs and sites, Glick et al. (2009, p. 9) found that salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum), larvae (which are usually restricted to a the City of Austin’s water quality index PAHs reduced growth in the lab small area within an aquatic had a strong negative correlation with (Sparling et al. 2009, p. 28). In a lab environment), are sensitive to many impervious cover. study using the same coal tar sealant different aquatic pollutants (Harfenist et Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons once used by the City of Austin, al. 1989, pp. 4–57). Contaminants found (PAHs) are a common form of aquatic Bommarito et al. (2010, pp. 1151–1152) in aquatic environments, even at contaminants in urbanized areas that found that spotted salamanders sublethal concentrations, may interfere could potentially affect salamanders, displayed slower growth rates and with a salamander’s ability to develop, their habitat, or their prey. This form of diminished swimming ability when grow, or reproduce (Burton and pollution can originate from petroleum exposed to PAHs. PAHs are also known Ingersoll 1994, pp. 120, 125). Central products, such as oil or grease, or from to cause death, reduced survival, altered Texas spring salamanders are atmospheric deposition as a byproduct physiological function, inhibited particularly vulnerable to contaminants, of combustion (for example, vehicular reproduction, and changes in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50779

community composition of freshwater Plateau salamander sites (Herrington et (Herrington 2010, p. 42). A separate invertebrates (Albers 2003, p. 352). al. 2007, p. 13). These results indicate analysis found that ions such as Limited sampling by the City of that developed watersheds contribute to chloride and sulfate increased in Barton Austin has detected PAHs at higher levels of water contaminants in Creek despite the enactment of city- concentrations of concern at multiple salamander habitats. wide water quality control ordinances sites within the range of the Jollyville High conductivity has been associated (Turner 2007, p. 7). Overall, these Plateau salamander. Most notable were with declining salamander abundance. studies indicate a long-term trend of the elevated levels of nine different PAH For example, three of the four sites with water quality degradation at Barton compounds at the Spicewood Springs statistically significant declining Springs over a 34-year period (1975 to site in the Shoal Creek drainage area Jollyville Plateau salamander abundance 2009). (O’Donnell et al. 2005, pp. 16–17). This from 1997 to 2006 are cited as having In summary, there are many different is also one of the sites where high conductivity readings (O’Donnell types of contaminants found in salamanders have shown a significant et al. 2006, p. 37). Similar correlations stormwater runoff that can have decline in abundance during the City of were shown in studies comparing detrimental effects on the four central Austin’s long-term monitoring studies developed and undeveloped sites from Texas salamanders. Impervious cover (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 47). Another 1996 to 1998 (Bowles et al. 2006, pp. increases the transport of contaminants study found several PAH compounds in 117–118). This analysis found common in urban environments, and we seven Austin-area streams, including significantly lower numbers of expect this detrimental effect to increase Barton, Bull, and Walnut Creeks, salamanders and significantly higher in the future with increased downstream of coal tar sealant parking measures of specific conductance at urbanization. Therefore, the current lots (Scoggins et al. 2007, p. 697). Sites developed sites as compared to existence and future increase of with high concentrations of PAHs undeveloped sites (Bowles et al. 2006, contaminants in stormwater runoff is a (located in Barton and Walnut Creeks) pp. 117–118). Tributary 5 of Bull Creek significant threat to all four central had fewer macroinvertebrate species has had an increase in conductivity, Texas salamanders’ surface and and lower macroinvertebrate density chloride, and sodium and a decrease in subsurface habitats throughout their (Scoggins et al. 2007, p. 700). This form invertebrate diversity from 1996 to 2008 ranges. However, due to the relatively of contamination has also been detected (COA 2010a, p. 16). Only one Jollyville low levels of impervious cover in its at Barton Springs, which is the Austin Plateau salamander has been observed range, the Salado salamander is blind salamander’s habitat (COA 1997, here from 2009 to 2010 in quarterly currently, and anticipated to be, less p. 10). Because PAHs can adversely surveys (Bendik 2011a, p. 16). Poor affected. affect salamanders, PAHs have been water quality, as measured by high Sedimentation from Stormwater Runoff found in the range of the species, and specific conductance and elevated we expect an increase of this levels of ion concentrations, is cited as Elevated mobilization of sediment contaminant in the future in one of the likely factors leading to (mixture of silt, sand, clay, and organic conjunction with the increase of statistically significant declines in debris) occurs as a result of increased urbanization, we consider salamander abundance at the City of velocity of water running off impervious contamination from PAHs to be a threat Austin’s long-term monitoring sites surfaces (Schram 1995, p. 88; Arnold to the continued existence of all four (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 46). and Gibbons 1996, pp. 244–245). central Texas salamanders now and in In an analysis performed by the City Increased rates of stormwater runoff the future. of Austin (Turner 2005a, p. 6), cause increased erosion through Conductivity is a measure of the significant changes over time were scouring in headwater areas and ability of water to carry an electrical reported for several chemical sediment deposition in downstream current and can be used to approximate constituents and physical parameters in channels (Booth 1991, pp. 93, 102–105; the concentration of dissolved inorganic Barton Springs Pool, which could be Schram 1995, p. 88). Waterways are solids in water that can alter the internal attributed to impacts from watershed adversely affected in urban areas, where water balance in aquatic organisms, urbanization. Conductivity, turbidity, impervious cover rates are high, by affecting the four central Texas sulfates, and total organic carbon have sediment loads that are washed into salamanders’ survival. As ion increased while the concentration of streams or aquifers during storm events. concentrations such as chlorides, dissolved oxygen has decreased (Turner Sediments are either deposited into sodium, sulfates, and nitrates rise, 2005a, pp. 8–17). The significance and layers or become suspended in the conductivity will increase. These presence of trends in other pollutants water column (Ford and Williams 1989, compounds are the chemical products, were variable depending on flow p. 537; Mahler and Lynch 1999, p. 177). or byproducts, of many common conditions (baseflow vs. stormflow, Sediment derived from soil erosion has pollutants that originate from urban recharge vs. non-recharge) (Turner been cited as the greatest single source environments (Menzer and Nelson 1980, 2005a, p. 20). A similar analysis by of pollution of surface waters by volume p. 633), which are often transported to Herrington and Hiers (2010, p. 2) (Menzer and Nelson 1980, p. 632). streams via stormwater runoff from examined water quality at Barton Excessive sediment from stormwater impervious cover. Measurements by the Springs Pool and other Barton Springs runoff is a threat to salamanders because City of Austin between 1997 and 2006 outlets where Austin blind salamanders it can cover habitat, cover substrates, found that conductivity averaged are found (Sunken Gardens and Eliza and lead to declines in vegetative between 550 and 650 microsiemens per Springs) over a general period of the abundance and diversity (Geismar 2005, centimeter (mS cm¥1) at rural springs mid-1990s to the summer of 2009. p. 2). Sediments suspended in water can with low or no development and Herrington and Hiers (2010, pp. 41–42) clog gill structures, which impairs averaged between 900 and 1000 mS found that dissolved oxygen decreased breathing of aquatic organisms, and can cm¥1 at monitoring sites in watersheds over time in the Barton Springs Pool, reduce their ability to avoid predators or with urban development (O’Donnell et while conductivity and nitrogen locate food sources due to decreased al. 2006, p. 37). The City of Austin also increased. However, this decline in visibility (Schueler 1987, p. 1.5). found increasing ions with increasing water quality was not seen in Sunken Excessive deposition of sediment in impervious cover at four Jollyville Gardens Spring or Elisa Spring streams can physically reduce the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50780 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

amount of available habitat and downstream and impacted salamander runoff increases erosion and streambank protective cover for aquatic organisms, habitat in the preserved tract. destabilization, which in turn leads to by filling the interstitial spaces of gravel Direct evidence of the effects of increased sediment loadings, channel and rocks. As an example, a California sedimentation on the Austin blind, widening, and detrimental changes in study found that densities of two Georgetown, and Salado salamanders is the morphology and aquatic ecology of salamander species were significantly lacking, primarily due to limited studies the affected stream system (Hammer lower in streams that experienced a on those species. However, analogies 1972, pp. 1535–1536, 1540; Booth 1990, large infusion of sediment from road can be drawn from data on similar pp. 407–409, 412–414; Booth and construction after a storm event (Welsh species, such as the Jollyville Plateau Reinelt 1993, pp. 548–550; Schueler and Ollivier 1998, pp. 1,118–1,132). The and Barton Springs salamanders. Barton 1994, pp. 106–108; Pizzuto et al. 2000, vulnerability of the salamander species Spring salamander population numbers p. 82; Center for Watershed Protection in this California study was attributed to are adversely affected by high turbidity 2003, pp. 41–48). their reliance on interstitial spaces in and sedimentation (COA 1997, p. 13). The changes in flow regime due to the streambed habitats (Welsh and Sediments discharge through Barton impervious cover can have a direct Ollivier 1998, p. 1,128). We consider Springs, even during baseflow impact on salamander populations. For increased sedimentation from conditions (not related to a storm event) example, Barrett et al. (2010, pp. 2002– impervious cover to be a threat to all (Geismar 2005, p. 12). Storms can 2003) recently observed that the density four central Texas salamanders, because increase sedimentation rates of aquatic southern two-lined it fills interstitial spaces, eliminates substantially (Geismar 2005, p. 12). salamanders declined more drastically resting places, and reduces habitat of its Areas in the immediate vicinity of the in streams with urbanized watersheds prey base (small aquatic invertebrates) spring outflows lack sediment, but the compared to streams with forested or (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34). remaining bedrock is sometimes pastured watersheds. A statistical Also, sediments eroded from covered with a layer of sediment several analysis indicated that this decline in contaminated soil surfaces can inches thick (Geismar 2005, p. 5). urban streams was due to an increase in concentrate and transport contaminants Sedimentation is a direct threat for the flooding frequency from stormwater (Mahler and Lynch 1999, p. 165). The Austin blind salamander because its runoff. Barrett et al. (2010, p. 2003) also four central Texas salamander species habitat in Barton Springs would fill used artificial stream experiments to and their prey species are directly with sediment if it were not for regular demonstrate that salamanders were maintenance and removal (Geismar flushed downstream at significantly exposed to sediment-borne 2005, p. 12). Further development in the lower velocities when the substrate was contaminants present within the aquifer Barton Creek watershed will most likely sand-based, as compared to gravel, and discharging through the spring be associated with diminished water pebble, or cobble-based. Sand-based outlets. For example, in addition to clarity and a reduction in biodiversity of substrates are common to urban streams sediment, trace metals such as arsenic, flora (COA 1997, p. 7). Likewise, due to high sedimentation rates (see cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc development within the watersheds of ‘‘Sedimentation from Stormwater were found in Barton Springs in the Georgetown and Salado salamander Runoff’’ section, above). The combined early 1990s (COA 1997, pp. 229, 231– sites will increase sedimentation and effects of increased sand-based 232). Contaminants may cause adverse degrade water quality in salamander substrates due to high sedimentation effects to the salamander and its prey habitat. Therefore, because salamander rates, and increased flow velocities from species including reduced growth and population numbers are adversely impervious cover, result in effectively weight, abnormal behavior, affected by sedimentation covering removing salamanders from their morphological and developmental habitat, filling in substrates, and habitat. aberrations, and decreased reproductive transporting contaminants in both Extreme flood events have occurred in activity (Albers 2003, p. 354). surface and subsurface habitats, we all four salamander species’ surface Excess sedimentation may have consider sedimentation and its resulting habitats (Pierce 2011a, p. 10; TPWD contributed to declines in Jollyville effects to be an ongoing, significant 2011a, p. 6; Turner 2009, p. 11; Plateau salamander populations in the threat to all four central Texas O’Donnell et al. 2005, p. 15). It is past. Monitoring by the City of Austin salamanders’ surface and subsurface reasonable to assume that impervious found that, as sediment deposition habitats now and in the future. cover due to urbanization in the increased at several sites, salamander However, we consider the Salado salamanders’ watershed will continue to abundances significantly decreased salamander to salamander to be less cause streamflow to shift from (COA 2001, pp. 101, 126). Additionally, affected by this threat than the other predominately baseflow to the City of Austin found that sediment three species, due to the relatively low predominately stormwater runoff. For deposition rates have increased levels of impervious cover in its range. example, an examination of 24 stream significantly along one of the long-term sites in the Austin area revealed that monitoring sites (Bull Creek Tributary 5) Changes in Flow Regime Due to increasing impervious cover in the as a result of construction activities Impervious Cover watersheds resulted in decreased base upstream (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34). Impervious cover in a stream’s flow, increased high-flow events of This site has had significant declines in watershed causes streamflow to shift shorter duration, and more rapid rises salamander abundance, based on 10 from predominately baseflow, which is and falls of the stream flow (Glick et al. years of monitoring, and the City of derived from natural filtration processes 2009, p. 9). In addition, increases in Austin attributes this decline to the and discharges from local groundwater impervious cover within the Walnut increases in sedimentation (O’Donnell supplies, to predominately stormwater Creek watershed (Jollyville Plateau et al. 2006, pp. 34–35). The location of runoff. With increasing stormwater salamander habitat) have probably this monitoring site is within a large runoff, the amount of baseflow available caused a shift to more rapid rises and preserved tract. However, the to sustain water supplies during drought falls of the stream flow (Herrington headwaters of this drainage are outside cycles is diminished and the frequency 2010, p. 11). Because of the detrimental the preserve and the development in and severity of flooding increases. The effects previously discussed in this area increased sedimentation increased quantity and velocity of association with increased stormwater

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50781

runoff, and because the amount of aquatic organisms and impair their p. 6). These chemicals remaining in baseflow available to sustain water ability to reproduce, escape predation, treated wastewater effluent can enter supplies during drought cycles is maintain metabolic processes, and streams and the aquifer and alter water diminished, we consider changes in survive (Ross 2011, p. 6). In addition, quality within salamander habitat. flow regime due to impervious cover to macroinvertebrates, such as small Excessive nutrient input into aquatic be an ongoing threat to all four central freshwater crustaceans on which these systems can increase plant growth, Texas salamanders’ surface habitats now four central Texas salamander species which pulls more oxygen out of the and in the future. Because it only affects feed are especially sensitive to water water when the dead plant matter surface habitat, this threat is of pollution (Phipps et al. 1995, p. 282; decomposes, resulting in less oxygen moderate significance to the Austin Miller et al. 2007, p. 74). being available in the water for blind, Jollyville Plateau, and salamanders to breathe (Schueler 1987, Nutrients Georgetown salamanders. We consider pp. 1.5–1.6; Ross 2011, p. 7). A this threat to be of low significance for Nutrient input (such as phosphorus reduction in dissolved oxygen the Salado salamander due to the and nitrogen) to watershed drainages, concentrations could not only affect relatively low levels of impervious which often results in abnormally high respiration in salamander species, but cover in its range. organic growth in aquatic ecosystems, also lead to decreased metabolic can originate from multiple sources, functioning and growth in juveniles Conclusion of Impervious Cover and such as human and animal wastes, (Woods et al. 2010, p. 544), or death Stormwater Runoff industrial pollutants, and fertilizers (Ross 2011, p. 6). Excessive plant In summary, impervious cover (from lawns, golf courses, or croplands) material can also reduce stream contributes to the degradation of surface (Garner and Mahler 2007, p. 29). As the velocities and increase sediment and subsurface salamander habitat by human population grows and deposition (Ross 2011, p. 7). When the transporting contaminants and subsequent urbanization occurs within interstitial spaces become compacted or sediments to the Edwards Aquifer. the ranges of these four central Texas filled with fine sediment, the amount of Impervious cover within the watersheds salamander species, they likely become available foraging habitat and protective of the salamanders also leads to changes more susceptible to the effects of cover is reduced (Welsh and Ollivier in streamflow regime that degrades excessive nutrients within their 1998, p. 1,128). Studies in the Bull surface salamander habitat. The Austin habitats. To illustrate, an estimated Creek watershed found a loss of some blind, Jollyville Plateau, and 102,262 domestic dogs and cats (pet sensitive macroinvertebrate species, Georgetown salamanders all have levels waste is a potential source of excessive potentially due to nutrient enrichment of impervious cover in their ranges that nutrients) were known to occur within and sediment accumulation (COA may be causing declines in water the Barton Springs Segment of the 2001b, p. 15). quality. Impervious cover levels are Edwards Aquifer in 2010 (Herrington et Poor water quality, particularly relatively low in the range of the Salado al. 2010, p. 15). Their distributions were elevated nitrates, may also be a cause of salamander. However, growing human correlated with human population morphological deformities in individual populations and the associated increase density (Herrington et al. 2010, p. 15). Jollyville Plateau salamanders. The City in urbanization indicate that impervious Various residential properties and golf of Austin has documented very high cover levels will continue to rise within courses are known to use pesticides, levels of nitrates (averaging over 6 the ranges of all four central Texas herbicides, and fertilizers to maintain milligrams per liter (mg L 1) with salamanders. Therefore, we consider turfgrass within watersheds where some samples exceeding 10 mg L 1) impervious cover and stormwater runoff Jollyville Plateau salamander and high conductivity at two monitoring to be sources of stressors, such as populations are known to occur (COA sites in the Stillhouse Hollow drainage contamination, sedimentation, and 2003, pp. 1–7). Analysis of water quality area (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 26, 37). changes in streamwater’s flow regime, constituents conducted by the City of For comparison, nitrate levels in that contribute to the overall risk of Austin (1997, pp. 8–9) showed undeveloped Edwards Aquifer springs extinction for all four salamander significant differences in nitrate, (watersheds without high levels of species. ammonia, total dissolved solids, total urbanization) are typically close to 1 mg suspended solids, and turbidity L 1 (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 26). The Land Application Contaminants concentrations between watersheds source of the nitrates in Stillhouse Excessive land application dominanted by golf courses, residential Hollow is thought to be lawn fertilizers contaminants, such as nutrient and land, and rural land. Golf course (Turner 2005b, p. 11). Salamanders pesticide input to watershed drainages, tributaries were found to have higher observed at the Stillhouse Hollow are other forms of pollution that occur concentrations of these constituents monitoring sites have shown high in highly urbanized areas. In than residential tributaries, and both incidences of deformities, such as comparison to nonkarstic aquifer golf course and residential tributaries curved spines, missing eyes, missing systems, the Edwards Aquifer is more had substantially higher concentrations limbs or digits, and eye injuries vulnerable to the effects of for these five constituents than rural (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 26). These contamination due to: (1) A large tributaries (COA 1997, pp. 8–9). deformities often result in the number of conduits that offer no Residential irrigation of wastewater salamander’s inability to feed, filtering capacity, (2) high groundwater effluent has led to excessive nutrient reproduce, or survive. The Stillhouse flow velocities, and (3) the relatively input into the recharge zone of the Hollow location was also cited as short amount of time that water is inside Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards having the highest observation of dead the aquifer system (Ford and Williams Aquifer (Ross 2011, pp. 11–18). salamanders (COA 2001, p. 88). 1989, pp. 518–519). Wastewater effluent permits do not Although no statistical correlations were Even at low concentrations, land require treatment to remove metals, found between the number of application contaminants, such as pharmaceutical chemicals, or the wide deformities and nitrate concentrations nutrients and pesticides, can disrupt range of chemicals found in body care (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 26), aquatic life. Some of these chemicals products, soaps, detergents, pesticides, environmental toxins are the suspected may accumulate in the fatty tissue of or other cleaning products (Ross 2011, cause of salamander deformities

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50782 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 25). Nitrate Another study by the U.S. Geological (Service 2005, pp. 1.6–14–1.6–15). Any toxicity studies have indicated that Survey detected insecticides (diazinon activity that involves the extraction, salamanders and other amphibians are and malathion) and herbicides (atrazine, storage, manufacture, or transport of sensitive to these pollutants (Marco et prometone, and simazine) in several potentially hazardous substances, such al. 1999, p. 2,837). Increased nitrate Austin-area streams, most often at sites as fuels or chemicals, can contaminate levels have been known to affect with urban and partly urban watersheds water resources and cause harm to amphibians by altering feeding activity (Veenhuis and Slade 1990, pp. 45–47). aquatic life. Spill events can involve a and causing disequilibrium and Twenty-two of the 42 selected synthetic short release with immediate impacts, physical abnormalities (Marco et al. organic compounds analyzed in this such as a collision that involves a tanker 1999, p. 2,837). study were detected more often and in truck carrying gasoline, or the release In summary, as the human population larger concentrations at sites with more can be long-term, involving the slow grows and subsequent urbanization urban watersheds compared to release of chemicals over time such as occurs within the ranges of these four undeveloped watersheds (Veenhuis and a leaking underground storage tank. As central Texas salamander species, they Slade 1990, p. 61). Other pesticides of 1996, more than 6,000 leaking likely will become more susceptible to (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, underground storage tanks in Texas the effects of excessive nutrients within chlordane, hexachlorobenzene, and have resulted in contaminated their surface and subsurface habitats. dieldrin) have been detected at multiple groundwater (Mace et al. 1997, p. 2), Because of the detrimental effects Jollyville Plateau salamander sites (COA including a large leak in the range of the associated with increased nutrient 2001, p. 130). Georgetown salamander (Mace et al, input, we consider nutrients to be an The frequency and duration of 1997, p. 32). The risk of this type of ongoing threat to all four central Texas exposure to harmful levels of pesticides contamination is expected to increase salamanders’ continued existence have been largely unknown or with increasing urbanization. throughout their ranges. undocumented for the four central The transport of hazardous materials Texas salamander species. Therefore, is common on many highways, which Pesticides we do not know the extent to which are major transportation routes (Service Pesticides are also associated with pesticides and other waterborne 2005, p. 1.6–13). Interstate Highway 35 urban areas. Sources of pesticides contaminants have affected salamander crosses the watersheds that contribute include lawns, road rights-of-way, and survival, development, and groundwater to spring sites known to be managed turf areas, such as golf courses, reproduction, or their prey to date. occupied by all four salamander species. parks, and ball fields. Pesticide However, pesticides are known to A catastrophic spill could occur if a application is also common in impact amphibian species in a number transport truck overturned and its residential, recreational, and of ways. For example, Reylea (2009, p. contents entered the recharge zone of agricultural areas. Pesticides have the 370) demonstrated that diazinon the Northern Segment of the Edwards potential to leach into groundwater reduces growth and development in Aquifer. Transportation accidents through the soil or be washed into larval amphibians. Another pesticide, involving hazardous materials spills at streams by stormwater runoff. carbaryl, causes mortality and bridge crossings are of particular Some of the most widely used deformities in larval streamside concern because recharge areas in creek pesticides in the United States are salamanders (Ambystoma barbouri) beds can transport contaminants atrazine, carbaryl, diazinon, and (Rohr et al. 2003, p. 2,391). The directly into the aquifer (Service 2005, simazine (Mahler and Van Metre 2000, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) p. 1.6–14). Salado salamander sites p. 1). These four pesticides were (2007a, p. 9) also found that carbaryl is located downstream of Interstate documented within the Austin blind likely to adversely affect the Barton Highway 35 may be particularly salamander’s habitat (Barton Springs Springs salamander both directly and vulnerable due to their proximity to this Pool and Eliza Springs) in water indirectly through reduction of prey. major transportation corridor. Interstate samples taken at Barton Springs during Additionally, atrazine has been shown Highway 35 crosses Salado Creek just and after a 2-day storm event (Mahler to impair sexual development in male 760 to 1,100 ft (231 to 335 m) from three and Van Metre 2000, pp. 1, 6, 8). They amphibians at concentrations as low as spring sites (Big Boiling Springs, Lil’ were found at levels below criteria set 0.1 part per billion (Hayes 2002, p. Bubbly Springs, and Lazy Days Fish in the aquatic life protection section of 5,477). Atrazine levels were found to be Farm) where the Salado salamander is the Texas Surface Water Quality greater than 0.44 part per billion after known to occur. Should a hazardous Standards (Mahler and Van Metre 2000, rainfall in Barton Springs Pool (Mahler materials spill occur at the Interstate p. 4). In addition, elevated and Van Mere 2000, pp. 4, 12). Highway 35 bridge that crosses at concentrations of organochlorine In summary, even though we do not Salado Creek, the Salado salamander pesticides were found in Barton Springs know the extent to which pesticides could be at risk from contaminants sediments (Ingersoll et al. 2001, p. 7). A have affected the surface and subsurface entering the water flowing into its later water quality study at Barton habitat of the four central Texas surface habitat downstream. Springs from 2003 to 2005 detected salamander species at this time, In addition, the Texas Department of atrazine, simazine, prometon, and pesticides do pose a significant, ongoing Transportation (TxDOT) is planning to deethylatrazine in low concentrations threat to the continued existence of all reconstruct a section of Interstate (Mahler et al. 2006, p. 63). During storm four salamanders throughout their Highway 35 within the Village of Salado events, additional contaminants were ranges. (Najvar, 2009, Service, pers. comm., p. detected, including pharmaceutical 1). This work will include replacing compounds such as caffeine, Hazardous Material Spills four bridges that cross Salado Creek acetaminophen, and cotinine (Mahler et The Edwards Aquifer is at risk from (two main lane bridges and two frontage al. 2006, p. 64). The presence of these a variety of sources of pollutants (Ross road bridges) in an effort to widen the contaminants in Barton Springs 2011, p. 4), including hazardous highway at this location. This project indicates the vulnerability of materials that have the potential to be could affect the risk of hazardous salamander habitat to contaminant spilled, resulting in contamination of materials spills and runoff into Salado infiltration from surface land uses. both surface and groundwater resources Creek upstream of known Salado

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50783

salamander locations. In August 2009, (1 km) per day to over 4 mi (6 km) per wastewater line is being constructed in TxDOT began working with the Service day. The relatively rapid movement of the South San Gabriel River drainage to identify measures, such as the groundwater under any flow conditions (City of Georgetown 2008, p. 3.22), installation of permanent water quality provides little time for mitigation efforts which is within the watershed of one control mechanisms to contain runoff, to reduce potential damage from a known Georgetown salamander site. to protect the Salado salamander and its hazardous spill anywhere within the Almost 700 septic systems were habitat from the effects of this project Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards permitted or inspected in Georgetown in (Najvar 2009, pers. comm., p. 1). Aquifer (Turner and O’Donnell 2004, 2006 (City of Georgetown 2008, p. 3.36). Austin blind salamander habitat is pp. 11–13). Even though data on chemical spills similarly at risk from hazardous A number of point-sources of near the City of Georgetown are lacking, material spills that could contaminate pollutants exist within the Jollyville there is the potential for spills and groundwater. There is potential for a Plateau salamander’s range. Utility contamination to occur from multiple catastrophic gasoline spill in the Barton structures such as storage tanks or sources. Springs Segment of the Edwards pipelines (particularly gas and sewer Several groundwater contamination Aquifer, due to the presence of the lines) can accidentally discharge. incidents have occurred within Salado Longhorn pipeline (Turner and Leaking underground storage tanks have salamander habitat (Price et al. 1999, p. O’Donnell 2004, pp. 2–3). Although a been documented as a problem within 10). Big Boiling Springs is located on number of mitigation measures were the Jollyville Plateau salamander’s range the south bank of Salado Creek, near employed to reduce the risk of a leak or (COA 2001, p. 16). Sewage spills from locations of past contamination events spill from the Longhorn pipeline, such pipelines also have been documented in (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 43). a spill could enter the aquifer and result watersheds supporting Jollyville Plateau Between 1989 and 1993, at least four in the contamination of salamander salamander populations (COA 2001, pp. incidents occurred within a quarter mile habitat at Barton Springs (EPA 2000, pp. 16, 21, 74). For example, in 2007, a (0.4 km) from the spring site, including 9–29–9–30). sewage line overflowed an estimated a 700-gallon (2,650-liter) and 400-gallon Multiple water lines also run through 50,000 gallons (190,000 liters) of raw (1,514-liter) gasoline spill and the surrounding areas of Barton Springs. sewage into the Stillhouse Hollow petroleum leaks from two underground A water line break could potentially drainage area of Bull Creek (COA 2007b, storage tanks (Price et al. 1999, p. 10). flow directly into Barton Springs, pp. 1–3). The location of the spill was Because no follow-up studies were exposing salamanders to chlorine a short distance downstream of conducted, we have no information to concentrations that are potentially toxic currently known salamander locations, indicate what effect these spills had on (Herrington and Turner 2009, pp. 5, 6). and no salamanders were thought to be the species or its habitat. However, Sewage spills are the most common type affected. between 1991 and 1998, only a single of spill within the Barton Springs The City of Austin also cites salamander was observed at Big Boiling watershed and represent a potential swimming pools as a potential threat to Springs (TPWD 2011a, p. 2). catastrophic threat (Turner and Eurycea salamanders if pools are In summary, catastrophic hazardous O’Donnell 2004, p. 27). Sewage spills drained into waterways or storm drains material spills pose a potential often include contaminants such as without dechlorination (COA 2001, p. significant threat to the Austin blind, nutrients, PAHs, metals, pesticides, 130). This is due to the concentrations Georgetown, and Salado salamanders pharmaceuticals, and high levels of of chlorine commonly used in due to their restricted ranges. A fecal coliform bacteria. Increased residential swimming pools, which far significant hazardous materials spill ammonia levels and reduced dissolved exceed the lethal concentrations within a stream drainage for any of oxygen are the most likely impacts of a observed in experiments with the San these species could have the potential to sewage spill that could cause rapid Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana) threaten the long-term survival and mortality of large numbers of (COA 2001, p. 130). Residential sustainability of multiple populations or salamanders (Turner and O’Donnell swimming pools can be found possibly an entire species. The threats 2004, p. 27). Fecal coliform bacteria throughout the watersheds of several from spills increase substantially under cause diseases in salamanders and their Jollyville Plateau salamander sites and drought conditions due to lower prey base (Turner and O’Donnell 2004, may pose a risk to the salamanders if dilution and buffering capability of p. 27). Approximately 7,600 wastewater discharged into the storm drain system impacted waterbodies. Spills under low mains totaling 349 mi (561.6 km) are or waterways. flow conditions are predicted to have an present in the Barton Springs Segment Data on chemical spills near the City impact at much smaller volumes of the Edwards Aquifer (Herrington et of Georgetown are lacking, but the threat (Turner and O’Donnell 2004, p. 26). For al. 2010, p. 16). In addition, there are of groundwater contamination from example, it is predicted that at low 9,470 known septic facilities in the accidental spills is still present. As flows (10 cubic feet per second [cfs]) a Barton Springs Segment as of 2010 recently as 2011, a fuel tanker spill of 360 gallons (1,362.7 liters) of (Herrington et al. 2010, p. 5), up from overturned in Georgetown and spilled gasoline 3 miles (4.8 km) from Barton 4,806 septic systems in 1995 (COA 3,500 gallons (13,249 liters) of gasoline Springs could be catastrophic for the 1995, p. 3–13). In one City of Austin (McHenry et al. 2011, p. 1). A large Austin blind salamander population survey of these septic systems, over 7 plume of hydrocarbons was detected (Turner and O’Donnell 2004, p. 26). percent were identified as failing (COA within the Edwards Aquifer underneath Because the Austin blind salamander 1995, p. 3–18). Georgetown in 1997 (Mace et al, 1997, resides in only one spring system, a A contaminant spill could travel p. 32), probably the result of a leaking catastrophic spill in its surface and quickly through the aquifer to Barton fuel storage tank. There are currently subsurface habitat could cause the Springs, where it could impact Austin eight water treatment plants within the extinction of this species in the wild. blind salamander populations. city limits, with wastewater and However, because the Jollyville Plateau Depending on water levels in the chlorinated drinking water lines salamander occurs in more populations aquifer, groundwater flow rates through running throughout Georgetown over a broader range, the potential for a the Barton Springs Segment of the salamander stream drainages (City of catastrophic hazardous materials spill to Edwards Aquifer can range from 0.6 mi Georgetown 2008, p. 3.37). A ‘‘massive’’ affect the overall species’ status is small.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50784 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

A hazardous materials spill has the occurs in many of these watersheds, we and subsurface habitat due to its potential to cause localized populations believe that the threat of construction in potential to intercept groundwater flow to go extinct, but we do not consider areas of new development applies to and dewatering. In 2011, construction this to be a threat to the Jollyville these species as well. Construction is began on the Jollyville Transmission Plateau salamander’s overall continued intermittent and temporary, but it Main (JTM), a tunnel designed to existence. But, in combination with the affects both surface and subsurface transport treated drinking water from other threats identified in this five- habitats. Therefore, we have determined Water Treatment Plant No. 4 to the factor analysis, we think a catastrophic that this threat is ongoing and is and Jollyville Reservoir. The project also hazardous materials spill could will continue to affect the Austin blind, includes four working shafts along the contribute to the species’ risk of Jollyville Plateau, and Georgetown tunnel route (COA 2010b, p. 1). Because extinction by reducing its long-term salamanders and their habitats. the tunnel is being constructed below viability. We, therefore, consider However, we consider this threat to the Edwards Aquifer and below the hazardous material spills to be a affect the Salado salamander to a lesser permeable portion of the Glen Rose potential significant threat for the degree due to the relatively low levels formation (COA 2010b, p. 42; Toohey Austin blind and Salado salamander of impervious cover in its range. 2011, p. 1; COA 2011c, p. 36, 46), the due to their limited distributions. Also, the physical construction of threat to the salamander from this Hazardous material spills are less of a pipelines has the potential to modify particular tunnel is considered low. The threat for the more widespread subsurface habitat for salamander vertical shafts that are being drilled Georgetown salamander. These spills species. It is known that these down through the Edwards Aquifer are pose a low risk to the Jollyville Plateau salamanders inhabit the subsurface a more significant concern. salamander due to its more widespread environment. Tunneling for Of the four shafts, only the one at the distribution. underground pipelines can destroy Four Points location appears to be a potential habitat by removing potential threat to any Jollyville Plateau Construction Activities subsurface material. Additional material salamanders. The Parks and Recreation Short-term increases in pollutants, can become dislodged and result in Department (PARD) shaft is in the Glen particularly sediments, can occur during increased sediment loading into the Rose (not the Edwards) formation construction in areas of new aquifer and associated spring systems. (Service 2010a; COA 2011c, p. 33) and development. When vegetation is In addition, disruption of water flow to therefore is not expected to affect removed and rain falls on unprotected springs inhabited by salamanders can Edwards Aquifer groundwater. The soils, large discharges of suspended occur through the construction of Jollyville Reservoir Shaft is on the other sediments can erode from newly tunnels and vertical shafts. Because side of a groundwater divide from any exposed areas, resulting in increased detailed maps of the underground springs within a mile of the site (Service sedimentation in downstream drainage conduits that feed springs in the 2010a). The shaft at the water treatment channels (Schueler 1987, pp. 1–4; Edwards Aquifer are not available, plant is going through a portion of the Turner 2003, p. 24; O’Donnell et al. tunnels and shafts have the possibility Edwards formation that is dry (COA 2005, p. 15). This increased of intercepting and severing those 2011c, p. 33). There are 8 of 92 known sedimentation from construction conduits (COA 2010b, p. 28). Affected Jollyville Plateau salamander sites activities has been linked to declines in springs could rapidly become dry and within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the Four Points Jollyville Plateau salamander counts at would not support salamander shaft location. The closest locations multiple sites (Turner 2003, p. 24; populations. The closer a shaft or tunnel (Spring 21 and Spring 24) are about O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34). Cave sites location is to a spring, the more likely 2,000 ft (610 m) or greater from the are also impacted by construction, as that the construction will impact a shaft. Best management practices Testudo Tube Cave (Jollyville Plateau spring (COA 2010b, p. 28). This has designed to protect groundwater salamander habitat) showed an increase presumably occurred in the past at Moss resources have been implemented into in nickel, calcium, and nitrate/nitrite Gulley Spring, where the drilling of a the design and construction of the JTM after nearby road construction (Richter nearby test well in the mid-1980s led to shafts. These practices include, but are 2009, pp. 6–7). Barton Springs (Austin the dewatering of the spring (Hillis et al. not limited to: Monitoring groundwater blind salamander habitat) is also under 2010, p. 2). Jollyville Plateau quality and spring flow, minimizing the threat of pollutant loading due to its salamanders have not been observed at sediment discharges during proximity to construction activities and that site since the spring stopped construction, developing a groundwater location at the downstream side of the flowing (Hillis et al. 2010, p. 2). Even impact contingency plan, locating watershed (COA 1997, p. 237). The City small shafts pose a threat to nearby working shafts in areas where the of Austin (1995, p. 3–11) estimated that spring systems, and therefore, we chance of encountering conduits to construction-related sediment and in- consider construction of pipelines to be salamander springs is reduced, and re- channel erosion accounted for a future threat to the surface and routing conduit flow paths around the approximately 80 percent of the average subsurface habitat of all four salamander shaft if encountered (COA 2010b, pp. annual sediment load in the Barton species. However, we consider this a 51–55). Springs watershed. In addition, the City low significance threat for the Jollyville We believe that these best of Austin (1995, p. 3–10) estimated that Plateau salamander because tunnels or management practices have lowered the total suspended sediment loads have shafts are likely to only impact a few magnitude of the threat to the Jollyville increased 270 percent over pre- populations. Because there are currently Plateau salamander. However, a leak development loadings within the Barton no known projects that are likely to occurred at one shaft site (Four Points) Springs Segment of the Edwards occur within the species’ range, we in December 2011, and it was associated Aquifer. At this time, we are not aware consider this a threat of low significance with an initial 1-foot (0.3 m) drop in the of any studies that have examined for the Austin blind, Georgetown, and aquifer level (Toohey 2011, p. 2) as sediment loading due to construction Salado salamanders. measured in a monitoring well 10 ft (3 activities within the watersheds of Likewise, we consider tunnel and m) away. A 1-foot (0.3-m) drop in water Georgetown or Salado salamander shaft construction to be a threat to the level was also seen in a monitoring well habitats. However, because construction Jollyville Plateau salamander’s surface 100 ft (30 m) away, but not in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50785

monitoring wells farther out. The City active limestone quarries within the number of springs that support Jollyville did not see any drops in flow at the species’ range. Plateau salamanders have already gone springs they were monitoring or in wells dry periodically, and that spring waters Water Quantity Reduction in Relation between those springs and the well 100 resurface following rain events to Urbanization ft away; however, they do not have (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 46–47). The access to the closest springs (mentioned The Northern Segment of the Edwards San Gabriel Springs (Georgetown above). Since that time, grout has been Aquifer is the primary supply of water salamander habitat) are now injected into the shaft wall to stop the for Jollyville Plateau, Georgetown, and intermittently flowing in the summer leak. Preliminary evidence indicates Salado salamander habitat (Cole 1995, due to pumping from nearby water that the grout injection resulted in a p. 33; TPWD 2011a, p. 3). In general, the wells (TPWD 2011a, p. 9). Salamanders tight seal at the site of the leak (Lesniak aquifer has been described as localized, have not been seen on the surface there 2012, City of Austin, pers. comm.). Even small, and highly susceptible to drying since 1991 (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. so, we consider tunnel and shaft or draining (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 40; Pierce 2011b, pers. comm.). construction of the JTM to be a threat 36). In combination with drought, now to the Jollyville Plateau Urbanization and rapid population groundwater pumping has a direct salamander’s habitat due to its potential growth in the Northern Segment of the impact on spring flows. Groundwater to intercept groundwater flow and to Edwards Aquifer may contribute to availability models demonstrate that 1 dewater; however, we consider this reduced spring flows due to increases in cfs of pumping will diminish Barton threat to be of low significance because groundwater pumping. From 1980 to Springs spring flow by 1 cfs under the best management practices have 2000, groundwater pumping in the drought-of-record (1950s drought) been implemented into the design and Northern Segment of the Edwards conditions (Smith and Hunt 2004, pp. Aquifer nearly doubled (TWDB 2003, construction of the JTM shafts to protect 24, 36). Under the same conditions, pp. 32–33). The City of Georgetown groundwater resources. these models suggest that present-day predicts the average water demand to pumping rates will temporarily cease Lastly, limestone rock is an important increase from 8.21 million gallons per Barton Springs flow on a daily basis raw material that is mined in quarries day in 2003, to 10.9 million gallons per (Smith and Hunt 2004, pp. 24, 36). all over the world due to its popularity day by 2030 (City of Georgetown 2008, Groundwater pumping can lead to as a building material and its use in the p. 3.36). Under peak flow demands (18 saline water encroachments in the manufacture of cement (Vermeulen and million gallons per day in 2003), the aquifer. As groundwater levels decline, Whitten 1999, p. 1). The construction City of Georgetown uses seven a decrease in hydrostatic pressure activities within rock quarries can groundwater wells in the Edwards occurs and saline groundwater is able to permanently alter the geology and Aquifer (City of Georgetown 2008, p. penetrate up into the lower portion of groundwater hydrology of the 3.36). Total water use for Williamson the aquifer (Pavlicek et al. 1987, p. 2). immediate area, and adversely affect County was 73,532 ac ft in 2010, and is This saline water encroachment would springs that are hydrologically projected to increase to 98,268 ac ft by threaten the freshwater biota in the connected to impacted sites. The 2020, and to 211,854 ac ft by 2060, springs and the aquifer, including the potential environmental impacts of representing a 188 percent increase over four central Texas salamander species quarries include outright destruction of the 50-year period (TWDB 2010, p. 46). and their prey, by dramatically springs or collapse of karst caverns, as Similarly, Bell County and Travis increasing the water salinity. Water well as impacts to water quality through County expect a 59 percent and 91 quality in the Barton Springs Segment of siltation and sedimentation, and percent increase in total water use over the Edwards Aquifer has been degraded impacts to water quantity through water the same 50-year period, respectively in the past due to saline encroachment diversion, dewatering, and reduced (TWDB 2010, pp. 46, 64). (Slade et al. 1986, p. 62). This water flows (Ekmekci 1990, p. 4). Limestone is One prediction of future groundwater quality degradation occurred when a common geologic feature of the use in this area suggests a large drop in Barton Springs discharge was less than Edwards Aquifer, and active quarries pumping as municipalities convert from 30 cfs (Slade et al. 1986, p. 64). An exist throughout the region. For groundwater to surface water supplies analysis of more recent data found example, at least three Georgetown (TWDB 2003, p. 65). However, it is similar declines in water quality as the salamander sites (Avant Spring, Knight unknown if this reduction in flow of Barton Springs dropped into the (Crockett Gardens) Spring, and Cedar groundwater use translates to adequate 20 to 30 cfs range (Johns 2006, pp. 6– Breaks Hiking Trail Spring) occur spring flows for salamanders. Increased 7). As mentioned earlier, reduced adjacent to a limestone quarry that has urbanization in the watershed has been groundwater levels would also increase been active since at least 1995. The cited as one factor, in combination with the concentration of pollutants in the population status of the Georgetown drought, causing declines in spring aquifer. Flows at Barton Springs salamander is unknown at Knight flows (City of Austin 2006, pp. 46–47; dropped below 17 cfs as recently as Spring and Cedar Breaks Hiking Trail TPWD 2011a, pp. 4–5). Urbanization mid-November 2011 (Barton Springs/ Spring, but salamanders are seen removes the ability of the watershed to Edwards Aquifer Conservation District infrequently and in low abundance at allow slow filtration of water through 2011, p. 1). the closest spring to the quarry (Avant soils following rain events. Instead Although water quantity decreases Spring; Pierce 2011c, pers. comm.). rainfall runs off impervious surfaces and and spring flow declines are cited as a Because quarries may only affect a small into stream channels at higher rates, threat to Eurycea salamanders (Corn et portion of the species’ ranges, we increasing downstream flows and al. 2003, p. 36; Bowles et al. 2006, p. consider the mining of limestock rock to decreasing groundwater recharge (Miller 111), these species display some be an ongoing threat with limited effect et al. 2007, p. 74). adaptive behavior to deal with periods to the Georgetown, Jollyville Plateau, The City of Austin found a negative of periodic surface flow losses. All four and Salado salamanders, but not the correlation between urbanization and salamander species apparently spend Austin blind salamander. The Austin spring flows at Jollyville Plateau some part of their life history in blind salamander’s range is located in salamander sites (Turner 2003, p. 11). underground aquatic habitats and have downtown Austin, and there are no Field studies have also shown that a the ability to retreat underground when

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50786 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

surface flows decline. For example, one with other threats discussed above, salamander habitat. Although a natural of the City of Austin monitoring sites these threats may contribute to the surface flow connection between where Jollyville Plateau salamanders are species’ risk of extinction. Sunken Gardens Spring and Barton most abundant undergoes periods where Creek has been restored recently (COA Impoundments there is no surface water habitat 2007c, p. 6), the Barton Springs system available for the salamander (O’Donnell Impoundments disrupt the natural as a whole remains highly modified. et al. 2006, p. 47). Jollyville Plateau flow regime of streams, leading to a Therefore, we consider impoundments salamander juveniles were observed at variety of stressors that impact the to be an ongoing threat to the Salado, Lanier Spring following 10 months of salamanders and their surface habitats. Georgetown, and Austin blind dry conditions on the surface, indicating For example, a low water crossing on a salamanders and their surface habitat, that the salamanders are likely able to tributary of Bull Creek, occupied by the now and in the future. This threat has reproduce in the subsurface Jollyville Plateau salamander, resulted a limited effect on the Salado and environment during a drought (Bendik in sediment build-up below the Georgetown salamanders because it 2011a, p. 32). Salado salamanders also impoundment and a scour hole above impacts a small portion of the species’ reappeared in Robertson Springs after the impoundment that supported ranges, but has a large effect on the the springs went temporarily dry in predaceous fish (O’Donnell et al. 2008, Austin blind salamander because it 2009 (TPWD 2011a, p. 5). However, p. 1). As a result, Jollyville Plateau affects this species’ entire range. drying spring habitats can result in salamanders were not found in this stranding salamanders, resulting in degraded habitat after the impoundment Feral Hogs death of individuals (O’Donnell et al. was constructed. When the crossing was There are between 1.8 and 3.4 million 2006, p. 16). It is also known that prey removed in October 2008, the sediment feral hogs (Sus scrofa) in Texas (TAMU availability for carnivores is low build-up was removed, the scour hole 2011, p. 2). They prefer to live around underground due to the lack of primary was filled, and salamanders were later moist areas, including riparian areas production (Hobbs and Culver 2009, p. observed (Bendik 2011b, pers. comm.). near streams, where they can dig into 392). This is supported by recent Many low-water crossings are present the soft ground for food and wallow in evidence of ‘‘shrinkage’’ in Jollyville near other Jollyville Plateau salamander mud to keep cool (Mapson 2004, pp. 11, Plateau salamander body length sites (Bendik 2011b, pers. comm.). 14–15). Feral hogs disrupt these following periods of no springflow Impoundments only impact the surface ecosystems by decreasing plant species (Bendik 2011b, pers. comm.). Length habitat of salamanders. Because diversity, increasing invasive species impoundments are likely to impact a measurements taken during a COA abundance, increasing soil nitrogen, and small portion of the species’ range, we mark-recapture study at Lanier Spring exposing bare ground (Texas A&M consider impoundments caused by low- demonstrated that Jollyville Plateau University (TAMU) 2012, p. 4). Feral water crossings to be an ongoing threat salamanders had negative growth during hogs negatively impact surface of limited effect on the Jollyville Plateau a 10-month period of no springflow in salamander habitat by digging and salamander and its surface habitat, now 2008–2009 (Bendik 2011b, pers. wallowing in spring heads, which comm.). Therefore, although central and in the future. Impoundments have also impacted increases sedimentation downstream Texas salamanders can survive and (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 34, 46). They reproduce underground, the best surface habitat for the other salamander species. Most of the spring outlets in the have been cited as a source of elevated available scientific evidence shows that bacteria, nitrates, and phosphorus to these animals need the energy-rich Village of Salado, including the Salado salamander type locality at Big Boiling streams in the Austin area (Timmons et surface habitat for positive growth and al. 2011, pp. 1–2). development. Springs, were modified by dam In summary, water quantity reduction construction in the mid-1800s, to Feral hogs have become abundant in in relation to urbanization is an ongoing supply power to various mills (Brune some areas where the Jollyville Plateau, threat to all four salamanders 1981, p. 67). Two sites for the Georgetown, and Salado salamanders throughout their ranges, primarily due Georgetown salamander have spring occur. O’Donnell et al. (2006, p. 34) to increased groundwater pumping in openings that are confined to brick and noted that feral hog activity was the presence of drought conditions and mortar spring boxes (White 2011, increasing in the Bull and Cypress creek potential increases in saline water SWCA, pers. comm.; Booker 2011, p. 1), watersheds. Evidence of hogs has also encroachments in the aquifer. However, presumably to collect the spring water been observed near one Georgetown we believe this threat is having or likely for cattle. All spring sites for the Austin salamander site (Cobbs Spring) (Booker to have only a moderate effect, because blind salamander (Main, Eliza, and 2011, p. 1). The landowner of Cobbs the salamanders have the ability to Sunken Garden springs) have been Spring is actively trapping feral hogs retreat underground when surface flows impounded for recreational use. These (Booker 2011, p. 1), but the effectiveness decline. sites were impounded in the early to of this management has not been mid-1900s. For example, Eliza Spring assessed. Feral hogs are also present in Physical Modification of Surface now discharges from 7 openings (each 1 the area of several Salado salamander Habitat ft (0.3 m) in diameter) in the concrete sites. Fortunately, feral hogs cannot All four salamanders are sensitive to floor and 13 rectangular vents along the access Austin blind salamander sites direct physical modification of surface edges of the concrete. While the due to fencing and their location in habitat from impoundments, feral hogs, manmade structures help retain water in downtown Austin. livestock, and other human activities. the spring pools during low flows, they In summary, because of their Because these threats only impact the have altered the salamander’s natural abundance and potential to negatively surface habitat of salamanders, and environment. The impoundments have impact surface salamander habitat, we because each species has the ability to changed the Barton Springs ecosystem consider feral hogs to be an ongoing retreat to subsurface habitats for shelter, from a stream-like system to a more threat of low significance to the none of these threats is likely to result lentic (still water) environment, thereby Jollyville Plateau, Georgetown, and in a significant impact to the species or reducing the water system’s ability to Salado salamanders. As previously their habitat. However, in combination flush sediments downstream and out of stated, we do not consider feral hogs to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50787

be a threat to the Austin blind believe it is occurring at a scale that game warden to stop work within salamander at this time. significantly contributes to the risk of TPWD’s jurisdiction, which Salado extinction of the species on its own. Chamber of Commerce did temporarily, Livestock However, in combination with the other but work started again in spite of the Similar to feral hogs, livestock can threats identified in this five-factor game warden’s directive (Heger 2012a, negatively impact surface salamander analysis, we think livestock may be pers. comm.). A sand and gravel permit habitat by disturbing the substrate and contributing to the species’ risk of was obtained on March 21, 2012. The increasing sedimentation in the spring extinction by reducing its long-term spring run modifications were already run where salamanders are often found. viability. Livestock are not a threat to completed by this date, but further Poorly managed livestock grazing the continued existence of the Austin modifications in the springs were results in changes in vegetation (from blind or Jollyville Plateau salamanders. prohibited by the permit. Additional grass-dominated to brush-dominated), work on the bank upstream of the Other Human Activities which leads to increased erosion of the springs was permitted and completed soil profile (COA 1995, p. 3–59). Some sites for the four central Texas (Heger 2012b, pers. comm.). Grazing near streams can negatively salamanders have been directly Because the Salado salamander is impact nutrients, bacteria, species modified by human-related activities. In only known from seven spring diversity, and water temperature in the summer of 2008, a spring opening at locations, any type of human-related stream systems (COA 1995, p. 3–62). a Salado salamander site was covered activities, such as pumping water from Evidence of trampling and grazing in with gravel (Service 2010b, p. 6). a spring opening, contouring the riparian areas from cattle can be found Although we received anecdotal substrate of a spring environment, and at one Georgetown salamander site information that at least one salamander covering spring openings with gravel, (White 2011, SWCA, pers. comm.), and was observed at the site after the gravel may have significant detrimental effects cattle are present on at least one other was dumped at Big Boiling Springs, the on the salamander and its habitat. These Georgetown salamander site. Cattle are Service has no detailed information on activities only affect the surface also present on lands where four Salado how the Salado salamander was affected salamander habitat. Therefore, we salamander sites occur (Gluesenkamp by this action. Heavy machinery is consider these types of human-related 2011b, pers. comm.; Texas Section continuously used in the riparian area activities to be ongoing threats of low Society for Range Management 2011, p. of Big Boiling and Lil’ Bubbly Springs impact to the Salado salamander’s 2). Austin blind salamander habitat is to clear out vegetation and maintain a continued existence. inside a City of Austin park, and grassy lawn to the water’s edge Furthermore, frequent human livestock are not allowed in the spring (Gluesenkamp 2011a,b, pers. comm.), visitation associated with easily areas. Much of the Jollyville Plateau which has led to erosion problems accessed habitat of the four salamanders salamander habitat is in suburban areas, during flood events (TPWD 2011a, p. 6). may negatively affect the species and and we are not aware of livestock The modification of springs for their habitat. Documentation from the damage in those areas. recreation or other purposes degrades City of Austin of disturbed vegetation, There is some management of natural riparian areas, which are vandalism, and the destruction of livestock occurring that reduces the important for controlling erosion and travertine deposits (fragile rock magnitude of negative impacts. An attenuating floodwaters in aquatic formations formed by deposit of calcium 8,126-ac (3,288-ha) property in Bell habitats. Other continuing human carbonate on stream bottoms) by foot County with at least three Salado activities at Big Boiling Spring include traffic has been documented at one of salamander sites has limited its cattle pumping water from the spring opening, their Jollyville Plateau salamander rotation to a maximum of 450 head contouring the substrate of the spring monitoring sites in the Bull Creek (Texas Section Society for Range environment, and covering spring watershed (COA 2001, p. 21) and may Management 2011, p. 2), which is openings with gravel (TPWD 2011a, p. result in direct destruction of small considered a moderate stocking rate. 4). For example, in the fall of 2011, the amounts of the salamander’s habitat. The landowners at four of the springs outflow channels and edges of these two Eliza Spring and Sunken Garden Spring, with Salado salamanders have been springs were reconstructed with large two of the three locations of the Austin considering options for fencing off limestone blocks and mortar. In blind salamander, also experience spring outlets to protect the salamander addition, in response to other activity in vandalism, despite the presence of habitat from cattle damage (Harrell the area, the U.S. Army Corps of fencing and signage (Dries 2011, City of 2012, Service, pers. comm.). In addition, Engineers issued a cease and desist Austin, pers. comm.). The deep water of the landowner of Cobbs Spring (a order to the Salado Chamber of the third location (Main Pool) likely Georgetown salamander site) is in the Commerce in October 2011, for protects the Austin blind salamander’s process of phasing out cattle on the unauthorized discharge of dredged or surface habitat from damage from property (Boyd 2011, Williamson fill material that occurred in this area frequent human recreation. Therefore, County Conservation Foundation, pers. (Brooks 2011, U.S. Corps of Engineers, we consider human visitation to be an comm.). pers. comm.). This order was issued in ongoing threat of low impact to the In summary, even though livestock relation to the need for a section 404 Jollyville Plateau salamander, and a may be having impacts at four of the permit under the Clean Water Act (33 threat of moderate impact to the Austin seven Salado salamander spring sites, U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). Also in October blind salamander, now and in the we believe livestock to be an ongoing 2011, a TPWD game warden issued a future. threat of low impact to this citation to the Salado Chamber of Lastly, at the complex of springs salamander’s habitat because there is Commerce due to the need for a sand occupied by the Georgetown salamander some management of the livestock that and gravel permit from the TPWD for within San Gabriel River Park, a thick reduces the magnitude of negative work being conducted within TPWD’s bed of nonnative granite gravel has been impacts. Even though habitat jurisdiction (Heger 2012a, TPWD, pers. placed in the spring runs (TPWD 2011a, degradation by livestock is a factor that comm.). The citation was issued p. 9). This pea gravel is too small to seems to be impacting the habitat of the because the Salado Chamber of serve as cover habitat and does not form Georgetown salamander, we do not Commerce had been directed by the the interstitial spaces required for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50788 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Georgetown salamanders. Salamanders Low flow conditions during drought if they are unable to retreat have not been observed here since 1991 also have negative impacts to the Austin underground, it increases competition (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 40; Pierce blind salamander and its ecosystem in for spaces and resources (Bendik 2011a, 2011b, pers. comm.). Gravel dumping the Edwards Aquifer and at Barton p. 31), and it negatively affects their has not been documented at any other Springs. The long-term average flow at habitat, as discussed above. However, Georgetown salamander sites. Because the Barton Springs outlets is we consider the threat of drought to this activity may have contributed to the approximately 53 cfs (City of Austin have a limited impact to all four central decline of only this single population, 1998, p. 13; Smith and Hunt 2004, p. Texas salamanders and their habitats we do not consider substrate 10). The lowest flow recorded at Barton because they may be evolutionarily modification in the form of gravel Springs was about 10 cfs during a record adapted to drought conditions that are dumping to be a threat to the existence drought in the 1950s (COA 1998, p. 13). common to the region (Bendik 2011a, of the Georgetown salamander by itself. Discharge at Barton Springs decreases as pp. 31–32). At the same time, climate However, in combination with the other water levels in the Barton Springs change and groundwater pumping may threats identified in this five-factor Segment of the Edwards Aquifer drop. exacerbate drought conditions to the analysis, we think substrate Decreased discharge is associated with point where salamanders cannot adapt modification may be contributing to the increases in water temperature, (see ‘‘Climate Change’’, below, and species’ risk of extinction by reducing decreases in spring flow speed, and ‘‘Water Quantity Reduction in Relation its long-term viability. increases in sedimentation (COA 2011d, to Urbanization’’, above). pp. 19, 24, 27). Large declines in aquifer Drought and Flooding Flooding levels have historically been due to a Broad drought and flooding events lack of adequate rainfall recharging the Flooding as a result of rainfall events have proven to have large impacts on aquifer. In a 2004 groundwater flow can dramatically alter the substrate and the central Texas salamanders by modeling study, the Barton Springs hydrology of salamander habitat. A drastically reducing or increasing the Edwards Aquifer Conservation District flood event in September 2010 modified amount of water and affecting habitat predicted that under drought-of-record surface habitat for the Georgetown quality. conditions and current pumping levels, salamander at two sites (Pierce 2011a, p. 10). The stormwater runoff caused Drought the mean monthly springflow would be about 1 cfs. This study also indicated erosion, scouring of the streambed The presence of water is an essential that under drought-of-record conditions, channel, the loss of large rocks, and the component to salamander habitat. projected pumping rates for future years creation of several deep pools. Drought conditions alter the hydrologic would cause Barton Springs to cease Salamander densities dropped conditions resulting in lowering flowing for at least 4 months out of a dramatically in the days following the groundwater tables and reduced spring year (Smith and Hunt 2004, pp. 1, 20, flood, and at one site, remained at low flows. The impacts of drought are 24). levels until habitat restoration compounded by other consumptive uses The specific effects of low flow on (returning large rocks to the spring run) of the aquifer such as groundwater central Texas salamanders can be took place in the spring of 2011 (Pierce pumping. The Northern Segment of the inferred by examining studies on the 2011a, p. 11). Likewise, three storm Edwards Aquifer, which supplies water Barton Springs salamander. Drought events in 2009 and 2010 deposited to Jollyville Plateau, Georgetown, and decreases spring flow and dissolved sediment and other material on top of Salado salamander habitat, is vulnerable oxygen levels and increases temperature spring openings at Salado Spring, to drought (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. in Barton Springs (Turner 2004, p. 2; preventing salamanders from foraging 36). In particular, the portion of the Turner 2009, p. 14). Low dissolved (TPWD 2011a, p. 6). The increased flow Edwards Aquifer underlying the oxygen levels decrease reproduction in rate from flooding causes unusually Jollyville Plateau is relatively shallow, Barton Springs salamanders (Turner high dissolved oxygen concentrations, with a high elevation, thus being 2004, p. 6; 2009, p. 14). Turner (2009, which may exert direct or indirect, sub- unlikely to be able to sustain spring p. 14) also found that Barton Springs lethal effects (reduced reproduction or flows during periods of drought (Cole salamander counts decline with foraging success) on salamanders 1995, pp. 26–27). Drought in the decreasing discharge (and thus (Turner 2009, p. 11). In addition, watershed has been cited as one factor, declining dissolved oxygen levels). A Geismar (2005, p. 2) found that flooding in combination with urbanization, prolonged drought from June 2008 increases contaminants and sediments causing declines in spring flows through September 2009 caused in Barton Springs. In 2007, flooding (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 46–47). A decreases in Barton Springs salamander resulted in repeated accumulation of recent drought lasting from 2008 to 2009 abundance (COA 2011d, pp. 19, 24, 27). sediment in the Main Pool of Barton was considered one of the worst The drought in 2011 resulted in Springs that was so rapid that cleaning droughts in central Texas history and dissolved oxygen concentrations so low by City of Austin staff was not frequent caused numerous Jollyville Plateau that City of Austin used an aeration enough to keep the surface habitat from salamander sites to go dry (Bendik system to maintain oxygenated water in becoming embedded (COA 2007c, p. 4). 2011a, p. 31). An even more Eliza and Sunken Gardens Springs Flooding likely has similar effects on pronounced drought throughout Texas (Dries 2011, City of Austin, pers. contaminants and sediments in other began in 2010, with the period from comm.). Drought also lowers water salamander habitat, but we are not October 2010, through September 2011, quality in Barton Springs due to saline aware of other studies. being the driest 12-month period in water encroachments in the Barton The four salamanders’ surface habitat Texas since rainfall records began Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer is characterized by shallow water depth (LCRA 2011, p. 1). Rainfall in early 2012 (Slade et al. 1986, p. 62; Johns 2006, p. (COA 2001, p. 128; Pierce 2011a, p. 3), has lessened the intensity of the current 8). but deep pools are sometimes formed drought, but below average rainfall and In summary, we consider drought to within stream channels from the above average temperatures are be an ongoing threat to all four scouring of floods. Tumlison et al. forecasted for the summer of 2012 salamanders, because it can cause direct (1990, p. 172) found that the abundance (LCRA 2012, p. 1). mortality to salamanders by desiccation of one Eurycea species decreased as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50789

water depth increased. This relationship diminished and the frequency and detrimental impacts on aquifer- may be caused by an increase in severity of flooding increases. Because dependent species, especially coupled predation pressure, as deeper water of the detrimental effects previously with other threats on water quality and supports predaceous fish populations. discussed in association with increased quantity. However, there are little data However, several central Texas Eurycea stormwater runoff, we consider changes available to correlate groundwater species are able to thrive in deep water in flow regime due to impervious cover trends and climate change, and environments in the presence of many to be an ongoing threat to all four groundwater typically represents an predators (for example, San Marcos central Texas salamanders’ surface integration of past climatic conditions salamander in Spring Lake, Eurycea sp. habitats. over many years due to its time within in Landa Lake, Barton Springs an aquifer system (Mace and Wade Climate Change salamander in Barton Springs Pool). 2008, p. 657). Recharge, pumping, Anti-predator behaviors may allow Future climate change could natural discharge, and saline intrusion these species to co-exist with potentially affect water quantity and of groundwater systems could all be predaceous fish, and the effectiveness of spring flow for the four salamander affected by climate change (Mace and these behaviors may be species-specific species. According to the Wade 2008, p. 657). Because climate (reviewed in Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change has the potential to negatively 18–19). The specific resistance to Change (IPCC 2007, p. 1), ‘‘warming of affect water quality and spring flow, we predation from fish for the four central the climate system is unequivocal, as is consider climate change to be a Texas salamanders is unknown. In any now evident from observations of potential threat to all four central Texas case, flooding can alter the surface increases in global averages of air and salamanders and their habitats, now and habitat by deepening stream channels, ocean temperatures, widespread melting in the future. which may increase predaceous fish. of snow and ice, and rising global Also, salamanders may be flushed average sea level.’’ Localized projections Land Conservation Programs and Plans from the surface habitat by strong flows suggest the southwest United States may The Williamson County Conservation during flooding. Bowles et al. (2006, p. experience the greatest temperature Foundation (Foundation), a nonprofit 117) observed no Jollyville Plateau increase of any area in the lower 48 organization established by Williamson salamanders in riffle habitat at one site States (IPCC 2007, p. 8), with warming County in 2002, is currently working to during high water velocities and increases in southwestern States greatest find ways to conserve endangered hypothesized that individual in the summer. The IPCC also predicts species and other unlisted species of salamanders were either flushed hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy concern in Williamson County, Texas. downstream or retreated to the precipitation will increase in frequency This organization held a Georgetown subsurface. This site had a relatively (IPCC 2007, p. 8). salamander workshop in November undeveloped watershed (Bowles et al. Climate change could compound the 2003, in an effort to bring together 2006, p. 112), indicating that the runoff threat of decreased water quantity at landowners, ranchers, farmers, was largely natural and not caused by salamander spring sites. An increased developers, local and State officials, impervious cover. risk of drought could occur if Federal agencies, and biologists to In conclusion, flooding is a naturally evaporation exceeds precipitation levels discuss information currently known occurring event that all four salamander in a particular region due to increased about the Georgetown salamander and species have adapted to in the past. greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to educate the public on the threats Further, even though flooding is a factor (CH2M HILL 2007, p. 18). The Edwards faced by this species. that seems to be impacting all four Aquifer is also predicted to experience With the help of a grant funded salamanders’ surface habitats, we do not additional stress from climate change through section 6 of the Act, the believe it is occurring at a scale that that could lead to decreased recharge Foundation developed the Williamson would cause the extinction of any of the and low or ceased springflows given County Regional HCP to obtain a section salamanders on its own. Because of this, increasing pumping demands (Loa´iciga 10(a)(1)(B) permit for incidental take of we consider flooding on its own to have et al. 2000, pp. 192–193). CH2M HILL federally listed endangered species in a limited effect on the species and their (2007, pp. 22–23) identified possible Williamson County, Texas. This HCP habitats. However, in combination with effects of climate change on water became final in October 2008. Although the other threats identified in this five- resources within the Lower Colorado the Georgetown salamander is not factor analysis, we think flooding may River Watershed (which contributes currently listed and is not a ‘‘covered’’ be contributing to the species’ risk of recharge to Barton Springs). A reduction species, the Foundation has included extinction by reducing its long-term of recharge to aquifers and a greater considerations for the Georgetown viability. The intensity of flooding likelihood for more extreme droughts salamander in the HCP. In particular, events has increased due to increases in were identified as potential impacts to they plan to conduct a status review of impervious cover. As previously noted, water resources (CH2M HILL 2007, p. the Georgetown salamander. The once natural vegetation in a watershed 23). The droughts of 2008 to 2009, and Foundation plans to fund at least is replaced with impervious cover, 2010 to 2011, were two of the worst in $50,000 per year for 5 years for rainfall is converted to surface runoff central Texas history, with the period monitoring, surveying, and gathering instead of filtering through the ground from October 2010, through September baseline data on water quality and (Schueler 1991, p. 114). Impervious 2011, being the driest 12-month period quantity at salamander spring sites. cover in a stream’s watershed causes in Texas since rainfall records began Information gathered during this status streamflow to shift from predominately (LCRA 2011, p. 1). Rainfall in early 2012 review will be used to develop a baseflow, which is derived from natural has lessened the intensity of the current conservation strategy for this species. filtration processes and discharges from drought, but below average rainfall and The Foundation began allocating local groundwater supplies, to above average temperatures are funding for Georgetown salamander predominately stormwater runoff. With forecasted for the summer of 2012 research and monitoring beginning in increasing stormwater runoff, the (LCRA 2012, p. 1). 2010. A portion of that funding amount of baseflow available to sustain In summary, the effects of climate supported mark-recapture studies of the water supplies during drought cycles is change could potentially lead to Georgetown salamander at two of its

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50790 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

known localities (Twin Springs and The Balcones Canyonlands Preserve Barton Springs Pool and adjacent Swinbank Spring) in 2010 and 2011 offers some water quality benefits to the springs (City of Austin 1998, pp. 1–53). (Pierce 2011a, p. 20). Additional funds Jollyville Plateau salamander in Many of the provisions of the plan also have been directed at water quality portions of the Bull Creek, Brushy benefit the Austin blind salamander. assessments of at least two known Creek, Cypress Creek, and Long Hollow These provisions include: (1) Training localities and efforts to find previously Creek drainages through preservation of lifeguard and maintenance staff to undiscovered Georgetown salamander open space (Service 1996a, pp. 2–28, 2– protect salamander habitat, (2) populations (Boyd 2011, pers. comm.). 29). However, eight of the nine City of controlling erosion and preventing Although Jollyville Plateau salamanders Austin monitoring sites occupied by the surface runoff from entering the springs, are present in southwest Williamson Jollyville Plateau salamander within the (3) ecological enhancement and County and Salado salamander spring Balcones Canyonlands Preserve have restoration, (4) monthly monitoring of sites are likely influenced by the experienced water quality degradation salamander numbers, (5) public Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone in occurring upstream and outside of the outreach and education, and (6) northern Williamson County, the preserved tracts (O’Donnell et al. 2006, establishment and maintenance of a regional HCP does not include pp. 29, 34, 37, 49; COA 1999, pp. 6–11; captive breeding program, which considerations for these species. Also, Travis County 2007, p. 4). Additionally, includes the Austin blind salamander. Austin blind salamanders are not Jollyville Plateau salamanders are not a As part of this HCP, the City of Austin affected by this HCP. covered species under the section completed habitat restoration of Eliza Although the Service worked with the 10(a)(1)(B) permit under which the Spring and the main pool of Barton Foundation to develop the regional HCP preserves were established (Service Springs in 2003 and 2004. A more for several listed karst invertebrates, it is 1996b, pp. 1–10). Therefore, they natural flow regime was reconstructed also expected to benefit the Georgetown receive no specific protections under in these habitats by removing large salamander by lessening the potential the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve obstructions to flow. permit, such as mitigation to offset for water quality degradation within the Conclusion of Factor A spring systems it inhabits. As part of impacts from development. Degradation of habitat, in the form of this HCP, the Foundation is looking to The landowners of one 8,126-ac reduced water quality and quantity and set aside land that is beneficial to karst (3,288-ha) property with at least three disturbance of spring sites (surface invertebrate species. Some of these high-quality Salado salamander sites and the landowner of another property habitat), is the primary threat to the lands are in areas that will also provide with one Salado salamander site have Austin blind, Jollyville Plateau, water quality benefits for the shown a commitment to natural Georgetown, and Salado salamanders. Georgetown salamander. For example, resource conservation and land Reductions in water quality occur the Foundation has purchased an stewardship practices that benefit the primarily as a result of urbanization, easement on the 64.4-ac (26.1-ha) Lyda Salado salamander. Neither ranch which increases the amount of tract (Cobbs Cavern) in Williamson owner has immediate plans to develop impervious cover in the watershed. County through the section 6 grant their land, which means that the Salado Impervious cover increases storm flow program. This section 6 grant was salamander is currently not faced with velocities and increases erosion and awarded for the protection of listed threats from urbanization (see sedimentation. Impervious cover also karst invertebrate species; however, discussion above under Factor A) from changes natural flow regimes within protecting this land also benefited the these lands. However, only 21 percent watersheds and increases the transport Georgetown salamander. Although the of the watershed is contained within the of contaminants common in urban spring where salamanders are located property with three Salado salamander environments, such as oils, metals, and was not included in the easement, a sites, and only 3 percent of the pesticides. portion of the contributing watershed watershed is contained within the other After identifying 15 watersheds for this spring was included. For this property with the one Salado within the Watershed Boundary Dataset reason, some water quality benefits to salamander site. The remaining area of as being occupied by 1 of the 4 central the salamander are expected. In January the watersheds and the recharge zone Texas salamander species, and using the 2008, the Foundation also purchased for these springs is not contained within most recent National Land Cover the 145-ac (59-ha) Twin Springs the properties and is not protected from Dataset impervious cover data available preserve area. This tract is one of the future development. Considering the (from 2006), we could draw some sites known to be occupied by projected growth rates expected in Bell generalizations about how each Georgetown salamanders. County (from 237,974 in 2000, to watershed might be affected by Despite the conservation efforts of the 397,741 in 2040, a 67 percent increase development. The watershed where the Foundation, the Georgetown salamander over the 40-year period; Texas State Austin blind salamander is known to faces ongoing threats due to the lack of Data Center 2009, p. 19), these Salado occur has an average overall impervious habitat protection outside of these salamander spring sites are still at threat cover estimate of 12 percent, but also preserves. This species is limited to 16 from the detrimental effects of includes some Balcones Canyonlands known localities, of which only three urbanization. The threat of development Preserve lands. Although this managed (Cobbs Spring, Cobbs Well, and Twin and urbanization continues into the open space likely contributes some Springs) have some amount of foreseeable future because there are no water quality benefits to surface flow, protection by the Foundation. The long-term, binding conservation plans the habitat of this largely subterranean population size of Georgetown in place for these properties or adequate species can be influenced by land use salamanders at Cobbs Spring is regulations in place for the watersheds throughout the recharge zone of the unknown, while the population size at or recharge zone. aquifer that supplies its spring flow. Twin Springs is estimated to be only The City of Austin is implementing an The watersheds within the Jollyville 100 to 200 individuals (Pierce 2011a, p. HCP to avoid, minimize, and mitigate Plateau salamander’s range have average 18). Furthermore, the watershed of incidental take of the Barton Springs impervious cover estimates that range Cobbs Spring is currently only partially salamander resulting from the from approximately 6 percent to 34 protected by the Foundation. continued operation and maintenance of percent. Although the Balcones

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50791

Canyonlands Preserve and other lands also be reduced by groundwater and O’Donnell 2003, p. 17). Three managed for open space within these pumping. Flood events contribute to the similarly affected Barton Springs watersheds likely provide some water salamanders’ risks of extinction by salamanders also were found in 2003 quality benefits for this species, five out degrading water quality through (Chamberlain, unpublished data). Of the of the six watersheds that occur within increased sedimentation and 19 salamanders affected in 2002, 12 its range have overall impervious cover contaminants levels, which may damage were found dead or died shortly after estimates that can lead to sharp declines or alter substrates. Impoundments are they were found. Both adult and in water quality or cause permanent also a threat for all four central Texas juvenile Barton Springs salamanders conditions of poor water quality salamanders. Feral hogs are a threat to have been affected (Chamberlain and (Schueler 1994, pp. 100–102). Georgetown, Salado, and Jollyville O’Donnell 2003, pp. 10, 17). The watersheds within the Plateau salamanders because they can The incidence of gas bubbles in Georgetown salamander’s range have physically alter their surface habitat. salamanders at Barton Springs is average impervious cover estimates that Likewise, livestock are a threat to consistent with a disorder known as gas range from approximately 0.59 percent Georgetown and Salado salamanders’ bubble disease, or gas bubble trauma, as to 10 percent. Five out of the six surface habitat. Additionally, described by Weitkamp and Katz (1980, watersheds within this species’ range catastrophic spills and leaks remain a pp. 664–671). In animals with gas are well below impervious cover levels threat for many salamander locations. bubble trauma, bubbles below the that can lead to declines in water All of these threats are predicted to surface of the body and inside the quality. With only two large tracts of increase in the future, as the human cardiovascular system produce lesions land managed specifically as open space population and development increases and dead tissue that can lead to (64 ac (26 ha) and 145 ac (59 ha)) within within watersheds that provide habitat secondary infections (Weitkamp and the Georgetown salamander’s range, it is for these salamanders. Overall, we Katz 1980, p. 670). Death from gas likely that water quality for this species’ consider the combined threats of Factor bubble trauma is apparently related to habitat will decline into the future as A to be ongoing and with a high degree an accumulation of internal bubbles in impervious cover increases with of impact to all four central Texas the cardiovascular system (Weitkamp development. salamanders and their habitats. and Katz 1980, p. 668). Pathology The two watersheds within the Salado reports on affected animals at Barton salamander’s range have average Factor B. Overutilization for Springs found that the symptoms were impervious cover estimates of 0.31 Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or consistent with gas bubble trauma percent and 0.91 percent. Although four Educational Purposes (Chamberlain 2011, pers. comm.). The known Salado salamander sites are There is no available information cause of gas bubble trauma is unknown, located on large, undeveloped ranches regarding overutilization of any of the but its incidence has been correlated (8,126 ac (3,288 ha) and 827 ac (335 four salamander species for commercial, with water temperature. Gas bubble ha)), a significant portion of the recharge recreational, scientific, or educational trauma has been observed in Austin zone for the Northern Segment of the purposes. We do not consider blind salamanders in captivity when Edwards Aquifer that supplies water to overutilization to be a threat to the four exposed to water temperatures this species’ habitat extends to areas central Texas salamander species now approaching 80 °F (26.7 °C) outside of these properties. or in the future. (Chamberlain 2011, pers. comm.). Furthermore, we could not identify any We consider gas bubble trauma to be Factor C. Disease or Predation large tracts managed specifically as a threat with a limited impact to the open space within the Salado Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus) is a Austin blind salamander now and in the salamander’s range. We also could fungal disease that is responsible for future. To our knowledge, gas bubble identify no agreements in place to killing amphibians worldwide (Daszak trauma has not been observed in preserve or manage any properties for et al. 2000, p. 445). The chytrid fungus Jollyville Plateau, Georgetown, or the benefit of this species or its habitat. has been documented on the feet of Salado salamanders. However, if an Without these, it is likely that water Jollyville Plateau salamanders from 15 increase in water temperature is a quality within the Salado salamander’s different sites and on Austin blind causative factor, these three species may habitat will decrease as development salamanders in the wild (O’Donnell et also be at risk during droughts or other and impervious cover increases in these al. 2006, pp. 22–23; Chamberlain 2011, environmental stressors that result in watersheds in the future. City of Austin, pers. comm.). However, increases in water temperature. Expanding urbanization results in an the salamanders are not displaying signs However, at this time, we do not increase of contaminants, such as of infection (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. consider gas bubble trauma to be a fertilizers and pesticides, within the 23). We have no data to indicate threat to the Jollyville Plateau, watershed, which degrades water whether impacts from this disease may Georgetown, or Salado salamanders. quality at salamander spring sites. increase or decrease in the future, and Regarding predation, City of Austin Additionally, urbanization increases therefore, whether this disease is a biologists found Jollyville Plateau nutrient loads at spring sites, which can significant factor affecting the species (a salamander abundances were negatively lead to decreases in dissolved oxygen threat). Therefore, we do not consider correlated with the abundance of levels. Construction activities are a chytridiomycosis to be a threat to any of predatory centrarchid fish (carnivorous threat to both water quality and quantity the four central Texas salamanders at freshwater fish belonging to the sunfish because they can increase sedimentation this time. family), such as black bass (Micropterus and dewater springs by intercepting However, a condition affecting Barton spp.) and sunfish (Lepomis spp.) (COA aquifer conduits. Springs salamanders may also be a 2001, p. 102). Predation of a Jollyville Various other threats exist for these threat to the Austin blind salamander. Plateau salamander by a centrarchid fish species, as well. Drought, which may be In 2002, 19 Barton Springs salamanders, was observed during a May 2006 field compounded by the effects of global which co-occur with the Austin blind survey (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 38). climate change, also degrades water salamander, were found at Barton However, Bowles et al. (2006, pp. 117– quality and reduces available habitat for Springs with bubbles of gas occurring 118) rarely observed these predators in the salamanders. Water quantity can throughout their bodies (Chamberlain Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50792 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Centrarchid fish are currently present in However, only the Georgetown impacts of development on water two of three Austin blind salamander salamander sites and about half of the quality. Another study in the Austin sites (Laurie Dries, City of Austin, known Jollyville Plateau salamander area compared 18 sites with stormwater unpublished data), and crayfish locations occur within those portions of controls (retention ponds) in their (another predator) occupy much of the the Edwards Aquifer regulated by watersheds to 20 sites without same habitat as Georgetown, Salado, TCEQ. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of stormwater controls (Maxted and and Jollyville Plateau salamanders. All the Edwards Rules does not extend into Scoggins 2004, p. 8). In sites with more four salamanders have been observed Bell County or the Barton Springs than 40 percent impervious cover, more retreating into gravel substrate after Segment (TCEQ 2001, p. 1). Therefore, contaminant-sensitive cover was moved, suggesting these many salamander populations do not macroinvertebrate species were found at salamanders display anti-predation directly benefit from these protections. sites with stormwater controls than at behavior (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). We recognize that implementation of sites without controls (Maxted and However, we do not have enough data the Edwards Rules in other areas of the Scoggins 2004, p. 11). to indicate whether predation of the Northern Segment of the Edwards However, based on long-term four salamander species may increase in Aquifer may have the potential to affect monitoring that shows an overall water the future or is a significant factor conditions at spring sites occupied by quality decline at Jollyville Plateau and affecting the species and therefore a the Salado salamander. For those Austin blind salamander sites, these threat. Therefore, we do not consider salamander locations that are covered local ordinances are not effective at predation to be a threat to any of the by the TCEQ regulations, the regulations reducing contaminant levels to the four central Texas salamanders at this do not address land use, impervious extent that they no longer threaten time. cover limitations, non-point source salamander habitat (see discussion In summary, while predation and pollution, or application of fertilizers under Factor A). Furthermore, it is disease may be affecting individuals of and pesticides over the recharge zone unclear how much surface water quality these salamander species, we believe (30 TAC 213.3). We are unaware of any controls in developed areas benefit that these are not significant factors water quality ordinances more groundwater quality. A City of Austin affecting the species’ continued restrictive than TCEQ’s Edwards Rules study of four Jollyville Plateau existence. Neither predation nor disease in Bell, Williamson, or Travis Counties salamander spring sites within two is occurring at a level that we consider outside the City of Austin. subdivisions found that stricter water to be a threat to the continued existence The City of Austin’s water quality quality controls (wet ponds instead of of any of the four central Texas ordinances (City of Austin Code, Title standard sedimentation/filtration salamander species now or in the future. 25, Chapter 8) provide some water ponds) did not translate into improved quality regulatory protection to the groundwater quality (Herrington et al. Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau 2007, pp. 13–14). Regulatory Mechanisms salamanders’ habitat within Travis In addition, Title 7, Chapter 245 of the Water Quantity and Quality Protections County. The ordinances range from Texas Local Government Code permits relatively strict controls in its ‘‘grandfathering’’ of certain local The main threats to the Austin blind, extraterritorial jurisdiction to lesser regulations. Grandfathering allows Jollyville Plateau, Georgetown, and controls in outlying areas. Some of the developments to be exempted from new Salado salamanders are from habitat protections provided in these requirements for water quality controls degradation, specifically a lowering of ordinances include riparian buffers, and impervious cover limits if the water quality and quantity. Therefore, permanent water quality control developments were planned prior to the regulatory mechanisms that protect structures, wastewater system implementation of such regulations. water from the Edwards Aquifer are restrictions, and impervious cover However, these developments are still crucial to the future survival of the limitations (Turner 2007, pp. 1–2). obligated to comply with regulations species. These four salamander species Some studies have demonstrated that that were applicable at the time when are not listed on the Texas State List of these ordinances play a role in project applications for development Endangered or Threatened Species protecting Austin-area surface waters were first filed (Title 7, Chapter 245 of (TPWD 2011b, pp. 2–3). Therefore, these from urbanization-related contaminants. the Texas Local Government Code p. 1). species are receiving no direct For example, in the period after the City Unpublished data provided by the City protection from the State. of Austin passed water quality of Austin (2007) indicates that up to 26 Under authority of the Texas ordinances in 1986 and 1991, percent of undeveloped areas within Administrative Code (Title 30, Chapter sedimentation and nutrients decreased watersheds draining to Jollyville Plateau 213), the Texas Commission on in the five major Austin-area creeks salamander habitat may be exempted Environmental Quality (TCEQ) regulates (Turner 2007, p. 7). Peak storm flows from current water quality control activities having the potential for were also lower after the enactment of requirements due to ‘‘grandfathering’’ polluting the Edwards Aquifer and the ordinances, which may explain the legislation. hydrologically connected surface decrease in sedimentation (Turner 2007, On January 1, 2006, the City of Austin streams. Among other State statutes p. 10). Likewise, a separate study on the banned the use of coal tar sealant designed to protect water quality, the water quality of Walnut Creek (Jollyville (Scoggins et al. 2009, p. 4909), which Edwards Rules require a number of Plateau salamander habitat) from 1996 has been shown to be the main source water quality protection measures for to 2008 found that water quality has of PAHs in Austin-area streams (Mahler new development occurring in the either remained the same or improved et al. 2005, p. 5565). However, recharge and contributing zones of the (Scoggins 2010, p. 15). These trends in historically applied coal tar sealant lasts Edwards Aquifer. These regulations water quality occurred despite a drastic for several years and can remain a provide incentives to developers in the increase in construction and impervious source of PAHs to aquatic systems form of exemptions and exceptions from cover during the same time period (DeMott et al. 2010, p. 372). A study that permanent water quality control (Turner 2007, pp. 7–8; Scoggins 2010, p. examined PAH concentrations in Austin mechanisms for developments with less 4), indicating that the ordinances are streams before the ban and 2 years after than 20 percent impervious cover. effective at mitigating some of the the ban found no difference, indicating

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50793

that either more time is needed to see 2005a, pp. 8–17, O’Donnell et al. 2006, no impact on the hatching success of the impact of the coal tar ban, or that p. 29). Long-term water quality data are these species. In conclusion, the effect other sources (e.g. airborne and not available for Georgetown and Salado of increased UV–B radiation has the automotive) are contributing more to salamander sites, but rapid human potential to cause deformities or PAH loadings (DeMott et al. 2010, pp. population growth and urbanization in developmental problems to individuals, 375–377). Furthermore, coal tar sealant Williamson and Bell Counties but we do not consider this stressor to is still legal outside of the City of continues. Existing regulations in these significantly contribute to the risk of Austin’s jurisdiction and may be counties do not address many of the extinction of any of the four central contributing PAH loads to northern sources of groundwater pollution that Texas salamander species at this time. Jollyville Plateau, Georgetown, and are typically associated with urbanized Deformities in Jollyville Plateau Salado salamander habitat. areas. Therefore, we consider the Salamanders The TCEQ has required wastewater inadequacy of existing regulatory treatment systems within the Barton mechanisms to be an ongoing, Jollyville Plateau salamanders Springs Edwards Aquifer recharge and significant threat to all four salamander observed at the Stillhouse Hollow contributing zones to obtain a Texas species now and in the foreseeable monitoring sites have shown high Land Application Permit (TLAP) in future. incidences of deformities, such as order to discharge effluent onto the land curved spines, missing eyes, missing (Ross 2011, p. 7). Although these Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade limbs or digits, and eye injuries permits are designed to protect the Factors Affecting Its Continued (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 26). The surface waters and underground aquifer, Existence Stillhouse Hollow location was also studies have demonstrated reduced Ultraviolet Radiation cited as having the highest observation water quality downstream of TLAP sites of dead Jollyville Plateau salamanders (Ross 2011, pp. 11–18). Ross (2011, pp. Increased levels of ultraviolet-B (UV– (COA 2001, p. 88). Although water 18–21) attributes this regulatory B) radiation, due to depletion of the quality is relatively low in the inadequacy to TCEQ’s failure to conduct stratospheric ozone layers, may lead to Stillhouse Hollow drainage (O’Donnell regular soil monitoring for nutrient declines in amphibian populations et al. 2006, pp. 26, 37), no statistical accumulation on TLAP sites, and the (Blaustein and Kiesecker 2002, pp. 598– correlations were found between the failure to conduct indepth reviews of 600). For example, research has number of deformities and nitrate TLAP applications. demonstrated that UV–B radiation concentrations (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. The TCEQ has developed voluntary causes significant mortality and 26). Environmental toxins are the water quality protection measures for deformities in developing long-toed suspected cause of salamander developers to minimize water quality salamanders (Ambystoma deformities (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. effects to springs systems and other macrodactylum) (Blaustein et al. 1997, 25; COA 2001, pp. 70–74), but aquatic habitats within the Edwards p. 13,735). Exposure to UV–B radiation deformities in amphibians can also be Aquifer region of Texas (TCEQ 2005, p. reduces growth in clawed frogs the result of genetic mutations, parasitic i). In February 2005, the Service (Xenopus laevis) (Hatch and Burton, infections, UV–B radiation, or the lack concurred that these measures, if 1998, p. 1,783) and lowers hatching of an essential nutrient. More research implemented, would protect several success in Cascades frogs (Rana is needed to elucidate the cause of these aquatic species from take, including the cascadae) and western toads (Bufo deformities. We consider deformities to Georgetown salamander, due to water boreas) (Kiesecker and Blaustein 1995, be a stressor of low level impact to the quality degradation resulting from pp. 11,050–11,051). In lab experiments Jollyville Plateau salamander because development in the Edwards Aquifer with spotted salamanders, UV–B this stressor is only an issue at one site region (TCEQ 2007, p. 1). However, it radiation diminished their swimming and it does not appear to be an issue for should be noted that as non-listed ability (Bommarito et al. 2010, p. 1151). the other salamander species. species, ‘‘take’’ prohibitions do not Additionally, UV–B radiation may act synergistically (the total effect is greater Small Population Size and Stochastic apply. Thus, these water quality Events protection measures are not a regulatory than the sum of the individual effects) mechanism. with other factors (for example, All four central Texas salamanders The Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer contaminants, pH, pathogens) to cause may be more susceptible to threats and Conservation District permits and declines in amphibians (Alford and impacts from stochastic events because regulates most wells on the Barton Richards 1999, p. 141; see Synergistic of their small population sizes. The risk Springs segment of the Edwards and Additive Interactions among of extinction for any species is known Aquifer, subject to the limits of the State Stressors). Some researchers believe that to be highly indirectly correlated with law. Bell County’s groundwater future increases in UV–B radiation will population size (Ogrady et al. 2004, pp. resources are currently managed by the have significant detrimental impacts on 516, 518; Pimm et al. 1988, pp. 774– Clearwater Underground Water amphibians that are sensitive to this 775). In other words, the smaller the Conservation District. There are no radiation (Blaustein and Belden 2003, p. population, the greater the overall risk groundwater conservation districts in 95). of extinction. True population size Williamson or northern Travis Counties, The effect of increased UV–B estimates have not been generated at so groundwater pumping is unregulated radiation on the Austin blind, Jollyville most sites for these species, but mark- in these areas (TPWD 2011a, p. 7). Plateau, Georgetown, and Salado recapture studies at some of the highest salamanders is unknown. These species quality sites for Georgetown and Conclusion of Factor D may be protected from UV–B radiation Jollyville Plateau salamanders estimated Data indicate that water quality through shading from trees at some populations as low as 78 (O’Donnell et degradation in sites occupied by Austin spring sites. Removal of natural riparian al. 2008, pp. 44–45). Populations are blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders vegetation may put these species at risk. likely smaller at lower quality sites. continues to occur despite the existence Because eggs are believed to be Small population sizes can also act of current regulatory mechanisms in deposited underground (Bendik 2011b, synergistically with other traits (such as place to protect water quality (Turner pers. comm.), UV–B radiation may have being a habitat specialist and having

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50794 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

limited distribution, as is the case with Synergistic and Additive Interactions the potential to cause deformities or the four salamander species) to greatly Among Stressors development problems. The effect of increase risk of extinction (Davies et al. The interactions among multiple this stressor is believed to be low at this 2004, p. 270). Stochastic events from stressors (for example, contaminants, time. either environmental factors (random UV–B radiation, pathogens) may be Deformities have been documented in events such as severe weather) or contributing to amphibian population one of the four salamander species demographic factors (random causes of declines (Blaustein and Kiesecker 2002, (Jollyville Plateau salamander), and at births and deaths of individuals) may p. 598). Multiple stressors may act only one location (Stillhouse Hollow). also heighten other threats to the additively or synergistically to have We do not know what causes these salamanders because of the limited greater detrimental impacts on deformities, and there is no evidence range and small population sizes amphibians compared to a single that the incidence rate is increasing or (Melbourne and Hastings 2008, p. 100). stressor alone. Kiesecker and Blaustein The highly restricted ranges of the spreading. Therefore, the effect of this (1995, p. 11,051) found a synergistic stressor is believed to be low. salamanders and entirely aquatic effect between UV–B radiation and a environment make them extremely pathogen in Cascades frogs and western Small population sizes at most of the vulnerable to threats such as decreases toads. Researchers demonstrated that sites for the salamanders is not a threat in water quality and quantity. This is reduced pH levels and increased levels in and of itself, but it may increase the especially true for the Austin blind of UV–B radiation independently had risk of local extirpation events. salamander, which is found in only one no effect on leopard frog (Rana pipiens) However, the Georgetown and Jollyville locality comprised of three larvae; however, when combined, these Plateau salamanders may have some hydrologically connected springs of two caused significant mortality (Long ability to recolonize sites because they Barton Springs, and the Salado et al. 1995, p. 1,302). Additionally, occur in more populations over a salamander, which has only been found researchers demonstrated that UV–B broader range. Thus, we consider the at seven spring sites. Due to their very radiation increases the toxicity of PAHs, level of impacts from a stochastic event limited distribution, the Austin blind which can cause mortality and to be moderate for these two species and and Salado salamanders are especially deformities on developing amphibians high for the Austin blind and Salado sensitive to incidences such as storm (Hatch and Burton 199, pp. 1,780– salamanders due to their more limited events, which can dramatically affect 1,783). Beattie et al. (1992, p. 566) distributions. dissolved oxygen levels and increase demonstrated that aluminum becomes contaminants, and cause catastrophic Finally, the significance of each threat toxic to amphibians at low pH levels. discussed above (under Factors A spills and leaks. One catastrophic spill Also, disease outbreaks may occur only event in Barton Springs could through E) may be influenced by their when there are contaminants or other interactions with other threats, and may potentially cause the extinction of the stressors in the environment that reduce Austin blind salamander in the wild. subsequently increase under certain immunity (Alford and Richards 1999, p. conditions. The presence of several populations 141). For example, Christin et al. (2003, of Jollyville Plateau and Georgetown pp. 1,129–1,130, 1,132) demonstrated Overall Threat Summary salamanders does provide some that mixtures of pesticides reduced the possibility for natural recolonization for immunity to parasitic infections in The following table provides a general these species if any of these factors leopard frogs. overview of the type, anticipated level resulted in a local extirpation event The effect of synergistic effects of impact, and timing of threats facing (Fagan et al. 2002, p. 3,255). In between stressors on the Austin blind, the four salamanders proposed for conclusion, we do not consider small Jollyville Plateau, Georgetown, and listing. It is intended to assist the public population size to be a threat in and of Salado salamanders is not currently in comparing the threats discussed itself to any of the four salamander known. Furthermore, different species above among the salamander species. species, but their small population sizes of amphibians differ in their reactions to The magnitude of threat is defined in may make them more vulnerable to stressors and combinations of stressors terms of scope (the relative proportion extinction from other existing or (Kiesecker and Blaustein 1995, p. or range of the species that is affected potential threats, such as a major 11,051; Relyea et al. 2009, pp. 367–368; by the threat) and severity (impacts on stochastic event. Therefore, the Rohr et al. 2003, pp. 2,387–2,390). the overall species’ status), such that a magnitude of a stochastic event affecting Studies that examine the effects of high magnitude of threat indicates that the continued existence of the Jollyville interactions among multiple stressors on the species is facing the greatest threats Plateau and Georgetown salamanders is the four central Texas salamanders are to their continued existence (48 FR moderate because these species have lacking. However, based on the number 43098; September 21, 1983). We define more populations over a broader range. of examples in other amphibians, the imminence as the timing of when a On the other hand, recolonization possibility of synergistic effects on the threat begins. A threat is considered following a stochastic event is less four central Texas salamanders cannot imminent if it is impacting the species likely for Austin blind and Salado be discounted. now rather than in the foreseeable salamanders due to a fewer number of future. Some of the threats outlined known sites. Therefore, the impacts Summary of Factor E within Tables 3 through 6 are difficult from a stochastic event for the Austin The effect of increased UV–B to fully quantify due to lack of available blind and Salado salamanders is a radiation is an unstudied stressor to the information. These threats were significant threat. four central Texas salamanders that has designated an unknown magnitude.

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF THREATS TO THE AUSTIN BLIND SALAMANDER

Level of impact Factor Type of threat (low, medium, high) Ongoing?

A ...... Contaminants from stormwater runoff ...... High ...... Yes.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50795

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF THREATS TO THE AUSTIN BLIND SALAMANDER—Continued

Level of impact Factor Type of threat (low, medium, high) Ongoing?

Sedimentation from stormwater runoff ...... High ...... Yes. Changes in flow regime from impervious cover ...... Med ...... Yes. Excess nutrient input ...... Low ...... Yes. Pesticides ...... Low ...... Yes. Catastrophic hazardous material spills ...... High ...... Yes. Pollution from construction activities ...... Med ...... Yes. Construction of pipelines ...... Low ...... No. Groundwater pumping ...... Med ...... Yes. Impoundments ...... High ...... Yes. Physical modification of surface habitat for human-related activities ..... Med ...... Yes. Drought ...... Low ...... Yes. Flooding ...... Low ...... Yes. Climate change ...... Unknown ...... Yes. C ...... Gas bubble trauma ...... Low ...... No. D ...... Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms ...... High ...... Yes. E ...... Small population size and stochastic events ...... High ...... Yes. Synergistic and additive interactions among stressors ...... Unknown ...... Unknown. UV–B radiation ...... Unknown ...... Unknown.

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THREATS TO THE JOLLYVILLE PLATEAU SALAMANDER

Level of impact Factor Type of threat (low, medium, high) Ongoing?

A ...... Contaminants from stormwater runoff ...... High ...... Yes. Sedimentation from stormwater runoff ...... High ...... Yes. Changes in flow regime from impervious cover ...... Med ...... Yes. Excess nutrient input ...... MedLow ...... Yes. Pesticides ...... Low ...... Yes. Catastrophic hazardous material spills ...... Low ...... Yes. Pollution from construction activities ...... HighMed ...... Yes. Construction of pipelines ...... Low ...... No. Construction of the Jollyville Transmission Main ...... Low ...... Yes. Rock quarries ...... Low ...... Yes. Groundwater pumping ...... Med ...... Yes. Impoundments ...... Low ...... Yes. Feral hogs ...... Low ...... Yes. Physical modification of surface habitat for human-related activities ..... Low ...... Yes. Drought ...... MedLow ...... Yes. Flooding ...... Low ...... Yes. Climate change ...... Unknown ...... Yes. D ...... Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms ...... High ...... Yes. E ...... Small population size and stochastic events ...... Med ...... Yes. Synergistic and additive interactions among stressors ...... Unknown ...... Unknown. UV–B radiation ...... Unknown ...... Unknown.

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF THREATS TO THE GEORGETOWN SALAMANDER

Level of impact Factor Type of threat (low, medium, high) Ongoing?

A ...... Contaminants from stormwater runoff ...... High ...... Yes. Sedimentation from stormwater runoff ...... High ...... Yes. Changes in flow regime from impervious cover ...... Med ...... Yes. Excess nutrient input ...... Low ...... Yes. Pesticides ...... Low ...... Yes. Catastrophic hazardous material spills ...... Med ...... Yes. Pollution from construction activities ...... Med ...... Yes. Construction of pipelines ...... Low ...... No. Rock quarries ...... Low ...... Yes. Groundwater pumping ...... Med ...... Yes. Impoundments ...... Low ...... Yes. Feral hogs ...... Low ...... Yes. Livestock ...... Low ...... Yes. Physical modification of surface habitat for human-related activities ..... Low ...... Yes. Drought ...... MedLow ...... Yes. Flooding ...... Low ...... Yes. Climate change ...... Unknown ...... Yes. D ...... Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms ...... High ...... Yes.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50796 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF THREATS TO THE GEORGETOWN SALAMANDER—Continued

Level of impact Factor Type of threat (low, medium, high) Ongoing?

E ...... Small population size and stochastic events ...... Med ...... Yes. Synergistic and additive interactions among stressors ...... Unknown ...... Unknown. UV–B radiation ...... Unknown ...... Unknown.

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF THREATS TO THE SALADO SALAMANDER

Level of impact Factor Type of threat (low, medium, high) Ongoing?

A ...... Contaminants from stormwater runoff ...... Med ...... Yes. Sedimentation from stormwater runoff ...... Med ...... Yes. Changes in flow regime from impervious cover ...... Low ...... Yes. Excess nutrient input ...... Low ...... Yes. Pesticides ...... Low ...... Yes. Catastrophic hazardous material spills ...... High ...... Yes. Pollution from construction activities ...... Low ...... Yes. Construction of pipelines ...... Low ...... No. Rock quarries ...... Low ...... Yes. Groundwater pumping ...... Med ...... Yes. Impoundments ...... Low ...... Yes. Feral hogs ...... Low ...... Yes. Livestock ...... Low ...... Yes. Physical modification of surface habitat for human-related activities ..... Low ...... Yes. Drought ...... Low ...... Yes. Flooding ...... Low ...... Yes. Climate change ...... Unknown ...... Yes. D ...... Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms ...... High ...... Yes. E ...... Small population size and stochastic events ...... High ...... Yes. Synergistic and additive interactions among stressors ...... High ...... Yes. UV–B radiation ...... Unknown ...... Unknown.

Proposed Listing Determination result in considerable urbanization 1994, pp. 100–102). Although this within the watershed, which would watershed has some managed open As previously noted, the magnitude of influence spring flow and water quality space that likely contributes water a threat is defined in terms of scope (the within the salamander’s three known quality benefits to surface flow, the relative proportion or range of the sites at Barton Springs. Urbanization habitat of this largely subterranean species that is affected by the threat) leads to increases in sedimentation, species can be influenced by land use and severity (impacts on the overall contaminants, and nutrient loads as throughout the recharge zone of the species’ status), such that a high well as decreases in aquatic aquifer that supplies its spring flow. In magnitude of threat indicates that the invertebrates (the salamander’s prey consideration of this information and species is facing the greatest threats to analysis, we believe the threat of habitat their continued existence (48 FR 43098; base). Significant changes in water quality constituents have been reported modification in the form of reduced September 21, 1983). We define water quality is ongoing and has a high imminence as the timing of when a from analyses conducted from within the Austin blind salamander’s habitat at level of impact throughout the Austin threat begins. A threat is considered blind salamander’s range. imminent if it is impacting the species Barton Springs Pool (COA 1997, pp. 229, 231–232; Mahler and Van Metre Data indicate that water quality now rather than in the foreseeable degradation in sites occupied by Austin future. 2000, p. 1); these changes have been attributed to urbanization within the blind salamanders continues to occur Austin Blind Salamander recharge and contributing zones of the despite the existence of current Edwards Aquifer (Turner 2005a, p. 6). regulatory mechanisms in place The primary threat to this species is designed to protect water quality habitat modification (Factor A) in the We analyzed the impervious cover (Turner 2005a, pp. 8–17, O’Donnell et form of reduced flows and degradation estimates of the watershed within the al. 2006, p. 29). Therefore, we consider of water quality of spring habitats as a Austin blind salamander’s range, along the inadequacy of existing regulatory result of urbanization within the with the amount of land currently mechanisms to protect against water watersheds and recharge and managed as open space that could quality degradation (Factor D) to be a contributing zones of the Edwards possibly contribute water quality significant threat. Aquifer. Substantial human population benefits to the salamander’s habitats. The Edwards Aquifer is at risk from growth (a projected increase of 84 The watershed where the Austin blind a variety of sources of pollutants (Ross percent from 2000 to 2040) is ongoing salamander is known to occur has an 2011, p. 4), including hazardous within Travis County, Texas (Texas average overall impervious cover materials that could be spilled or State Data Center 2008, p. 1), the only estimate of 11.58 percent, which is leaked, potentially resulting in the location where the Austin blind within the range in which sharp contamination of both surface and salamander is known to occur. This declines of water quality in aquatic groundwater resources (Service 2005, human population growth is likely to habitats have been observed (Schueler pp. 1.6–14–1.6–15). A catastrophic spill

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50797

could occur if a truck transporting the water chemistry (such as increasing salamanders in the wild (O’Donnell et hazardous materials overturned and conductivity). al. 2006, pp. 22–23). However, we have spilled its contents over the recharge In addition to groundwater pumping, no data to indicate whether disease or zone of the aquifer. The Austin blind low flows in Barton Springs may be predation (Factor C) of any of the salamander is at considerable risk from attributed to ongoing urbanization and salamander species proposed for listing hazardous materials spills given that it recent drought conditions. Future is a significant threat facing the species. only occurs at three spring sites in one climate change could also affect water Predation and disease may be affecting locality (Barton Springs). Among other quantity and spring flow for the Austin these salamander species, but there is sources, there is the potential for a blind salamander. Climate change could not enough evidence to consider these catastrophic gasoline spill in the Barton compound the threat of decreased water factors threats. Neither factor is at a Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer quantity at salamander spring sites. The level that we consider to be threatening from the Longhorn pipeline (EPA 2000, effects of climate change on aquifer- the continued existence of the pp. 9–29–9–30). There is also potential dependant species is difficult to assess; salamander species now or in the for hazardous material spills from the however, the Edwards Aquifer is foreseeable future. multiple drinking water lines and predicted to experience additional stress Other natural or manmade factors sewage pipelines surrounding Barton from climate change that could lead to (Factor E) affecting the Austin blind Springs. For these reasons, we believe decreased recharge and low or ceased salamander include UV–B radiation, the threat of habitat modification in the spring flows given increasing pumping small population sizes, stochastic form of water quality degradation and demands (Loa´iciga et al. 2000, pp. 192– events, and synergistic and additive contamination from hazardous materials 193). In any case, we believe habitat interactions among stressors. Increased spills to be an ongoing threat of high modification in the form of water levels of UV–B radiation, due to the impact to this species. quantity reduction, whether reduced depletion of stratospheric ozone layers Construction activities resulting from spring flows are caused by climate has been shown to cause significant urban development are a threat to both change or are in combination with other mortality and deformities in amphibian water quality and quantity because they stressors, to be an ongoing threat of high species (Blaustein et al. 1997, p. can increase sedimentation and dewater impact to this species. 13,735), although the effects of UV–B The Austin blind salamander is springs by intercepting aquifer conduits. radiation on this species are unknown. sensitive to direct physical habitat Austin blind salamander habitat at Small population sizes may act modification, such as modification synergistically with other traits of the Barton Springs is under the threat of resulting from human recreational species (such as its limited distribution) pollutant loading due to its proximity to activities and impoundments. Eliza to increase its overall risk of extinction construction activities and its location Spring and Sunken Garden Spring, two (Davies et al. 2004, p. 270). Stochastic at the downstream side of the watershed of the three locations of the Austin blind events, such as severe weather or (COA 1997, p. 237). Given that salamander, also experience vandalism, demographic changes to the population, construction-related sediment loading is despite the presence of fencing and are also heightened threats because of already occurring within the Austin signage (Dries 2011, pers. comm.). The its restricted range and small population blind salamander’s narrowly restricted deep water of Barton Springs likely sizes (Melbourne and Hastings 2008, p. range, we believe the threat of habitat protects the Austin blind salamander’s 100). We therefore consider this to be an modification in the form of water surface habitat from damage from ongoing threat of high impact. quality degradation and changes to frequent human recreation. The population status of Austin blind water flows caused by construction All spring sites for the Austin blind salamanders is unknown, largely activities from urban development to be salamander (Main, Eliza, and Sunken because it is rarely seen at the water’s an ongoing threat of medium impact to Garden springs) have been impounded surface (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 267). this species. for recreational use. While the manmade However, observations of Austin blind Another potential threat to the Austin structures help retain water in the salamanders have been decreasing in blind salamander and its habitat is low spring pools during low flows, they recent years (2009–2010) (COA 2011a, flow conditions in the aquifer and at have altered the salamander’s natural pp. 51–52). From January 1998 to Barton Springs. Groundwater pumping environment. The impoundments have December 2000, there were only 17 can cause such conditions and lead to changed the Barton Springs ecosystem documented observations of the Austin saline water encroachments in the from a stream-like system to a more blind salamander (Hillis et al. 2001, p. aquifer. Water quality in the Barton lentic (still water) environment, thereby 273). The abundance of Austin blind Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer reducing the water system’s ability to salamanders increased slightly from has been degraded in the past due to flush sediments downstream and out of 2002 to 2006, but fewer observations saline encroachment (Slade et al. 1986, salamander habitat. Because of the have been made in more recent years p. 62). This water quality degradation physical habitat modifications that have (2009 to 2010) (COA 2011a, pp. 51–52). occurred when Barton Springs discharge permanently impacted the Austin blind Because fewer observations coincide was less than 30 cfs (Slade et al. 1986, salamander’s habitat or are currently with habitat degradation throughout the p. 64). Reduced groundwater levels ongoing, we consider this threat to be species’ entire range, we expect the could also increase the concentration of ongoing and of high impact to this downward trend to continue into the some pollutants in the aquifer. Average species. future as human population growth and flows at Barton Springs have dropped Gas bubble trauma has been observed urbanization drive further declines in below 17 cfs as recently as mid- in Austin blind salamanders in captivity habitat quality and quantity. Due to its November 2011 (Barton Springs/ (Chamberlain 2011, pers. comm.), and small range and probable small Edwards Aquifer Conservation District has been known to affect another population size, we believe the species 2011, p. 1). This saline water salamander species (the Barton Springs resiliency to the threats outlined above encroachment would threaten the salamander) at Barton Springs is low. freshwater biota in the springs and the (Chamberlain 2011, pers. comm.). The Act defines an endangered aquifer, including the Austin blind Chytrid fungus has also been species as any species that is ‘‘in danger salamander, by dramatically changing documented on the feet of Austin blind of extinction throughout all or a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50798 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

significant portion of its range’’ and a nutrient loads as well as decreases in hazardous materials is common on threatened species as any species ‘‘that aquatic invertebrates (the salamanders’ many highways that serve as major is likely to become endangered prey base). Specifically, elevated PAH transportation routes (Service 2005, p. throughout all or a significant portion of and conductivity levels as well as 1.6–13). its range within the foreseeable future.’’ excessive sedimentation have been A number of point-sources of Due to small population size, limited documented within Jollyville Plateau pollutants exist within the Jollyville range, and susceptibility to ongoing salamander habitat and have been Plateau salamander’s range, including threats, we determine that the Austin associated with population declines leaking underground storage tanks and blind salamander is currently on the observed during monitoring (COA 2001, sewage spills from pipelines (COA 2001, brink of extinction and therefore meets pp. 101, 126; O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. pp. 16, 21, 74). A significant hazardous the definition of endangered. We find 37, 47). Poor water quality, particularly materials spill within a stream drainage that the Austin blind salamander is elevated nitrates, is also believed to be for the Jollyville Plateau salamander presently in danger of extinction a cause of morphological deformities could have the potential to threaten the throughout its entire range based on the observed in individual Jollyville Plateau long-term survival and sustainability of immediacy, severity, and scope of the salamanders (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. multiple populations. Because of these threats described above. The Austin 26, 37). reasons, we believe the threat of habitat blind salamander species is proposed as We analyzed the impervious cover modification in the form of water endangered, rather than threatened, estimates of each watershed within the quality degradation and contamination because the threats are occurring now, Jollyville Plateau salamander’s range, from hazardous materials spills to be an and their impacts to the species and its along with the amount of land currently ongoing threat of low impact to this habitat would be catastrophic given the managed as open space that could species. very limited range of the species, possible contribute water quality Construction activities resulting from making the salamander at risk of benefits to the salamander’s habitats. urban development are a threat to both extinction at the present time. The watersheds within the Jollyville water quality and quantity because they Therefore, on the basis of the best Plateau salamander’s range have average can increase sedimentation and dewater available scientific and commercial impervious cover estimates that range springs by intercepting aquifer conduits. information, we propose listing the from 5.72 percent to 34.32 percent. Increased sedimentation from Austin blind salamander as endangered Although the Balcones Canyonlands construction activities has been linked in accordance with sections 3(6) and Preserve and other lands managed for to declines in Jollyville Plateau 4(a)(1) of the Act. open space within these watersheds salamander counts at multiple sites Under the Act and our implementing likely provide some water quality (Turner 2003, p. 24; O’Donnell et al. regulations, a species may warrant benefits for this species, five out of the 2006, p. 34). Given that construction- listing if it is endangered or threatened six watersheds that occur within its related sediment loading is likely to throughout all or a significant portion of range have overall impervious cover occur from ongoing urbanization within its range. The Austin blind salamander estimates that can lead to sharp declines the Jollyville Plateau salamander’s proposed for listing in this rule is highly in water quality or cause permanent range, we believe the threat of habitat restricted in its range, and the threats conditions of poor water quality modification in the form of water occur throughout its entire range. (Schueler 1994, pp. 100–102). In quality degradation and water reduction Therefore, the threats to the survival of consideration of this information and caused by construction activities from this species are not restricted to any analysis, we believe the threat of habitat urban development to be an ongoing particular significant portion of that modification in the form of reduced threat of high impact to this species. range. Accordingly, our assessment and water quality is ongoing and of high Another potential threat to the proposed determination applies to the impact throughout the Jollyville Plateau Jollyville Plateau salamander and its species throughout its entire range. salamander’s range. habitat is low flow conditions in the Data indicate that water quality aquifer and within this species’ surface Jollyville Plateau Salamander degradation in sites occupied by habitat due to urbanization and recent The primary threat to this species is Jollyville Plateau salamanders continues drought conditions. The City of Austin habitat modification (Factor A) in the to occur despite the existence of current found a negative correlation between form of reduced flows and degradation regulatory mechanisms in place to urbanization and spring flows at of water quality of spring habitats as a protect water quality (Turner 2005a, pp. Jollyville Plateau salamander sites result of human population growth and 8–17, O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 29); (Turner 2003, p. 11). Field studies have subsequent urbanization within the therefore, these mechanisms are not also shown that a number of springs that watersheds and recharge and adequate to protect this species and its support Jollyville Plateau salamanders contributing zones of the Edwards habitat. Therefore, we consider the have already gone dry periodically, and Aquifer. Substantial human population inadequacy of existing regulatory that spring waters resurface following growth is ongoing within this species’ mechanisms (Factor D) to be an ongoing rain events (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. range. The Texas State Data Center threat of high impact. 46–47). (2008, p. 1) has reported a population The Edwards Aquifer is at risk from Future climate change could also increase of 84 percent and 597 percent a variety of sources of pollutants (Ross affect water quantity and spring flow for for Travis and Williamson Counties, 2011, p. 4), including hazardous the Jollyville Plateau salamander. Texas, respectively. This population materials that could be spilled or Climate change could compound the growth is likely to result in considerable leaked, potentially resulting in the threat of decreased water quantity at urbanization within the watersheds that contamination of both surface and salamander spring sites. The effects of contribute to spring flow and thereby groundwater resources (Service 2005, climate change on aquifer-dependant influence water quality within the pp. 1.6–14–1.6–15). A catastrophic spill species is difficult to assess; however, salamander’s habitat. Urbanization leads could occur if a truck transporting the Edwards Aquifer is predicted to to increases in water demand and hazardous materials overturned and experience additional stress from reduced water quality from erosion, spilled its contents over the recharge climate change that could lead to sedimentation, contaminants, and zone of the aquifer. The transport of decreased recharge and low or ceased

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50799

spring flows given increasing pumping We therefore consider this to be an watersheds and recharge and demands (Loa´iciga et al. 2000, pp. 192– ongoing threat of medium impact. contributing zones of the Edwards 193). Therefore, we believe habitat The population status of Jollyville Aquifer. Williamson County, Texas, is modification in the form of water Plateau salamanders is unknown at experiencing tremendous human quantity reduction, whether reduced most of their sites. However, population growth. An increase of 597 spring flows is caused by climate observations of Jollyville Plateau percent from 2000 to 2040 is currently change or in combination with other salamanders at several long-term projected (Texas State Data Center 2008, stressors, to be an ongoing threat of monitoring sites have been decreasing p.1). Along with human population unknown impact to this species. in correspondence with habitat growth, we expect more urbanization, All four salamanders are sensitive to degradation (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. which leads to increases in direct physical habitat modification, 4, 48). We expect the downward trend sedimentation, contaminants, and such as those resulting from human to continue into the future as human nutrient loads as well as decreases in recreational activities, impoundments, population growth and urbanization aquatic invertebrates (the salamanders’ feral hogs, and livestock. Destruction of drive further declines in habitat quality prey base). Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat has and quantity. We analyzed the impervious cover been attributed to vandalism (COA The Act defines an endangered estimates of each watershed within the 2001, p. 21), human recreational use species as any species that is ‘‘in danger Georgetown salamander’s range, along (COA 2001, p. 21), impoundments of extinction throughout all or a with the amount of land currently (O’Donnell et al. 2008, p.1; Bendik significant portion of its range’’ and a managed as open space that could 2011b, pers. comm.), and feral hog threatened species as any species ‘‘that possibly contribute water quality activity (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 34, is likely to become endangered benefits to the salamander’s habitat. The 46). Because there is ongoing physical throughout all or a significant portion of watersheds within the Georgetown habitat modification occurring to known its range within the foreseeable future.’’ salamander’s range have average Jollyville Plateau salamander sites, we Due to its susceptibility to threats that impervious cover estimates that range are ongoing throughout its entire range, consider this threat to be ongoing and of from 0.59 percent to 9.60 percent. Five we determine that the Jollyville Plateau low impact to this species. out of the six watersheds within this salamander is currently on the brink of species’ range are well below Chytrid fungus has also been extinction and therefore meets the impervious cover levels that can lead to documented on the feet of Jollyville definition of endangered. We find that declines in water quality. Plateau salamanders in the wild, but the Jollyville Plateau salamander is Although our analyses indicated with no visible symptoms of the disease presently in danger of extinction relatively low levels of impervious (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 22–23). throughout its entire range based on the cover throughout the watersheds within Furthermore, there are no data to immediacy, severity, and scope of the the Georgetown salamander’s range, indicate whether disease or predation of threats described above. The Jollyville there are developed areas that could be any of the salamander species proposed Plateau salamander species is proposed affecting the water quality at sites for listing is a significant threat facing as endangered, rather than threatened, known to be occupied by the these species. Predation and disease because the threats are occurring now or Georgetown salamander. Moreover, (Factor C) may be affecting the Jollyville are imminent, and their potential existing regulations in Williamson Plateau salamander species, but there is impacts to the species would be County do not address many of the not enough evidence to consider these catastrophic given the very limited sources of groundwater pollution that factors threats. Neither factor is at a range of the species, making the are typically associated with urbanized level that we consider to be threatening salamander at risk of extinction at the areas; therefore, these regulations are the continued existence of the Jollyville present time. Therefore, on the basis of not adequate to protect this species and Plateau salamander now or in the the best available scientific and its habitat. With only two large tracts foreseeable future. commercial information, we propose (64 ac [25.9 ha] and 145 ac [58.7 ha]) Other natural or manmade factors listing the Jollyville Plateau salamander protected as open space within the (Factor E) affecting the Jollyville Plateau as endangered in accordance with Georgetown salamander’s range, it is salamander include UV–B radiation, sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. unlikely the water quality for this small population sizes, stochastic Under the Act and our implementing species’ habitat will be protected as events, and synergistic and additive regulations, a species may warrant development continues into the interactions among stressors. Increased listing if it is endangered or threatened foreseeable future. In consideration of levels of UV–B radiation, due to the throughout all or a significant portion of this information and analysis, we depletion of stratospheric ozone layers its range. The Jollyville Plateau believe the threat of habitat has been shown to cause significant salamander proposed for listing in this modification in the form of reduced mortality and deformities that affect rule is highly restricted in its range, and water quality is ongoing and of high reproduction in amphibian species the threats occur throughout its entire impact throughout the Georgetown (Blaustein et al. 1997, p. 13,735), range. Therefore, the threats to the salamander’s range. although the effects of UV–B radiation survival of this species are not restricted In regards to regulatory mechanisms on this species are unknown. Small to any particular significant portion of to protect water quality, it is unlikely population sizes may act synergistically that range. Accordingly, our assessment that water quality within the with other traits of the species (such as and proposed determination applies to Georgetown salamander’s habitat will be its limited distribution) to increase its the species throughout its entire range. maintained or protected as urbanization overall risk of extinction (Davies et al. occurs in these watersheds into the 2004, p. 270). Stochastic events, such as Georgetown Salamander foreseeable future. Therefore, we severe weather or demographic changes The primary threat to this species is consider the inadequacy of existing to the population, are also heightened habitat modification (Factor A) in the regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) to be threats because of the species’ restricted form of reduced flows and degradation an ongoing threat of high impact. range and small population sizes of water quality of spring habitats as a The Edwards Aquifer is at risk from (Melbourne and Hastings 2008, p. 100). result of urbanization within the a variety of sources of pollutants (Ross

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50800 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

2011, p. 4), including hazardous in underground aquatic habitat areas to of extinction (Davies et al. 2004, p. 270). materials that could be spilled or adapt to periodic flow losses (O’Donnell Stochastic events, such as severe leaked, potentially resulting in the et al. 2006, p. 47), drying spring habitats weather or demographic changes to the contamination of both surface and can result in stranding salamanders population, are also heightened threats groundwater resources (Service 2005, (TPWD 2011a, p. 5). Also, prey because of its restricted range and small pp. 1.6–14–1.6–15). A catastrophic spill availability is likely low underground population sizes (Melbourne and could occur if a truck transporting due to the lack of primary production Hastings 2008, p. 100). We therefore hazardous materials overturned and (Hobbs and Culver 2009, p. 392). consider this to be an ongoing threat of spilled its contents over the recharge Future climate change could also medium impact. zone of the aquifer. Interstate Highway affect water quantity and spring flow for The population status of Georgetown 35 crosses watersheds that contribute the Georgetown salamander. Climate salamanders is unknown at all but two groundwater to spring sites known to be change could compound the threat of of their sites. A lack of long-term data occupied by the Georgetown decreased water quantity at salamander prevents us from drawing conclusions salamander. spring sites. The effects of climate on how Georgetown salamander The Georgetown salamander is also at change on aquifer-dependant species is populations may be changing over time. risk from several other point sources of difficult to assess; however, the However, similar to Austin blind and pollutants, including wastewater Edwards Aquifer is predicted to Jollyville plateau salamander pipelines, chlorinated drinking water experience additional stress from populations, we expect Georgetown lines, and septic systems. A significant climate change that could lead to salamander populations to trend hazardous materials spill within a decreased recharge and low or ceased downwards in the future as human stream drainage for the Georgetown spring flows given increasing pumping population growth and urbanization in salamander could have the potential to demands (Loa´iciga et al. 2000, pp. 192– the area drive declines in habitat quality threaten the long-term survival and 193). In consideration of the information and quantity. sustainability of multiple populations. presented above, we believe habitat The Act defines an endangered For these reasons, we believe the threat modification in the form of water species as any species that is ‘‘in danger of habitat modification in the form of quantity reduction to be an ongoing of extinction throughout all or a water quality degradation and threat of high impact to this species. significant portion of its range’’ and a contamination from hazardous materials All four salamanders are sensitive to threatened species as any species ‘‘that spills to be an ongoing threat of medium direct physical habitat modification, is likely to become endangered impact to this species. such as those resulting from human Construction activities resulting from recreational activities, impoundments, throughout all or a significant portion of urban development are a threat to both feral hogs, and livestock. Destruction of its range within the foreseeable future.’’ water quality and quantity because they Georgetown salamander habitat has Due to its susceptibility to threats that can increase sedimentation and dewater been attributed to direct human are ongoing throughout its entire range, springs by intercepting aquifer conduits. modification (TPWD 2011a, p. 9), feral we determine that the Georgetown There are currently three active rock hog activity (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. salamander is currently on the brink of quarries located near Georgetown 34, 46; Booker 2011, p. 1), and livestock extinction and therefore meets the salamander sites within Williamson activity (White 2011, SWCA, pers. definition of endangered. We find that County, Texas, which may impact the comm.). Because there is ongoing the Georgetown salamander is presently species and its habitat, which could physical habitat modification occurring in danger of extinction throughout its result in the destruction of spring sites, to known Georgetown salamander sites entire range based on the immediacy, collapse of karst caverns, degradation of within a restricted range, we consider severity, and scope of the threats water quality, and reduction of water this to be an ongoing threat of low described above. The Georgetown quantity (Ekmekci 1990, p. 4). Given impact for this species. salamander species is proposed as that construction-related sediment Predation and disease (Factor C) may endangered, rather than threatened, loading is likely to occur within the be affecting the Georgetown salamander, because the threats are occurring now or rapidly developing range of the but there is not enough evidence to are imminent, and their potential Georgetown salamander, we believe the consider these factors threats . Neither impacts to the species would be threat of habitat modification in the factor is at a level that we consider to catastrophic given the very limited form of water quality degradation and be threatening the continued existence range of the species, making the water reduction caused by construction of the Georgetown salamander species salamander at risk of extinction at the activities from urban development to be now or in the foreseeable future. present time. Therefore, on the basis of an ongoing threat of medium impact to Other natural or manmade factors the best available scientific and this species. (Factor E) potentially affecting the commercial information, we propose Another potential threat to the Georgetown salamander include UV–B listing the Georgetown salamander as Georgetown salamander and its habitat radiation, small population sizes, endangered in accordance with sections is low flow conditions in the aquifer stochastic events, and synergistic and 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. and within this species’ surface habitat additive interactions among stressors. Under the Act and our implementing due to urbanization and recent drought Increased levels of UV–B radiation, due regulations, a species may warrant conditions. The San Gabriel Springs to the depletion of stratospheric ozone listing if it is endangered or threatened (Georgetown salamander habitat) are layers has been shown to cause throughout all or a significant portion of now only intermittently flowing in the significant mortality and deformities in its range. The Georgetown salamander summer due to pumping from nearby amphibian species (Blaustein et al. proposed for listing in this rule is highly water wells (TPWD 2011a, p. 9). 1997, p. 13,735), although the effects of restricted in its range, and the threats Salamanders have not been seen on the UV–B radiation on this species are occur throughout its entire range. surface there since 1991 (Chippindale et unknown. Small population sizes may Therefore, the threats to the survival of al. 2000, p. 40; Pierce 2011b, pers. act synergistically with other traits of this species are not restricted to any comm.). Although Eurycea salamanders the species (such as its limited particular significant portion of that may spend some time below the surface distribution) to increase its overall risk range. Accordingly, our assessment and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50801

proposed determination applies to the contamination of both surface and aquifer-dependant species is difficult to species throughout its entire range. groundwater resources (Service 2005, assess; however, the Edwards Aquifer is pp. 1.6–14–1.6–15). A catastrophic spill predicted to experience additional stress Salado Salamander could occur if a truck transporting from climate change that could lead to The primary threat to this species is hazardous materials overturned and decreased recharge and low or ceased habitat modification (Factor A) in the spilled its contents over the recharge spring flows given increasing pumping form of reduced flows and degradation zone of the aquifer. Salado salamander demands (Loa´iciga et al. 2000, pp. 192– of water quality of spring habitats as a sites located downstream of Interstate 193). In consideration of the information result of urbanization within the Highway 35 may be particularly presented above, we believe that habitat watersheds and recharge and vulnerable due to their proximity to this modification in the form of water contributing zones of the Edwards major transportation corridor. Should a quantity reduction to be an ongoing Aquifer. Urbanization leads to increases hazardous materials spill occur at the threat of medium magnitude to this in sedimentation, contaminants, and Interstate Highway 35 bridge that species. nutrient loads as well as decreases in crosses at Salado Creek, this species All four salamanders are sensitive to aquatic invertebrates (the Salado could be at risk from contaminants direct physical habitat modification, salamander’s prey base). entering the water flowing into its such as those resulting from human We analyzed the impervious cover surface habitat downstream. recreational activities, impoundments, estimates of each watershed within the Several groundwater contamination feral hogs, and livestock. Destruction of Salado salamander’s range along with incidents have occurred within Salado Salado salamander habitat has been the amount of land currently managed salamander habitat (Price et al. 1999, p. attributed to direct human modification as open space that could possibly 10). Because these groundwater (including heavy machinery use, contribute water quality benefits to the contamination events are already outflow channel reconstruction, and salamander’s habitat. The two occurring and because the Salado substrate alteration at Big Boiling watersheds within the Salado salamander’s range is restricted to only Springs) and feral hog activity (Service salamander’s range have 0.31 percent a few known spring sites, we consider 2010b, p. 6; Gluesenkamp 2011a, b, and 0.91 percent impervious cover. the threat of hazardous materials spills pers. comm.). Because there is ongoing Although four known Salado to be ongoing and of high impact to this physical habitat modification occurring salamander sites are located on large, species. to known Salado salamander sites undeveloped ranches (8,126 ac [3,288 Construction activities resulting from within a very restricted range, we ha] and 827 ac [335 ha]), a significant urban development are a threat to both consider this threat resulting from portion of the recharge zone for the water quality and quantity because they human recreational activities to be Northern Segment of the Edwards can increase sedimentation and dewater ongoing and of low impact to this Aquifer that supplies water to this springs by intercepting aquifer conduits. species. Furthermore, we consider the species’ habitat extends to areas outside The Service is not aware of any specific, threats of impoundments, feral hogs, of these properties. We could not large-scale construction activities and livestock to be ongoing, but of low identify any large tracts managed currently ongoing within the Salado impact. specifically as open space within the salamander’s range. However, because Predation and disease (Factor C) may Salado salamander’s range. We also the human population is increasing be affecting the Salado salamander, but could not identify any agreements in rapidly in this area, urbanization and there is not enough evidence to consider place to preserve or manage any subsequent construction activities are these factors threats. Neither factor is at properties for the benefit of this species likely to impact the few known Salado a level that we consider to be or its habitat. Furthermore, population salamander populations within the threatening the continued existence of projections from the Texas State Data foreseeable future. Thus, we believe the Salado salamander species now or Center (2009, p. 19) estimate that Bell construction activities are an ongoing in the foreseeable future. County will increase in population from threat of low impact to this species. Other natural or manmade factors 237,974 in 2000, to 397,741 in 2040, a Another potential threat to the Salado (Factor E) affecting the Salado 67 percent increase over the 40-year salamander and its habitat is low flow salamander include UV–B radiation, period. In consideration of this conditions in the aquifer and within this small population sizes, stochastic information and analysis, we believe the species’ surface habitat due to events, and synergistic and additive threat of habitat modification in the urbanization and recent drought interactions among stressors. Increased form of water quality degradation is conditions. Robertson Springs (Salado levels of UV–B radiation, due to the ongoing and of medium impact salamander habitat) reportedly went depletion of stratospheric ozone layers throughout the Salado salamander’s temporarily dry in 2009 (TPWD 2011a, has been shown to cause significant range. p. 5). Although Eurycea salamanders mortality and deformities in amphibian In regards to adequate regulatory may spend some time below the surface species (Blaustein et al. 1997, p. mechanisms to protect water quality, it in underground aquatic habitat areas to 13,735), although the effects of UV–B is unlikely that water quality within the adapt to periodic flow losses (O’Donnell radiation on this species are unknown. Salado salamander’s habitat will be et al. 2006, p. 47), drying spring habitats Small population sizes may act protected if development occurs in can result in stranding salamanders synergistically with other traits of the these watersheds into the foreseeable (TPWD 2011a, p. 5). Also, prey species (such as its limited distribution) future. We therefore consider the availability is likely low underground to increase its overall risk of extinction inadequacy of existing regulatory due to the lack of primary production (Davies et al. 2004, p. 270). Stochastic mechanisms (Factor D) to be an ongoing (Hobbs and Culver 2009, p. 392). events, such as severe weather or threat of high impact. Future climate change could also demographic changes to the population, The Edwards Aquifer is at risk from affect water quantity and spring flow for are also heightened threats because of a variety of sources of pollutants (Ross the Salado salamander. Climate change its restricted range and small population 2011, p. 4), including hazardous could compound the threat of decreased sizes (Melbourne and Hastings 2008, p. materials that could be spilled or water quantity at salamander spring 100). We therefore consider this to be an leaked, potentially resulting in the sites. The effects of climate change on ongoing threat of high impact.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50802 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

The population status of Salado requirements for Federal protection, and broad range of partners, including other salamanders is unknown. A lack of prohibitions against certain practices. Federal agencies, States, Tribal, non- long-term data prevents us from Recognition through listing can result in governmental organizations, businesses, drawing conclusions on how Salado public awareness and conservation by and private landowners. Examples of salamander populations may be Federal, State, Tribal, and local recovery actions include habitat changing over time. However, similar to agencies, private organizations, and restoration (for example, restoration of Austin blind and Jollyville plateau individuals. The Act encourages native vegetation), research, captive salamander populations, we expect cooperation with the States and requires propagation and reintroduction, and Salado salamander populations to trend that recovery actions be carried out for outreach and education. The recovery of downwards in the future as human all listed species. The protection many listed species cannot be population growth and urbanization in required by Federal agencies and the accomplished solely on Federal lands the area drive declines in habitat quality prohibitions against certain activities because their range may occur primarily and quantity. Due to its relatively small are discussed, in part, below. or solely on non-Federal lands. To range and small number of populations, The primary purpose of the Act is the achieve recovery of these four species we believe the species’ resiliency to the conservation of endangered and requires cooperative conservation efforts threats outlined above is low. threatened species and the ecosystems on private, local government, and other The Act defines an endangered upon which they depend. The ultimate lands. species as any species that is ‘‘in danger goal of such conservation efforts is the If these species are listed, funding for of extinction throughout all or a recovery of these listed species, so that recovery actions will be available from significant portion of its range’’ and a they no longer need the protective a variety of sources, including Federal threatened species as any species ‘‘that measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of budgets, State programs, and cost share is likely to become endangered the Act requires the Service to develop grants for non-Federal landowners, the throughout all or a significant portion of and implement recovery plans for the academic community, and non- its range within the foreseeable future.’’ conservation of endangered and governmental organizations. In addition, Due to its susceptibility to threats that threatened species. The recovery pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the are ongoing throughout its entire range, planning process involves the State of Texas would be eligible for we determine that the Salado identification of actions that are Federal funds to implement salamander is currently on the brink of necessary to halt or reverse the species’ management actions that promote the extinction and therefore meets the decline by addressing the threats to its protection and recovery of the Austin definition of endangered. We find that survival and recovery. The goal of this blind, Jollyville Plateau, Georgetown, the Salado salamander is presently in process is to restore listed species to a and Salado salamanders. Information on danger of extinction throughout its point where they are secure, self- our grant programs that are available to entire range, based on the immediacy, sustaining, and functioning components aid species recovery can be found at: severity, and scope of the threats of their ecosystems. http://www.fws.gov/grants. described above. This salamander Recovery planning includes the Although the Austin blind, Jollyville species is proposed as endangered, development of a recovery outline Plateau, Georgetown, and Salado rather than threatened, because the shortly after a species is listed, salamanders are only proposed for threats are occurring now or are preparation of a draft and final recovery listing under the Act at this time, please imminent, and their potential impacts to plan, and revisions to the plan as let us know if you are interested in the species would be catastrophic given significant new information becomes participating in recovery efforts for this the very limited range of the species, available. The recovery outline guides species. Additionally, we invite you to making the salamander at risk of the immediate implementation of urgent submit any new information on this extinction at the present time. recovery actions and describes the species whenever it becomes available Therefore, on the basis of the best process to be used to develop a recovery and any information you may have for available scientific and commercial plan. The recovery plan identifies site- recovery planning purposes (see FOR information, we propose listing the specific management actions that will FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Salado salamander as endangered in achieve recovery of the species, Section 7(a) of the Act requires accordance with sections 3(6) and measurable criteria that determine when Federal agencies to evaluate their 4(a)(1) of the Act. a species may be downlisted or delisted, actions with respect to any species that Under the Act and our implementing and methods for monitoring recovery is proposed or listed as endangered or regulations, a species may warrant progress. Recovery plans also establish threatened and with respect to its listing if it is endangered or threatened a framework for agencies to coordinate critical habitat, if any is designated. throughout all or a significant portion of their recovery efforts and provide Regulations implementing this its range. The Salado salamander estimates of the cost of implementing interagency cooperation provision of the proposed for listing in this rule is highly recovery tasks. Recovery teams Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. restricted in its range, and the threats (comprised of species experts, Federal Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires occur throughout its entire range. and State agencies, non-government Federal agencies to confer with the Therefore, the threats to the survival of organizations, and stakeholders) are Service on any action that is likely to this species are not restricted to any often established to develop recovery jeopardize the continued existence of a particular significant portion of that plans. If we list these four central Texas species proposed for listing or result in range. Accordingly, our assessment and salamanders, when completed, the destruction or adverse modification of proposed determination applies to the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, proposed critical habitat. If a species is species throughout its entire range. and the final recovery plan will be listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of available on our Web site (http:// the Act requires Federal agencies to Available Conservation Measures www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our ensure that activities they authorize, Conservation measures provided to Austin Ecological Services Field Office fund, or carry out are not likely to species listed as endangered or (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). jeopardize the continued existence of threatened under the Act include Implementation of recovery actions the species or destroy or adversely recognition, recovery actions, generally requires the participation of a modify its critical habitat. If a Federal

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50803

action may affect a listed species or its section 9 of the Act. The intent of this supplemented by protection under State critical habitat, the responsible Federal policy is to increase public awareness of law. agency must enter into consultation the effect of a proposed listing on Questions regarding whether specific with the Service. proposed and ongoing activities within activities would constitute a violation of Federal agency actions within the the range of the species proposed for section 9 of the Act should be directed species habitat that may require listing. The following activities could to the Austin Ecological Services Field conference or consultation or both as potentially result in a violation of Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION described in the preceding paragraph section 9 of the Act; this list is not CONTACT). Requests for copies of the include, but are not limited to, issuance comprehensive: regulations concerning listed animals of section 404 Clean Water Act permits (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, and general inquiries regarding by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, prohibitions and permits may be construction and management of gas or transporting of the species, including addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife pipeline and power line rights-of-way import or export across State lines and Service, Endangered Species Permits, by the Federal Energy Regulatory international boundaries, except for 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Commission; Federal Emergency properly documented antique TX 78758; telephone 512–490–0057; Management Agency for floodplain map specimens of these taxa at least 100 facsimile 512–490–0974. revisions; U.S. Department of years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) Prudency Determination Agriculture Rural Development grants; of the Act. Section 4 of the Act, as amended, and Housing and Urban Development grants; (2) Introduction of nonnative species implementing regulations (50 CFR Service for Partners projects; Service that compete with or prey upon any of 424.12), require that, to the maximum issuance of section 10 permits under the the four salamanders, such as the extent prudent and determinable, the Act; construction and maintenance of introduction of competing, nonnative Secretary designate critical habitat at the roads or highways by the Federal aquatic animals to the State of Texas. Highway Administration; Natural time the species is determined to be (3) The unauthorized release of endangered or threatened. Our Resources Conservation Service funded biological control agents that attack any projects; and Environmental Protection regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state life stage of these four species. that the designation of critical habitat is Agency pesticide registration. (4) Unauthorized modification of the The Act and its implementing not prudent when one or both of the spring opening, stream channel, or regulations set forth a series of general following situations exist: (1) The water flow of any spring or stream or prohibitions and exceptions that apply species is threatened by taking or other to all endangered wildlife. The removal or destruction of substrate in activity and the identification of critical prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, any body of water in which any of the habitat can be expected to increase the codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered four salamanders are known to occur. degree of threat to the species; or (2) the wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any (5) The interception of groundwater designation of critical habitat would not person subject to the jurisdiction of the such that it reduces water flow into any be beneficial to the species. United States to take (includes harass, waters where any of the four There is no documentation that the harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, salamanders are known to occur. four Texas salamanders are significantly trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt (6) Unauthorized discharge of threatened by collection. Although any of these), import, export, ship in chemicals or fill material into any human visitation to four Texas interstate commerce in the course of waters in which any of the four salamanders’ habitat carries with it the commercial activity, or sell or offer for salamanders are known to occur. possibility of introducing infectious sale in interstate or foreign commerce If the four central Texas salamanders disease and potentially increasing other any listed species. Under the Lacey Act are listed under the Act, the State of threats where the salamanders occur, (18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), Texas’ endangered species law is the locations of important recovery it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, automatically invoked, which would areas are already accessible to the public carry, transport, or ship any such also prohibit take of these species and through Web sites, reports, online wildlife that has been taken illegally. encourage conservation by State databases, and other easily accessible Certain exceptions apply to agents of the government agencies. Chapter 68, venues. Therefore, identifying and Service and State conservation agencies. section 68.002 of the TPWD’s Code mapping critical habitat is unlikely to We may issue permits to carry out defines State-level endangered species increase threats to the four Texas otherwise prohibited activities as those species of fish or wildlife salamander species or their habitats. In involving endangered and threatened indigenous to Texas that are listed on: the absence of finding that the wildlife species under certain (1) The United States List of Endangered designation of critical habitat would circumstances. Regulations governing and Threatened Wildlife; or (2) the list increase threats to a species, if there are permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for of fish or wildlife threatened with any benefits to a critical habitat endangered species, and at 17.32 for Statewide extinction as filed by the designation, then a prudent finding is threatened species. With regard to director of the department. Further, the warranted. The potential benefits of endangered wildlife, a permit must be State of Texas may enter into critical habitat to the four Texas issued for the following purposes: For agreements with Federal agencies to salamanders include: (1) Triggering scientific purposes, to enhance the administer and manage any area consultation under section 7 of the Act propagation or survival of the species, required for the conservation, where a Federal nexus may not and for incidental take in connection management, enhancement, or otherwise occur (for example, a critical with otherwise lawful activities. protection of endangered species. Funds habitat unit may become unoccupied, It is our policy, as published in the for these activities could be made and without critical habitat designation, Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR available under section 6 of the Act a consultation would not occur on a 34272), to identify to the maximum (Cooperation with the States). Thus, the project that may affect an unoccupied extent practicable at the time a species Federal protection afforded to these area); (2) focusing conservation is listed, those activities that would or species by listing them as endangered activities on the most essential features would not constitute a violation of species will be reinforced and and areas; (3) providing educational

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50804 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

benefits to State or county governments, critical habitat does not affect land to ensure the conservation of the or private entities; and (4) preventing ownership or establish a refuge, species. people from causing inadvertent harm wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other Section 4 of the Act requires that we to the species. Therefore, because we conservation area. Such designation designate critical habitat on the basis of have determined that the designation of does not allow the government or public the best scientific data available. critical habitat will not likely increase to access private lands. Such Further, our Policy on Information the degree of threat to any of the four designation does not require Standards Under the Endangered salamander species and may provide implementation of restoration, recovery, Species Act (published in the Federal some measure of benefit, we find that or enhancement measures by non- Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), designation of critical habitat is prudent Federal landowners. Where a landowner the Information Quality Act (section 515 for the Austin blind, Jollyville Plateau, requests Federal agency funding or of the Treasury and General Georgetown, and Salado salamanders. authorization for an action that may Government Appropriations Act for affect a listed species or critical habitat, Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. Proposed Critical Habitat Designation the consultation requirements of section 5658)), and our associated Information for the Four Central Texas Salamanders 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, Background in the event of a destruction or adverse establish procedures, and provide modification finding, the obligation of guidance to ensure that our decisions It is our intent to discuss below only the Federal action agency and the are based on the best scientific data those topics directly relevant to the landowner is not to restore or recover available. They require our biologists, to designation of critical habitat for the the species, but to implement the extent consistent with the Act and Austin blind, Jollyville Plateau, reasonable and prudent alternatives to with the use of the best scientific data Georgetown, and Salado salamanders in avoid destruction or adverse available, to use primary and original this section of the proposed rule. modification of critical habitat. sources of information as the basis for Critical habitat is defined in section 3 Under the first prong of the Act’s recommendations to designate critical of the Act as: definition of critical habitat, areas habitat. (1) The specific areas within the within the geographical area occupied When we are determining which areas geographical area occupied by the by the species at the time it was listed should be designated as critical habitat, species, at the time it is listed in are included in a critical habitat our primary source of information is accordance with the Act, on which are designation if they contain physical or generally the information developed found those physical or biological biological features (1) which are during the listing process for the features essential to the conservation of the species. Additional information sources (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require may include the recovery plan for the species and special management considerations or species, articles in peer-reviewed (b) Which may require special protection. For these areas, critical journals, conservation plans developed management considerations or habitat designations identify, to the by States and counties, scientific status protection; and extent known using the best scientific surveys and studies, biological (2) Specific areas outside the data available, those physical or assessments, other unpublished geographical area occupied by the biological features that are essential to materials, or experts’ opinions or species at the time it is listed, upon a the conservation of the species (such as personal knowledge. determination that such areas are space, food, cover, and protected Habitat is dynamic, and species may essential for the conservation of the habitat). In identifying those physical or move from one area to another over species. biological features within an area, we time. We recognize that critical habitat Conservation, as defined under focus on the principal constituent designated at a particular point in time section 3 of the Act, means to use and elements (primary constituent elements may not include all of the habitat areas the use of all methods and procedures such as roost sites, nesting grounds, that we may later determine are that are necessary to bring an seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, necessary for the recovery of the endangered or threatened species to the soil type) that are essential to the species. For these reasons, a critical point at which the measures provided conservation of the species. Primary habitat designation does not signal that pursuant to the Act are no longer constituent elements are the elements or habitat outside the designated area is necessary. Such methods and components of physical or biological unimportant or may not be needed for procedures include, but are not limited features that are essential to the recovery of the species. Areas that are to, all activities associated with conservation of the species. important to the conservation of the scientific resources management such as Under the second prong of the Act’s species, both inside and outside the research, census, law enforcement, definition of critical habitat, we can critical habitat designation, will habitat acquisition and maintenance, designate critical habitat in areas continue to be subject to: (1) propagation, live trapping, and outside the geographical area occupied Conservation actions implemented transplantation, and, in the by the species at the time it is listed, under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) extraordinary case where population upon a determination that such areas regulatory protections afforded by the pressures within a given ecosystem are essential for the conservation of the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act cannot be otherwise relieved, may species. For example, an area currently for Federal agencies to ensure their include regulated taking. occupied by the species but that was not actions are not likely to jeopardize the Critical habitat receives protection occupied at the time of listing may be continued existence of any endangered under section 7 of the Act through the essential to the conservation of the or threatened species, and (3) the requirement that Federal agencies species and may be included in the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if ensure, in consultation with the Service, critical habitat designation. We actions occurring in these areas may that any action they authorize, fund, or designate critical habitat in areas affect the species. Federally funded or carry out is not likely to result in the outside the geographical area occupied permitted projects affecting listed destruction or adverse modification of by a species only when a designation species outside their designated critical critical habitat. The designation of limited to its range would be inadequate habitat areas may still result in jeopardy

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50805

findings in some cases. These However, this species is rarely seen at related Eurycea species. Forms of protections and conservation tools will the surface of the spring, so it is Georgetown salamander with cave continue to contribute to recovery of assumed that it is subterranean for most morphology have been found at two this species. Similarly, critical habitat of its life (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 267). locations (TPWD 2011a, p. 8), indicating designations made on the basis of the Supporting this assumption is the fact that they spend most of their lives best available information at the time of that the species’ physiology is cave- underground at these locations. designation will not control the adapted, with reduced eyes and pale Therefore, based on the information direction and substance of future coloration (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 267). above, we identify springs, associated recovery plans, habitat conservation Most individuals found on the surface streams, and underground spaces within plans (HCPs), or other species near spring openings are juveniles the aquifer to be the primary conservation planning efforts if new (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 273). Austin blind components of the physical or biological information available at the time of salamanders have been found in the features essential to the conservation of these planning efforts calls for a streambed a short distance (about 33 ft this species. different outcome. (10 m)) downstream of Sunken Gardens Spring (Dries, 2011, pers. comm.). Salado Salamander Physical or Biological Features Therefore, based on the information The Salado salamander occurs where In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) above, we identify springs, associated water emerges from the ground as a free- and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations streams, and underground spaces within flowing spring and stream. Within the at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which the aquifer to be the primary spring ecosystem, proximity to the areas within the geographic area components of the physical or biological springhead is important because of the occupied by the species at the time of features essential to the conservation of appropriate stable water chemistry and listing to designate as critical habitat, this species. temperature, substrate, and flow regime. we consider the physical or biological Jollyville Plateau Salamander Eurycea salamanders are rarely found features that are essential to the more than 66 ft (20 m) from a spring conservation of the species and which The Jollyville Plateau salamander source (TPWD 2011, p. 3). However, may require special management occurs where water emerges from the Georgetown salamanders, a similar considerations or protection. These ground as a free-flowing spring and species, are found up to 164 ft (50 m) include, but are not limited to: stream. Within the spring ecosystem, downstream of a spring opening. Salado (1) Space for individual and proximity to the springhead is salamanders are also thought to use the population growth and for normal important because of the appropriate underground aquifer for habitat in times behavior; stable water chemistry and temperature, of drought when surface habitat is no (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or substrate, and flow regime. Jollyville longer available or suitable (TPWD other nutritional or physiological Plateau salamanders are known to use 2011, p. 3), similar to other closely requirements; the underground aquifer for habitat related Eurycea species (Bendik 2011a, (3) Cover or shelter; when surface habitats go dry (Bendik p. 31). Therefore, based on the (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 2011a, p. 31). Georgetown salamanders, information above, we identify springs, rearing (or development) of offspring; a closely related species, are found up associated streams, and underground and to 164 ft (50 m) from a spring opening spaces within the aquifer to be the (Pierce et al. 2011a, p. 4), but they are (5) Habitats that are protected from primary components of the physical or most abundant within the first 16 ft (5 disturbance or are representative of the biological features essential to the m) (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 294). Forms of historical, geographic, and ecological conservation of this species. Jollyville Plateau salamander with cave distributions of a species. morphology have been found in several Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or We derive the specific physical or underground streams (Chippindale et al. Other Nutritional or Physiological biological features required for the four 2000, pp. 36–37; TPWD 2011a, pp. 9– Requirements central Texas salamander species from 10). Therefore, based on the information studies of these species’ habitat, Austin Blind Salamander above, we identify springs, associated ecology, and life history as described streams, and underground spaces within No species-specific dietary study has below. Additional information can be the aquifer to be the primary been completed, but the diet of the found in the listing portion of this components of the physical or biological Austin blind salamander is presumed to proposed rule. We have determined that features essential to the conservation of be similar to other Eurycea species, the aquatic ecosystem of the Barton this species. consisting of small aquatic invertebrates Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer such as amphipods, copepods, isopods, is the physical or biological feature Georgetown Salamander and insect larvae (reviewed in COA essential for the Austin blind The Georgetown salamander occurs 2001, pp. 5–6). The feces of one wild- salamander. We have determined that where water emerges from the ground as caught Austin blind salamander the aquatic ecosystem of the Northern a free-flowing spring and stream. Within contained amphipods, ostracods, Segment of the Edwards Aquifer is the the spring ecosystem, proximity to the copepods, and plant material (Hillis et physical or biological feature essential springhead is important because of the al. 2001, p. 273). for the Jollyville Plateau salamander, the appropriate stable water chemistry and Austin blind salamanders are strictly Georgetown salamander, and the Salado temperature, substrate, and flow regime. aquatic and spend their entire lives salamander. Georgetown salamanders are found submersed in water from the Barton Space for Individual and Population within 164 ft (50 m) of a spring opening Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer Growth and for Normal Behavior (Pierce et al. 2011a, p. 4), but they are (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 273). These most abundant within the first 16 ft (5 salamanders, and the prey that they feed Austin Blind Salamander m) (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 294). on, require water sourced from the The Austin blind salamander has Georgetown salamanders are also Edwards Aquifer at sufficient flows been found where water emerges from thought to use the underground aquifer (quantity) to meet all of their the ground as a free-flowing spring. for habitat, similar to other closely physiological requirements. This water

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50806 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

should be flowing and unchanged in the long-term health of salamanders in et al. (2010, p. 544) observed a number chemistry, temperature, and volume the wild. In the absence of better of physiological effects to low dissolved from natural conditions. The average information on the sensitivity of oxygen concentrations (below 4.5 mg water temperature at Austin blind salamanders to changes in conductivity L¥1) in the related San Marcos salamander sites in Barton Springs is (or other contaminants), it is reasonable salamander, including decreased between 67.8 and 72.3 °F (19.9 and to assume that salamander survival, metabolic rates and decreased juvenile ° 22.4 C) (COA 2011b, unpublished growth, and reproduction will be most growth rates. The average dissolved data). successful when water quality is oxygen level of Jollyville Plateau Edwards Aquifer Eurycea are adapted unaltered from natural aquifer salamander sites with little or no to a lower ideal range of oxygen conditions. The average water development in the watershed ranges saturations compared to other ¥ conductance at Main Spring, Eliza from 5.6 to 7.1 mg L 1 (Bendik 2011a, salamanders (Turner 2009, p. 11). Spring, and Sunken Garden Spring is p. 10). Based on this information, we However, Eurycea salamanders need between 605 and 740 mS cm¥1, conclude that the dissolved oxygen dissolved oxygen concentrations to be respectively (COA 2011b, unpublished level of water is important to the above a certain concentration, as the co- data). occurring Barton Springs salamander Therefore, based on the information Jollyville Plateau salamander for demonstrates declining abundance with above, we identify aquatic invertebrates respiratory function. declining dissolved oxygen levels and water from the Barton Springs The conductivity of water is also (Turner 2009, p. 14). Woods et al. (2010, Segment of the Edwards Aquifer with important to salamander physiology p. 544) observed a number of adequate dissolved oxygen because it is related to the concentration physiological effects to low dissolved concentration, water conductance, and of ions in the water. Increased oxygen concentrations (below 4.5 water temperature to be the essential conductivity is associated with ¥ milligrams of oxygen per liter (mg L 1)) components of the physical or biological increased water contamination and in the related San Marcos salamander, features essential to the conservation of decreased Eurycea abundance (Willson including decreased metabolic rates and this species. and Dorcas 2003, pp. 766–768; Bowles decreased juvenile growth rates. Barton Jollyville Plateau Salamander et al. 2006, pp. 117–118). The lower Springs salamander abundance is As in other Eurycea species, the limit of conductivity in developed highest when dissolved oxygen is Jollyville Plateau salamander sites ¥1 Jollyville Plateau salamander feeds on between 5 to 7 mg L (Turner 2009, p. where salamander densities were lower 12). Therefore, we assume that the aquatic invertebrates that commonly ¥ was 800 mS cm 1 (Bowles et al. 2006, dissolved oxygen level of water is occur in spring environments (reviewed p. 117). Salamanders were significantly important to the Austin blind in COA 2001, pp. 5–6). A gut content salamander as well. The mean annual analysis by the City of Austin more abundant at undeveloped sites dissolved oxygen (from 2003 through demonstrated that this salamander preys where water conductivity averaged 600 ¥1 2011) at Main Spring, Eliza Spring, and on varying proportions of ostracods, mS cm (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). Sunken Garden Spring is 6.36, 5.89, and copepods, mayfly larvae, fly larvae, The average water conductance of 5.95 mg L¥1, respectively (COA 2011b, snails, water mites, aquatic beetles, and Jollyville Plateau salamander sites with unpublished data). stone fly larvae depending on the little or no development in the The conductivity of water is also location of the site (Bendik 2011b, p. watershed ranges from 550 to 625 mS ¥ important to salamander physiology 55). cm 1 (Bendik 2011a, p. 10, Bowles et because it is related to the concentration Jollyville Plateau salamanders are al. 2006, p.115). Although one of ions in the water. Increased strictly aquatic and spend their entire laboratory study on the related San conductivity is associated with lives submersed in water from the Marcos salamander demonstrated that increased water contamination and Northern Segment of the Edwards conductivities up to 2738 mS cm¥1 had decreased Eurycea abundance (Willson Aquifer (COA 2001, pp. 3–4; Bowles et no measurable effect on adult activity and Dorcas 2003, pp. 766–768; Bowles al. 2006, p. 112). These salamanders, (Woods and Poteet 2006, p. 5), it et al. 2006, pp. 117–118). The lower and the prey that they feed on, require remains unclear how elevated water limit of observed conductivity in water sourced from the Edwards Aquifer conductance might affect juveniles or developed Jollyville Plateau salamander at sufficient flows (quantity) to meet all the long-term health of salamanders in sites where salamander densities were of their physiological requirements. the wild. In the absence of better lower was 800 microsiemens per This water should be flowing and ¥ information on the sensitivity of centimeter (mS cm 1) (Bowles et al. unchanged in chemistry, temperature, salamanders to changes in conductivity 2006, p. 117). Salamanders were and volume from natural conditions. (or other contaminants), it is reasonable significantly more abundant at The average water temperature at to assume that salamander survival, undeveloped sites where water Jollyville Plateau salamander sites with growth, and reproduction will be most conductivity averaged 600 mS cm¥1 undeveloped watersheds ranges from ° ° successful when water quality is (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). Because of 65.3 to 67.3 F (18.5 to 19.6 C) (Bowles unaltered from natural aquifer its similar physiology to the Jollyville et al. 2006, p. 115). conditions. Plateau salamander, we assume that the Edwards Aquifer Eurycea are adapted Austin blind salamander will have a to a lower ideal range of oxygen Therefore, based on the information similar response to elevated water saturations compared to other above, we identify aquatic invertebrates conductance. Although one laboratory salamanders (Turner 2009, p. 11). and water from the Northern Segment of study on the related San Marcos However, Eurycea salamanders need the Edwards Aquifer, including salamander demonstrated that dissolved oxygen concentrations to be adequate dissolved oxygen conductivities up to 2738 mS cm¥1 had above a certain concentration, as the concentration, water conductance, and no measurable effect on adult activity related Barton Springs salamander water temperature, to be the essential (Woods and Poteet 2006, p. 5), it demonstrates declining abundance with components of the physical or biological remains unclear how elevated water declining dissolved oxygen levels features essential for the conservation of conductance might affect juveniles or (Turner 2009, p. 14). In addition, Woods this species.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50807

Georgetown Salamander (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). Because of demonstrates declining abundance with No species-specific dietary study has its similar physiology to the Jollyville declining dissolved oxygen levels been completed, but the diet of the Plateau salamander, we assume that the (Turner 2009, p. 14). In addition, Woods Georgetown salamander is presumed to Georgetown salamander will have a et al. (2010, p. 544) observed a number be similar to other Eurycea species, similar response to elevated water of physiological effects to low dissolved consisting of small aquatic invertebrates conductance. Normal water oxygen concentrations (below 4.5 mg ¥1 such as amphipods, copepods, isopods, conductance at a relatively undisturbed L ) in the related San Marcos and insect larvae (reviewed in COA Georgetown salamander site ranges from salamander, including decreased m ¥1 2001, pp. 5–6). 604 to 721 S cm throughout the year metabolic rates and decreased juvenile Georgetown salamanders are strictly (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 294). Although growth rates. Therefore, we assume that aquatic and spend their entire lives one laboratory study on the related San the dissolved oxygen level of water is Marcos salamander demonstrated that important to the Salado salamander for submersed in water from the Northern ¥1 Segment of the Edwards Aquifer (Pierce conductivities up to 2738 mS cm had respiratory function. et al. 2010, p. 296). These salamanders, no measurable effect on adult activity We also assume that the conductivity and the prey that they feed on, require (Woods and Poteet 2006, p. 5), it of water is important to salamander water sourced from the Edwards Aquifer remains unclear how elevated water physiology because it is related to the conductance might affect juveniles or at sufficient flows (quantity) to meet all concentration of ions in the water. the long-term health of salamanders in of their physiological requirements Increased conductivity is associated the wild. In the absence of better (TPWD 2011a, p. 8). This water should with increased water contamination and information on the sensitivity of be flowing and unchanged in chemistry, decreased Eurycea abundance (Willson salamanders to changes in conductivity temperature, and volume from natural and Dorcas 2003, pp. 766–768; Bowles (or other contaminants), it is reasonable conditions. Normal water temperature at et al. 2006, pp. 117–118). The lower to assume that salamander survival, a relatively undisturbed Georgetown limit of conductivity in developed growth, and reproduction will be most salamander site ranges from 68.4 to 69.8 Jollyville Plateau salamander sites successful when water quality is °F (20.2 to 21.0 °C) throughout the year where salamander densities were lower unaltered from natural aquifer was 800 mS cm¥1 (Bowles et al. 2006, (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 294). conditions. Edwards Aquifer Eurycea are adapted p. 117). Salamanders were significantly Therefore, based on the information more abundant at undeveloped sites to a lower ideal range of oxygen above, we identify aquatic invertebrates saturations compared to other where water conductivity averaged 600 and water from the Northern Segment of mS cm¥1 (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). salamanders (Turner 2009, p. 11). the Edwards Aquifer, including However, Eurycea salamanders need Although one laboratory study on the adequate dissolved oxygen related San Marcos salamander dissolved oxygen concentrations to be concentration, water conductance, and above a certain threshold, as the related demonstrated that conductivities up to water temperature, to be essential 2738 mS cm¥1 had no measurable effect Barton Springs salamander components of the physical or biological demonstrates declining abundance with on adult activity (Woods and Poteet features essential for the conservation of 2006, p. 5), it remains unclear how declining dissolved oxygen levels this species. (Turner 2009, p. 14). In addition, Woods elevated water conductance might affect et al. (2010, p. 544) observed a number Salado Salamander juveniles or the long-term health of of physiological effects to low dissolved No species-specific dietary study has salamanders in the wild. In the absence oxygen concentrations (below 4.5 mg been completed, but the diet of the of better information on the sensitivity ¥ L 1) in the related San Marcos Salado salamander is presumed to be of salamanders to changes in salamander, including decreased similar to other Eurycea species, conductivity (or other contaminants), it metabolic rates and decreased juvenile consisting of small aquatic invertebrates is reasonable to assume that salamander growth rates. Georgetown salamander such as amphipods, copepods, isopods, survival, growth, and reproduction will sites are characterized by high levels of and insect larvae (reviewed in COA be most successful when water quality dissolved oxygen, typically 6 to 8 mg 2001, pp. 5–6). is unaltered from natural aquifer L¥1 (Pierce and Wall 2011, p. 33). As with other central Texas Eurycea conditions. Therefore, we assume that the dissolved species, Salado salamanders are strictly Therefore, based on the information oxygen level of water is important to the aquatic. Individuals spend their entire above, we identify aquatic invertebrates Georgetown salamander for respiratory lives submersed in water from the and water from the Northern Segment of function. Northern Segment of the Edwards the Edwards Aquifer, including The conductivity of water is also Aquifer (TPWD 2011a, p. 3). These adequate dissolved oxygen important to salamander physiology salamanders, and the prey that they feed concentration, water conductance, and because it is related to the concentration on, require water sourced from the water temperature, to be essential of ions in the water. Increased Edwards Aquifer at sufficient flows components of the physical or biological conductivity is associated with (quantity) to meet all of their features essential for the conservation of increased water contamination and physiological requirements. This water this species. decreased Eurycea abundance (Willson should be flowing and unchanged in Cover or Shelter and Dorcas 2003, pp. 766–768; Bowles chemistry, temperature, and volume et al. 2006, pp. 117–118). The lower from natural conditions. Austin Blind Salamander limit of observed conductivity in Edwards Aquifer Eurycea are adapted The Austin blind salamander likely developed Jollyville Plateau salamander to a lower ideal range of oxygen spends most of its life below the surface sites where salamander densities were saturations compared to other in the aquifer, and may only be flushed lower was 800 mS cm¥1 (Bowles et al. salamanders (Turner 2009, p. 11). to the surface accidentally (Hillis et al. 2006, p. 117). Salamanders were However, Eurycea salamanders need 2001, p. 273). While on the surface near significantly more abundant at dissolved oxygen concentrations to be spring outlets, they move into undeveloped sites where water above a certain threshold, as the related interstitial spaces (empty voids between conductivity averaged 600 mS cm¥1 Barton Springs salamander rocks) within the substrate, using these

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50808 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

spaces for foraging habitat and cover (small aquatic invertebrates) (O’Donnell assumed that eggs are laid underground from predators similar to other Eurycea et al. 2006, p. 34). (Gluesenkamp 2011a, pers. comm.; salamanders in central Texas (Cole Georgetown salamanders have been Bendik 2011b, pers. comm.). Most 1995, p. 24; Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. observed under rocks, leaf litter, woody Austin blind salamanders found on the 16–17). The surface is believed to be debris, and other cover objects (Pierce et surface are juveniles (Hillis et al. 2001, important as a source of food for this al. 2010, p. 295). There is evidence that p. 267). primarily subterranean species. These these salamanders prefer large rocks Jollyville Plateau Salamander spaces should be free from sediment, as over other cover objects (Pierce et al. sediment fills interstitial spaces, 2010, p. 295), which is consistent with Little is known about the reproductive eliminating resting places and also other studies on Eurycea habitat habits of this species. However, the reducing habitat of the prey base (small (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 114). Jollyville Plateau salamander is fully aquatic invertebrates) (O’Donnell et al. Therefore, based on the information aquatic, and therefore spends all of its 2006, p. 34). Austin blind salamanders above, we identify rocky substrate, life cycles in aquifer and spring waters. have been observed under rocks and consisting of boulder, cobble, and Eggs of central Texas Eurycea are rarely vegetation (Dries 2011, pers. comm.). gravel, with interstitial space that is free seen on the surface, so it is widely Therefore, based on the information from sediment, to be an essential assumed that eggs are laid underground above, we identify rocky substrate, component of the physical or biological (Gluesenkamp 2011a, pers. comm.; consisting of boulder, cobble, and features essential for the conservation of Bendik 2011b, pers. comm.). gravel, with interstitial space that is free this species. from sediment, to be an essential Georgetown Salamander component of the physical or biological Salado Salamander Little is known about the reproductive features essential for the conservation of Because of its similarity to other habits of this species. However, the this species. Eurycea salamanders in central Texas, Georgetown salamander is fully aquatic, and therefore spends all of its life cycles Jollyville Plateau Salamander we assume that the Salado salamander spends some proportion of its life below in aquifer and spring waters. Eggs of Similar to other Eurycea salamanders the surface between rocks. Eurycea central Texas Eurycea are rarely seen on in central Texas, Jollyville Plateau salamanders move an unknown depth the surface, so it is widely assumed that salamanders move an unknown depth into the interstitial spaces (empty voids eggs are laid underground into the interstitial spaces (empty voids between rocks) within the substrate, (Gluesenkamp 2011a, pers. comm.; between rocks) within the substrate, using these spaces for foraging habitat Bendik 2011b, pers. comm.). using these spaces for foraging habitat and cover from predators (Cole 1995, p. Salado Salamander and cover from predators (Cole 1995, p. 24; Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. 16–17). 24; Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. 16–17). These spaces should be free from Little is known about the reproductive These spaces should be free from sediment, as sediment fills interstitial habits of this species. However, the sediment, as sediment fills interstitial spaces, eliminating resting places and Salado salamander is fully aquatic, and spaces, eliminating resting places and also reducing habitat of the prey base therefore spends all of its life cycles in also reducing habitat of the prey base (small aquatic invertebrates) (O’Donnell aquifer and spring waters. Eggs of (small aquatic invertebrates) (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34). central Texas Eurycea are rarely seen on et al. 2006, p. 34). Salado salamanders have been the surface, so it is widely assumed that Jollyville Plateau salamanders have observed under cover objects, such as eggs are laid underground been observed under rocks, leaf litter, rocks (Gluesenkamp 2011a, pers. (Gluesenkamp 2011a, pers. comm.; and other vegetation (Bowles et al. 2006, comm.). Although no study has Bendik 2011b, pers. comm.). pp. 114–116). There was a strong demonstrated the substrate preference of positive relationship between Primary Constituent Elements for the the Salado salamander, we assume that Four Central Texas Salamanders salamander abundance and the amount this species prefers large rocks over Under the Act and its implementing of available rocky substrate (Bowles et other cover objects, similar to other regulations, we are required to identify al. 2006, p. 114). closely related Eurycea salamanders. Therefore, based on the information the physical or biological features Larger rocks provide more suitable above, we identify rocky substrate, essential to the conservation of the interstitial spaces for foraging and cover. consisting of boulder, cobble, and salamander species in areas occupied at Therefore, based on the information gravel, with interstitial space that is free the time of listing, focusing on the above, we identify rocky substrate, from sediment, to be an essential features’ primary constituent elements. consisting of boulder, cobble, and component of the physical or biological We consider primary constituent gravel, with interstitial space that is free features essential for the conservation of elements to be the elements of physical from sediment, to be an essential this species. or biological features that are essential component of the physical or biological to the conservation of the species. Georgetown Salamander features essential for the conservation of Based on our current knowledge of Similar to other Eurycea salamanders this species. the physical or biological features and in central Texas, Georgetown Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or habitat characteristics required to salamanders move an unknown depth Rearing (or Development) of Offspring sustain the species’ life-history into the interstitial spaces (empty voids processes, we determine that the Austin Blind Salamander between rocks) within the substrate, primary constituent elements specific to using these spaces for foraging habitat Little is known about the reproductive these salamander species are surface and cover from predators (Cole 1995, p. habits of this species. However, the springs, underground streams, and wet 24; Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. 16–17). Austin blind salamander is fully caves containing: These spaces should be free from aquatic, and therefore spends all of its sediment, as sediment fills interstitial life cycles in aquifer and spring waters. Austin Blind Salamander spaces, eliminating resting places and Eggs of central Texas Eurycea are rarely 1. Water from the Barton Springs also reducing habitat of the prey base seen on the surface, so it is widely Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. The

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50809

groundwater must be similar to natural oxygen concentrations between 5.6 and access to the subsurface water table aquifer conditions both underground 7.1 mg L¥1, and specific water must exist to provide shelter and and as it discharges from natural spring conductance between 550 and 625 mS protection. outlets. Concentrations of water quality cm¥1. Salado Salamander constituents that could have a negative 2. Rocky substrate with interstitial impact on the salamander should be spaces. Rocks (boulders, cobble, or 1. Water from the Northern Segment below levels that could exert direct gravel) in the substrate of the of the Edwards Aquifer. The lethal or sublethal effects (such as salamander’s surface aquatic habitat groundwater must be similar to natural effects to reproduction, growth, should be large enough to provide aquifer conditions both underground development, or metabolic processes), salamanders with cover, shelter, and and as it discharges from natural spring or indirect effects (such as effects to the foraging habitat. The substrate and outlets. Concentrations of water quality Austin blind salamander’s prey base). interstitial spaces should have minimal constituents that could have a negative Hydrologic regimes similar to the sedimentation. impact on the salamander should be historical pattern of the specific sites 3. Aquatic invertebrates for food. The below levels that could exert direct must be present, with at least temporal spring and cave environments should be lethal or sublethal effects (such as surface flow from the spring sites and capable of supporting a diverse aquatic effects to reproduction, growth, continuous flow in the subterranean invertebrate community that includes development, or metabolic processes), habitat. The water chemistry must be crustaceans and insects. or indirect effects (such as effects to the similar to natural aquifer conditions, 4. Subterranean aquifer. During Salado salamander’s prey base). with temperatures between 67.8 and periods of drought or dewatering on the Hydrologic regimes similar to the 72.3 °F (19.9 and 22.4 °C), dissolved surface in and around spring sites, historical pattern of the specific sites oxygen concentrations between 5 and 7 access to the subsurface water table must be present, with at least temporal mg L¥1, and specific water conductance must exist to provide shelter and surface flow for spring sites and between 605 and 740 mS cm¥1. protection. continuous flow for subterranean sites. The water chemistry must be similar to 2. Rocky substrate with interstitial Georgetown Salamander spaces. Rocks (boulders, cobble, or natural aquifer conditions, with gravel) in the substrate of the 1. Water from the Northern Segment temperatures between 65.3 and 69.8 °F salamander’s surface aquatic habitat of the Edwards Aquifer. The (18.5 and 21.0 °C), dissolved oxygen should be large enough to provide groundwater must be similar to natural concentrations between 5.6 and 8 mg salamanders with cover, shelter, and aquifer conditions both underground L¥1, and conductivity between 550 and foraging habitat. The substrate and and as it discharges from natural spring 721 mS cm¥1. The best scientific interstitial spaces should have minimal outlets. Concentrations of water quality evidence available suggests that the sedimentation. constituents that could have a negative groundwater of Salado salamander 3. Aquatic invertebrates for food. The impact on the salamander should be habitat is the same as Georgetown and spring and cave environments should be below levels that could exert direct Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat in capable of supporting a diverse aquatic lethal or sublethal effects (such as terms of chemistry. Therefore, we invertebrate community that includes effects to reproduction, growth, include here for the Salado salamander crustaceans and insects. development, or metabolic processes), the range of water chemistry parameters 4. Subterranean aquifer. During or indirect effects (such as effects to the that encompass the ranges found in periods of drought or dewatering on the Georgetown salamander’s prey base). Jollyville and Georgetown salamander surface in and around spring sites, Hydrologic regimes similar to the habitats. access to the subsurface water table historical pattern of the specific sites 2. Rocky substrate with interstitial must exist to provide shelter and must be present, with at least temporal spaces. Rocks (boulders, cobble, or protection. surface flow for spring sites and gravel) in the substrate of the Jollyville Plateau Salamander continuous flow for subterranean sites. salamander’s surface aquatic habitat The water chemistry must be similar to should be large enough to provide 1. Water from the Northern Segment natural aquifer conditions, with salamanders with cover, shelter, and of the Edwards Aquifer. The temperatures between 68.4 and 69.8 °F foraging habitat. The substrate and groundwater must be similar to natural (20.2 and 21.0 °C), dissolved oxygen interstitial spaces should have minimal aquifer conditions both underground concentrations between 6 and 8 mg L¥1, sedimentation. and as it discharges from natural spring and specific water conductivity between 3. Aquatic invertebrates for food. The outlets. Concentrations of water quality 604 and 721 mS cm¥1. spring and cave environments should be constituents that could have a negative 2. Rocky substrate with interstitial capable of supporting a diverse aquatic impact on the salamander should be spaces. Rocks (boulders, cobble, or invertebrate community that includes below levels that could exert direct gravel) in the substrate of the crustaceans and insects. lethal or sublethal effects (such as salamander’s surface aquatic habitat 4. Subterranean aquifer. During effects to reproduction, growth, should be large enough to provide periods of drought or dewatering on the development, or metabolic processes), salamanders with cover, shelter, and surface in and around spring sites, or indirect effects (such as effects to the foraging habitat. The substrate and access to the subsurface water table Jollyville Plateau salamander’s prey interstitial spaces should have minimal should be provided for shelter and base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the sedimentation. protection. historical pattern of the specific sites 3. Aquatic invertebrates for food. The With this proposed designation of must be present, with at least temporal spring and cave environments should be critical habitat, we intend to identify the surface flow for spring sites and capable of supporting a diverse aquatic physical or biological features essential continuous flow in subterranean invertebrate community that includes to the conservation of the species, habitats. The water chemistry must be crustaceans and insects. through the identification of the primary similar to natural aquifer conditions, 4. Subterranean aquifer. During constituent elements sufficient to with temperatures between 65.3 and periods of drought or dewatering on the support the life-history processes of the 67.3 °F (18.5 and 19.6 °C), dissolved surface in and around spring sites, species. All units and subunits

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50810 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

proposed to be designated as critical four species including, but not limited history processes essential for the habitat are currently occupied by one of to, Sweet (1978; 1982), COA (2001), conservation of the species. We the four salamander species and contain Chippindale et al. (2000), and Hillis et delineated both surface and subsurface the primary constituent elements al. (2001). Finally, salamander site critical habitat components. The surface sufficient to support the life-history locations and observations were verified critical habitat component was needs of the species. with the aid of salamander biologists, delineated by starting with the cave or museum collection records, and site spring point locations that are occupied Special Management Considerations or visits. by the salamanders and extending a line Protection In accordance with the Act and its downstream 164 ft (50 m) because this When designating critical habitat, we implementing regulation at 50 CFR is the farthest a salamander has been assess whether the specific areas within 424.12(e), we consider whether observed from a spring outlet. The the geographical area occupied by the designating additional areas—outside surface critical habitat includes the species at the time of listing contain those currently occupied as well as spring outlets and outflow up to the features which are essential to the those occupied at the time of listing— high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of conservation of the species and which are necessary to ensure the conservation downstream habitat, but does not may require special management of the species. We are not currently include manmade structures (such as considerations or protection. The proposing to designate any additional buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, features essential to the conservation of areas outside the geographical area and other paved areas); however, the this species may require special occupied by the species, because the subterranean aquifer may extend below management considerations or occupied habitats proposed for critical such structures. We delineated the protection to reduce the following habitat are sufficient for the subsurface critical habitat unit threats: Water quality degradation from conservation of the species. For the boundaries by starting with the cave or contaminants, alteration to natural flow purpose of designating critical habitat spring point locations that are occupied regimes, and physical habitat for the four central Texas salamander by the salamanders. From these cave or modification. species, we define an area as occupied springs points, we delineated a 984-ft For these salamanders, special based upon the reliable observation of a (300-m) buffer to create the polygons management considerations or salamander species by a knowledgeable that capture the extent to which we protection are needed to address threats. scientist. It is very difficult to prove believe the salamander populations Management activities that could unquestionably that a salamander exist through underground conduits. ameliorate threats include (but are not population has been extirpated from a The polygons were then simplified to limited to): (1) Protecting the quality of spring site due to these species’ ability reduce the number of vertices, but still cave and spring water by implementing to occupy the inaccessible subsurface retain the overall shape and extent. comprehensive programs to control and habitat. We therefore considered any Once that was done, polygons that were reduce point sources and non-point site that had a salamander observation within 98 ft (30 m) of each other were sources of pollution throughout the at any point in time currently occupied, merged together because these areas are Barton Springs and Northern Segments unless that spring or cave site had been likely connected underground. Each of the Edwards Aquifer, (2) minimizing destroyed. new merged polygon was then revised the likelihood of pollution events that Based on our review, the proposed by removing extraneous divits or would affect groundwater quality, (3) critical habitat areas described below protrusions that resulted from the merge protecting groundwater and spring flow constitute our best assessment at this process. quantity (for example, by implementing time of areas that are within the When determining proposed critical water conservation and drought geographical range occupied by at least habitat boundaries, we made every contingency plans throughout the one of the four salamander species, and effort to avoid including developed Barton Springs and Northern Segments), are considered to contain features areas, such as lands covered by and (4) excluding cattle and feral hogs essential to the conservation of these buildings, pavement, and other through fencing to protect spring species. The extent to which the structures, because such lands lack habitats from damage. subterranean populations of these physical or biological features essential species exist belowground away from Criteria Used To Identify Critical for the conservation of the four central outlets of the spring system is unknown. Habitat Texas salamanders. The scale of the Because the hydrology of central Texas maps we prepared under the parameters As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of is very complex and information on the for publication within the Code of the Act, we use the best scientific data hydrology of specific spring sites are Federal Regulations may not reflect the available in determining areas that largely unknown, we will be seeking exclusion of such developed lands. Any contain the features that are essential to information on spring hydrology and such lands inadvertently left inside the conservation of the Austin blind, salamander underground distribution critical habitat boundaries shown on the Jollyville Plateau, Georgetown, and during our public comment period (see maps of this proposed rule have been Salado salamanders. During our DATES). However, at the time of this excluded by text in the proposed rule, preparation for proposing critical proposed listing rule, the best scientific and are not proposed for designation as habitat for the four salamander species, evidence available suggests that the critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical we have reviewed: (1) Data for historical population of these salamanders can habitat is finalized as proposed, a and current occurrence, (2) information extend at least 984 ft (300 m) from the Federal action involving these lands pertaining to habitat features essential spring opening through underground would not trigger section 7 consultation for the conservation of these species, conduits. with respect to critical habitat and the and (3) scientific information on the We are proposing for designation of requirement of no adverse modification biology and ecology of the four species. critical habitat lands that we have unless the specific action would affect We have also reviewed a number of determined are occupied by at least one the physical or biological features in the studies and surveys of the four of the four salamanders and contain underground or adjacent critical habitat. salamander species that confirm sufficient elements of physical or The critical habitat designation is historical and current occurrence of the biological features to support life- defined by the map or maps, as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50811

modified by any accompanying Some units contain only some elements as critical habitat for the Georgetown regulatory text, presented at the end of of the physical or biological features salamander, and 4 units as critical this document in the rule portion. We necessary to support the four central habitat for the Salado salamander (52 include more detailed information on Texas salamanders’ particular use of units total). The critical habitat areas we the boundaries of the critical habitat that habitat. In some units, the physical describe below constitute our current designation in the preamble of this or biological features essential for the best assessment of areas that meet the document. We will make the conservation of these salamanders have definition of critical habitat for the four coordinates or plot points or both on been impacted at times, and in some salamander species. As previously which each map is based available to cases these impacts have had negative noted, we are proposing both surface the public on http://regulations.gov at effects on the salamander populations and subsurface critical habitat Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035, on there. We recognize that some units components. The surface critical habitat our Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/ have experienced impacts and may have includes the spring outlets and outflow southwest/es/AustinTexas/, and at the physical or biological features of lesser up to the high water line and 164 ft (50 field office responsible for the quality than others. Special m) of downstream habitat, but does not designation (see FOR FURTHER management or protection is needed at include manmade structures (such as INFORMATION CONTACT above). these sites to restore the physical or buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, Proposed Critical Habitat Designation biological features to provide for long- and other paved areas); however, the We are proposing a total of 52 units term sustainability of the species at subterranean aquifer may extend below for designation for the 4 central Texas these sites. In addition, high-quality such structures. The subsurface critical salamanders based on sufficient sites need special protection, and in habitat includes underground features elements of physical or biological some cases management, to maintain in a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 features being present to support the their quality and ability to sustain the m) around the springs. The 52 units we Austin blind, Jollyville Plateau, salamander populations over the long propose as critical habitat are listed and Georgetown, and Salado salamanders’ term. described below, and acreages are based life-history processes. Some units We are proposing 1 unit as critical on the size of the subsurface critical contain all of the identified elements of habitat for the Austin blind salamander, habitat component. All units described physical or biological features and 33 units as critical habitat for the below are occupied by one of the four support multiple life-history processes. Jollyville Plateau salamander, 14 units salamander species.

TABLE 7—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT FOR THE AUSTIN BLIND SALAMANDER

Size of unit in acres Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type (hectares)

1. Barton Springs Unit ...... City, Private ...... 120 (49).

Total ...... 120 ac (49 ha). Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.

TABLE 8—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE JOLLYVILLE PLATEAU SALAMANDER

Size of unit in acres Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type (hectares)

1. Krienke Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 2. Brushy Creek Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 3. Testudo Tube Cave Unit ...... Private, City ...... 68 (28). 4. Buttercup Creek Cave Unit ...... Private ...... 227 (92). 5. Treehouse Cave Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 6. Avery Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 237 (96). 7. PC Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 8. Baker and Audubon Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 110 (45). 9. Wheless Spring Unit ...... Private, County ...... 135 (55). 10. Blizzard R-Bar-B Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 11. House Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 12. Kelly Hollow Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 13. MacDonald Well Unit ...... Private, County ...... 68 (28). 14. Kretschmarr Unit ...... Private, County ...... 112 (45). 15. Pope and Hiers (Canyon Creek) Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 16. Fern Gully Spring Unit ...... Private, City ...... 68 (28). 17. Bull Creek 1 Unit ...... Private, City, County ...... 1,157 (468). 18. Bull Creek 2 Unit ...... Private, City, County ...... 237 (96). 19. Bull Creek 3 Unit ...... Private, City ...... 254 (103). 20. Moss Gulley Spring Unit ...... City, County ...... 68 (28). 21. Ivanhoe Spring Unit ...... City ...... 68 (28). 22. Sylvia Spring Unit ...... Private, City, County ...... 103 (42). 23. Tanglewood Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 24. Long Hog Hollow Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 25. Tributary 3 Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 26. Sierra Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 27. Troll Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 98 (40). 28. Stillhouse Unit ...... Private ...... 203 (82).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50812 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 8—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE JOLLYVILLE PLATEAU SALAMANDER—Continued

Size of unit in acres Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type (hectares)

29. Salamander Cave Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 30. Indian Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 31. Spicewood Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 32. Balcones District Park Spring Unit ...... Private, City ...... 68 (28). 33. Tributary 4 Unit ...... Private, City ...... 159 (64).

Total ...... 4,460 ac (1,816 ha). Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.

TABLE 9—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE GEORGETOWN SALAMANDER

Size of unit in acres Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type (hectares)

1. Cobb Unit ...... Private ...... 83 (34) 2. Cowen Creek Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 3. Bat Well Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 4. Walnut Spring Unit ...... Private, County ...... 68 (28). 5. Twin Springs Unit ...... Private, County ...... 68 (28). 6. Hogg Hollow Spring Unit ...... Private, Federal ...... 68 (28). 7. Cedar Hollow Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 8. Lake Georgetown Unit ...... Federal, Private ...... 132 (53). 9. Water Tank Cave Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 10. Avant Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 11. Buford Hollow Spring Unit ...... Federal, Private ...... 68 (28). 12. Swinbank Spring Unit ...... City, Private ...... 68 (28). 13. Shadow Canyon Unit ...... City, Private ...... 68 (28). 14. San Gabriel Springs Unit ...... City ...... 68 (28).

Total ...... 1,031 ac (423 ha). Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.

TABLE 10—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE SALADO SALAMANDER

Size of unit in acres Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type (hectares)

1. Hog Hollow Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28) 2. Solana Spring #1 Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 3. Cistern Spring Unit ...... Private ...... 68 (28). 4. IH–35 Unit ...... Private, State, City ...... 168 (68).

Total ...... 372 ac (152 ha). Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.

We present brief descriptions of all portion of the unit. This unit contains development in the contributing and units, and reasons why they meet the Parthenia Spring, Sunken Gardens recharge zone for the Barton Springs definition of critical habitat for the four Spring, and Eliza Spring, which are segment of the Edwards Aquifer and central Texas salamanders, below. occupied by Austin blind salamander. depletion of groundwater (see Special The springs are located in the Barton Management Considerations or Austin Blind Salamander Creek watershed. Parthenia Spring is Protection section). Unit 1: Barton Springs Unit located in the backwater of Barton The proposed designation includes The Barton Springs Unit consists of Springs Pool, which is formed by a dam the underground aquifer in this area and 120 ac (49 ha) of City and private land on Barton Creek; Eliza Spring is on an the springs and fissure outlets. The unit in the City of Austin, central Travis unnamed tributary to the bypass was further delineated by drawing a County, Texas. Most of the unit is channel of the pool; and Sunken circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) located in Zilker Park, which is owned Gardens Spring is located on a tributary around the springs, representing the by the City of Austin. Most of the unit that enters Barton Creek downstream of extent of the subterranean critical consists of landscaped areas managed as the dam for Barton Springs Pool. The habitat. We joined the edges of the a public park. The southwestern portion unit contains all of the primary resulting circles. Because we did not of the unit is dense commercial constituent elements essential for the have specific points for species development, and part of the southern conservation of the species. locations, we used the center of Eliza portion contains residential The unit requires special management and Sunken Gardens springs and the development. Barton Springs Road, a because of the potential for groundwater southwestern point of a fissure in major roadway, crosses the northeastern pollution from current and future Parthenia Springs.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50813

Jollyville Plateau Salamander Unit 3: Testudo Tube Cave Unit pollution from current and future development in the watershed, potential Unit 1: Krienke Spring Unit Unit 3 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of City of Austin and private land in southern for vandalism, and depletion of Unit 1 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of Williamson County and northern Travis groundwater (see Special Management private land in southern Williamson County, Texas. The unit is located just Considerations or Protection section). County, Texas. The unit is located just east of Lime Creek Road. The unit is The unit is within the Buttercup HCP, south of State Highway 29. The northern mostly undeveloped but several and impacts to the Tooth Cave ground beetle are permitted (Service 1999, p. 1). part of the unit is in dense residential unpaved roads cross it. This unit However, impacts to the Jollyville development, while the southern part of contains Testudo Tube Cave, which is Plateau salamander are not covered the unit is less densely developed. occupied by the Jollyville Plateau under this HCP. County Road 175 (Sam Bass Road) salamander. The cave and the The proposed designation includes crosses the northern half of the unit. surrounding area are owned by the City the caves. The unit was further This unit contains Krienke Spring, of Austin as water quality protection delineated by drawing a circle with a which is occupied by the Jollyville land. The cave contains the Tooth Cave radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the Plateau salamander. The spring is ground beetle (Rhadine persephone), an caves, representing the extent of the located on an unnamed tributary of Dry endangered karst invertebrate. As part of subterranean critical habitat. We joined Fork, a tributary to Brushy Creek. The the mitigation for the Lakeline Mall the edges of the resulting circles. unit contains all the primary constituent HCP, the cave must be protected and elements essential for the conservation managed in perpetuity. These actions Unit 5: Treehouse Cave Unit of the species. will provide some benefit to the The unit requires special management Unit 5 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of Jollyville Plateau salamander. The unit private land in southern Williamson because of the potential for groundwater contains all the primary constituent pollution from current and future County, Texas. The unit is located east elements essential for the conservation of the intersection of Buttercup Creek development in the watershed, potential of the species. for vandalism, and depletion of Boulevard and Sycamore Drive. Most of The unit requires special management the unit is covered with moderately groundwater (see Special Management because of the potential for groundwater Considerations or Protection section). dense residential development. A small pollution from current and future park is close to the center of the unit, The proposed designation includes development in the watershed, potential and a greenbelt crosses the unit from the spring outlet and outflow up to the for vandalism, and depletion of east to west. This unit contains high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of groundwater (see Special Management Treehouse Cave, which is occupied by downstream habitat. The unit was Considerations or Protection section). the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The further delineated by drawing a circle The proposed designation includes unit contains the primary constituent with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the cave. The unit was further elements essential for the conservation the spring, representing the extent of the delineated by drawing a circle with a of the species. subterranean critical habitat. radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the cave, The unit requires special management Unit 2: Brushy Creek Spring Unit representing the extent of the because of the potential for groundwater subterranean critical habitat. pollution from current and future Unit 2 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of development in the watershed, potential private land in southern Williamson Unit 4: Buttercup Creek Cave Unit for vandalism, and depletion of County, Texas. The unit is centered just Unit 4 consists of 227 ac (92 ha) of groundwater (see Special Management south of Palm Valley Boulevard and private land in southern Williamson Considerations or Protection section). west of Grimes Boulevard. The northern County, Texas. The unit is located east The proposed designation includes part of the unit is covered with and south of the intersection of Lakeline the cave. The unit was further commercial and residential Boulevard and Buttercup Creek delineated by drawing a circle with a development, while the southern part is Boulevard. The unit is mostly covered radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the cave, less densely developed. Some areas with residential property. Lakeline representing the extent of the along the stream are undeveloped. This Boulevard, a major thoroughfare, crosses subterranean critical habitat. unit contains Brushy Creek Spring, the northeast area of the unit. An which is occupied by the Jollyville undeveloped area of parks and setbacks Unit 6: Avery Spring Unit Plateau salamander. The spring is near is in the south central part of the unit. Unit 6 consists of 237 ac (96 ha) of Brushy Creek. The unit contains all the This unit contains four caves: TWASA private land in southern Williamson primary constituent elements essential Cave, Illex Cave, Buttercup Creek Cave, County, Texas. The unit is located north for the conservation of the species. and Flea Cave, which are occupied by of Avery Ranch Boulevard and west of The unit requires special management the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The Parmer Lane. The unit has large areas because of the potential for groundwater three latter caves are located in a covered by residential development. pollution from current and future preserve set up as mitigation property The developed areas are separated by development in the watershed, potential under the Buttercup HCP. The HCP fairways and greens of a golf course. for vandalism, and depletion of covers adverse impacts to the Tooth This unit contains three springs: Avery groundwater (see Special Management Cave ground beetle. Although the Springhouse Spring, Hill Marsh Spring, Considerations or Protection section). salamander is not covered under the and Avery Deer Spring, which are The proposed designation includes Buttercup HCP, the protection afforded occupied by the Jollyville Plateau the spring outlets and outflow up to the these caves by the HCP provides some salamander. The springs are located on high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of benefit for the species. The unit an unnamed tributary to South Brushy downstream habitat. The unit was contains the primary constituent Creek. The unit contains the primary further delineated by drawing a circle elements essential for the conservation constituent elements essential for the with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around of the species. conservation of the species. the spring, representing the extent of the The unit requires special management The unit requires special management subterranean critical habitat. because of the potential for groundwater because of the potential for groundwater

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50814 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

pollution from current and future The unit requires special management Texas. The unit is located west of Grand development in the watershed, potential because of the potential for groundwater Oaks Loop. The extreme eastern portion for vandalism, and depletion of pollution from current and future of the unit is on the edge of residential groundwater (see Special Management development in the watershed, potential development; a golf course (Twin Considerations or Protection section). for vandalism, and depletion of Springs) crosses the central portion; and The proposed designation includes groundwater (see Special Management the remainder is wooded and the spring outlets and outflow up to the Considerations or Protection section). undeveloped. This unit contains high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of The unit is within the Balcones Blizzard R-Bar-B Spring, which is downstream habitat. The unit was Canyonlands Preserve HCP, and impacts occupied by the Jollyville Plateau further delineated by drawing a circle to 35 species are permitted (Service salamander. The spring is located on with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around 1996b, p. 3). However, impacts to the Cypress Creek. The unit contains the the three springs, representing the Jollyville Plateau salamander are not primary constituent elements essential extent of the subterranean critical covered under this HCP. for the conservation of the species. habitat. We joined the edges of the The proposed designation includes The unit requires special management resulting circles. the spring outlets and outflow up to the because of the potential for groundwater high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of pollution from current and future Unit 7: PC Spring Unit downstream habitat. The unit was development in the watershed, potential Unit 7 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of further delineated by drawing a circle for vandalism, and depletion of private and public land in southern with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around groundwater (see Special Management Williamson County, Texas. State the springs, representing the extent of Considerations or Protection section). Highway 45, a major toll road, crosses the subterranean critical habitat. We The proposed designation includes the north central part of the unit from joined the edges of the resulting circles. the spring outlets and outflow up to the high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of east to west, and Ranch to Market Road Unit 9: Wheless Spring Unit 620 goes under it midway between the downstream habitat. The unit was Unit 9 consists of 135 ac (55 ha) of center and the western edge. Except for further delineated by drawing a circle private LCRA and Travis County land in roadways, the unit is undeveloped. This with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around northern Travis County, Texas. The unit unit contains PC Spring, which is the springs, representing the extent of is located about 0.8 mi (1.3 km) west of occupied by the Jollyville Plateau the subterranean critical habitat. Grand Oaks Loop. The unit is wooded salamander. The spring is located on and consists of totally undeveloped land Unit 11: House Spring Unit Davis Spring Branch. The unit contains owned by LCRA and The Nature Unit 11 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of the primary constituent elements Conservancy. The unit is managed as private land in northern Travis County, essential for the conservation of species. part of the Balcones Canyonlands Texas. The unit is located just north of The unit requires special management Preserve HCP. An unpaved road crosses Benevento Way Road. Dies Ranch Road because of the potential for groundwater the unit from north to south. This unit crosses the extreme eastern part of the pollution from current and future contains two springs, Wheless Spring unit. The entire unit is covered with development in the watershed, potential and Spring 25, which are occupied by dense residential development except for vandalism, and depletion of the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The for a narrow corridor along the stream, groundwater (see Special Management springs are in the Long Hollow Creek which crosses the unit from north to Considerations or Protection section). drainage. The unit contains the primary south. Several streets are located in the The proposed designation includes constituent elements essential for the unit. This unit contains House Spring, the spring outlets and outflow up to the conservation of the species. which is occupied by the Jollyville high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of The unit requires special management Plateau salamander. The spring is downstream habitat. The unit was because of the potential for groundwater located on an unnamed tributary to Lake further delineated by drawing a circle pollution from current and future Marble Falls. The unit contains the with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around development in the watershed, potential primary constituent elements essential the spring, representing the extent of the for vandalism, habitat disturbance by for the conservation of the species. subterranean critical habitat. feral hogs, and depletion of groundwater The unit requires special management Unit 8: Baker and Audubon Spring Unit (see Special Management because of the potential for groundwater Considerations or Protection section). pollution from current and future Unit 8 consists of 110 ac (45 ha) of The unit is within the Balcones development in the watershed, potential private and Lower Colorado River Canyonlands Preserve HCP, and impacts for vandalism, and depletion of Authority (LCRA) land in northern to 35 species are permitted (Service groundwater (see Special Management Travis County, Texas. The unit is 1996b, p. 3). However, impacts to the Considerations or Protection section). located south of Lime Creek Road and Jollyville Plateau salamander are not The proposed designation includes southwest of the intersection of Canyon covered under this HCP. the spring outlets and outflow up to the Creek Drive and Lime Springs Road. The proposed designation includes high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of The unit is wooded, undeveloped, and the spring outlets and outflow up to the downstream habitat. The unit was owned by Travis Audubon Society and high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of further delineated by drawing a circle LCRA. The entire unit is managed as downstream habitat. The unit was with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around part of the Balcones Canyonlands HCP. further delineated by drawing a circle the springs, representing the extent of This unit contains two springs, Baker with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the subterranean critical habitat. Spring and Audubon Spring, which are the springs, representing the extent of Unit 12: Kelly Hollow Spring Unit occupied by the Jollyville Plateau the subterranean critical habitat. We salamander. The springs are in the joined the edges of the resulting circles. Unit 12 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of drainage of an unnamed tributary to private land in northern Travis County, Cypress Creek. The unit contains the Unit 10: Blizzard R-Bar-B Spring Unit Texas. The unit is located southeast of primary constituent elements essential Unit 10 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of the intersection of Anderson Mill Road for the conservation of the species. private land in northern Travis County, and Farm to Market Road 2769. With

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50815

the exception of a portion of Anderson Unit 14: Kretschmarr Unit further delineated by drawing a circle Mill Road along the northern edge of the Unit 14 consists of 112 ac (45 ha) of with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around unit, this unit is primarily undeveloped private and Travis County land in the springs, representing the extent of woodland. This unit contains Kelly northern Travis County, Texas. The unit the subterranean critical habitat. Hollow Spring, which is occupied by is located west of Ranch to Market Road Unit 16: Fern Gully Spring Unit the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The 620. Wilson Parke Avenue crosses the spring is located on an unnamed Unit 16 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of unit along its southern border. Most of private and City of Austin land in tributary to Lake Marble Falls. The unit the unit is undeveloped, with one contains the primary constituent northern Travis County, Texas. The unit commercial development near the west elements essential for the conservation is centered just south of the intersection central portion. Some of the unit is of the species. of Jenaro Court and Boulder Lane. The The unit requires special management owned and managed by Travis County unit contains dense residential because of the potential for groundwater as part of the Balcones Canyonlands development on much of its northern pollution from current and future Preserve. This unit contains three half. Most of the southern half of the development in the watershed, potential springs: Kretschmarr Salamander Cave, unit is undeveloped land managed by for vandalism, and depletion of Unnamed Tributary Downstream of the City of Austin as part of the groundwater (see Special Management Grandview, and SAS Canyon, which are Balcones Canyonlands Preserve HCP, Considerations or Protection section). occupied by the Jollyville Plateau and a portion is part of the Canyon The proposed designation includes salamander. The unit contains the Creek preserve, a privately managed the spring outlets and outflow up to the primary constituent elements essential conservation area. This unit contains high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of for the conservation of the species. Fern Gully Spring, which is occupied by downstream habitat. The unit was The unit requires special management the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The further delineated by drawing a circle because of the potential for groundwater spring is located on Bull Creek with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around pollution from current and future Tributary 5. The unit contains the the springs, representing the extent of development in the watershed, potential primary constituent elements essential the subterranean critical habitat. for vandalism, and depletion of for the conservation of the species. groundwater (see Special Management The unit requires special management Unit 13: MacDonald Well Unit Considerations or Protection section). because of the potential for groundwater Unit 13 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of The proposed designation includes pollution from current and future private and Travis County land in the spring outlets and outflow up to the development in the watershed, potential northern Travis County, Texas. The unit high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of for vandalism, and depletion of is centered near the intersection of downstream habitat. The unit was groundwater (see Special Management Grand Oaks Loop and Farm to Market further delineated by drawing a circle Considerations or Protection section). Road 2769. Farm to Market Road 2769 with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around The unit is within the Balcones crosses the unit slightly north of its the springs, representing the extent of Canyonlands Preserve HCP, and impacts center. The northern portion of the unit the subterranean critical habitat. We to 35 species are permitted (Service contains residential development and connected the edges of the resulting 1996b, p. 3). However, impacts to the part of Twin Creeks Golf Course. This circles. Jollyville Plateau salamander are not unit contains MacDonald Well, which is Unit 15: Pope and Hiers (Canyon Creek) covered under this HCP. occupied by the Jollyville Plateau Spring Unit The proposed designation includes salamander. The spring is located on an the spring outlets and outflow up to the unnamed tributary to Lake Marble Falls. Unit 15 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of The unit contains the primary private land in northern Travis County, downstream habitat. The unit was constituent elements essential for the Texas. The unit is located between further delineated by drawing a circle conservation of the species. The spring Bramblecrest Drive and Winchelsea with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around and adjacent land are protected and Drive. The unit contains dense the springs, representing the extent of monitored as part of the Balcones residential development on its northern, the subterranean critical habitat. Canyonlands Preserve HCP. eastern, and western portions. The The unit requires special management central portion of the unit is an Unit 17: Bull Creek 1 Unit because of the potential for groundwater undeveloped canyon and is preserved in Unit 17 consists of 1,157 ac (468 ha) pollution from current and future perpetuity as part of a private preserve. of private, City of Austin, and Travis development in the watershed, potential This unit contains Canyon Creek Pope County land in northern Travis County, for vandalism, and depletion of and Hiers Spring, which is occupied by Texas. The unit extends from the groundwater (see Special Management the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The southeastern portion of Chestnut Ridge Considerations or Protection section). spring is located on Bull Creek Road to 3M Center, just north of Ranch The unit is within the Balcones Tributary 6. The unit contains the to Market Road 2222. The unit contains Canyonlands Preserve HCP, and impacts primary constituent elements essential some residential development on the to 35 species are permitted (Service for the conservation of the species. extreme edge of its northern portion and 1996b, p. 3). However, impacts to the The unit requires special management part of Vandegrift High School near its Jollyville Plateau salamander are not because of the potential for groundwater southeastern corner. Most of the covered under this HCP. pollution from current and future remainder of the unit is undeveloped The proposed designation includes development in the watershed, potential land managed by the City of Austin and the spring outlets and outflow up to the for vandalism, and depletion of Travis County as part of the Balcones high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of groundwater (see Special Management Canyonlands Preserve HCP. This unit downstream habitat. The unit was Considerations or Protection section). contains the following 34 springs: Tubb further delineated by drawing a circle The proposed designation includes Spring, Broken Bridge Spring, Spring with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the spring outlets and outflow up to the 17, Tributary No. 5, Tributary 6 at the springs, representing the extent of high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of Sewage Line, Canyon Creek, Tributary the subterranean critical habitat. downstream habitat. The unit was No. 6, Gardens of Bull Creek, Canyon

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50816 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Creek Hog Wallow Spring, Spring 5, groundwater (see Special Management woodland, and all is managed by the Franklin, Pit Spring, Bull Creek Spring Considerations or Protection section). City of Austin or Travis County as part Pool, Spring 1, Spring 4, Spring 2, The unit is within the Balcones of the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve Lanier Spring, Cistern (Pipe) Spring, Canyonlands Preserve HCP, and impacts HCP. This unit contains Moss Gulley Spring 3, Lanier 90-foot Riffle, Bull to 35 species are permitted (Service Spring, which is occupied by the Creek at Lanier Tract, Ribelin/Lanier, 1996b, p. 3). However, impacts to the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The Spring 18, Horsethief, Ribelin, Spring Jollyville Plateau salamander are not spring is located on Bull Creek. The unit 15, Spring 16, Spring 14, Lower Ribelin, covered under this HCP. contains the primary constituent Spring 13, Spring 12, Upper Ribelin, The proposed designation includes elements essential for the conservation Spring 10, and Spring 9. These springs the spring outlets and outflow up to the of the species. are occupied by the Jollyville Plateau high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of The unit requires special management salamander and are located on Bull downstream habitat. The unit was because of the potential for groundwater Creek and its tributaries. The unit further delineated by drawing a circle pollution from current and future contains the primary constituent with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around development in the watershed, potential elements essential for the conservation the springs, representing the extent of for vandalism, and depletion of of the species. the subterranean critical habitat. We groundwater (see Special Management The unit requires special management joined the edges of the resulting circles. Considerations or Protection section). because of the potential for groundwater The unit is within the Balcones Unit 19: Bull Creek 3 Unit pollution from current and future Canyonlands Preserve HCP, and impacts development in the watershed, potential Unit 19 consists of 254 ac (103 ha) of to 35 species are permitted (Service for vandalism, habitat destruction by private and City of Austin land in 1996b, p. 3). However, impacts to the feral hogs, and depletion of groundwater northern Travis County, Texas. The unit Jollyville Plateau salamander are not (see Special Management is just southeast of the intersection of covered under this HCP. Considerations or Protection section). Ranch to Market Road 620 and Vista The proposed designation includes The unit is within the Balcones Parke Drive. The unit contains dense the spring outlets and outflow up to the Canyonlands Preserve HCP, and impacts residential development on much of its high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of to 35 species are permitted (Service northern half. Most of the rest of the downstream habitat. The unit was 1996b, p. 3). However, impacts to the unit (about 134 ac (54.2 ha)) is further delineated by drawing a circle Jollyville Plateau salamander are not undeveloped land managed by as part of with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around covered under this HCP. the Four Points HCP. Much of the the springs, representing the extent of The proposed designation includes remainder of the unit is managed by the the subterranean critical habitat. the spring outlets and outflow up to the City of Austin as part of the Balcones Unit 21: Ivanhoe Spring Unit high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of Canyonlands Preserve HCP. This unit downstream habitat. The unit was contains five springs: Spring No. 21, Unit 21 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of further delineated by drawing a circle Spring No. 22, Spring No. 24, Hamilton City of Austin land in northern Travis with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around Reserve West, and Gaas Spring, which County, Texas. The unit is east of the the springs, representing the extent of are occupied by the Jollyville Plateau northwest extent of High Hollow Drive. the subterranean critical habitat. We salamander. The springs are located on The unit is all undeveloped woodland, joined the edges of the resulting circles. Bull Creek. The unit contains the and is managed by the City of Austin as part of the Balcones Canyonlands Unit 18: Bull Creek 2 Unit primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of the species. Preserve HCP. This unit contains Unit 18 consists of 237 ac (96 ha) of The unit requires special management Ivanhoe Spring 2, which is occupied by private, City of Austin, and Travis because of the potential for groundwater the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The County land in northern Travis County, pollution from current and future spring is located on West Bull Creek. Texas. The center of the unit is near the development in the watershed, potential The unit contains the primary eastern end of Concordia University for vandalism, and depletion of constituent elements essential for the Drive. Concordia University is in the groundwater (see Special Management conservation of the species. central and eastern parts of the unit. Considerations or Protection section). The unit requires special management Much of the rest of the unit is The proposed designation includes because of the potential for groundwater undeveloped land managed by the City the spring outlets up to the high water pollution from current and future of Austin and Travis County as part of line and 164 ft (50 m) of downstream development in the watershed, potential the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve habitat. The unit was further delineated for vandalism, destruction of habitat by HCP. This unit contains six springs: by drawing a circle with a radius of 984 feral hogs, and depletion of groundwater Schlumberger Spring No. 1, ft (300 m) around the springs, (see Special Management Schlumberger Spring No. 2, representing the extent of the Considerations or Protection section). Schlumberger Spring No. 6, subterranean critical habitat. We joined The unit is within the Balcones Schlumberger Spring No. 19, Concordia the edges of the resulting circles. Under Canyonlands Preserve HCP, and impacts Spring X, and Concordia Spring Y, section 4(b)(2) of the Act, certain lands to 35 species are permitted (Service which are occupied by the Jollyville in this unit are being considered for 1996b, p. 3). However, impacts to the Plateau salamander. The springs are exclusion from the final rule for critical Jollyville Plateau salamander are not located on Bull Creek Tributary 7. The habitat (see Application of Section covered under this HCP. unit contains the primary constituent 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). The proposed designation includes elements essential for the conservation the spring outlets and outflow up to the of the species. Unit 20: Moss Gulley Spring Unit high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of The unit requires special management Unit 20 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of downstream habitat. The unit was because of the potential for groundwater City of Austin and Travis County land further delineated by drawing a circle pollution from current and future in northern Travis County, Texas. The with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around development in the watershed, potential unit is just east of the eastern end of the spring, representing the extent of the for vandalism, and depletion of Unit 19. The unit is all undeveloped subterranean critical habitat.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50817

Unit 22: Sylvia Spring Unit high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around Unit 22 consists of 103 ac (42 ha) of downstream habitat. The unit was the springs, representing the extent of private, City, and Williamson County further delineated by drawing a circle the subterranean critical habitat. with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around land in northern Travis County and Unit 26: Sierra Spring Unit southwestern Williamson County, the springs, representing the extent of Texas. The unit is centered just east of the subterranean critical habitat. Unit 26 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in northern Travis County, the intersection Callanish Park Drive Unit 24: Long Hog Hollow Unit and Westerkirk Drive. The western, Texas. The unit is located west of the Unit 24 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of intersection of Tahoma Place and extreme northeastern, and extreme private land in northern Travis County, southern portions of the unit are Ladera Vista Drive. The eastern and Texas. The unit is centered east of the western part of the unit is in residential residential development. An intersection of Cassia Drive and Fireoak undeveloped stream corridor crosses the development. A wooded corridor Drive. Most of the unit is in residential crosses the central part of the unit from unit from north to south. This unit development. There are wooded contains two springs: Small Sylvia north to south. This unit contains Sierra corridors in the central and eastern Spring, which is occupied by the Spring and Spicewood Valley Park portion of the unit. This unit contains Spring, which are occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The Long Hog Hollow Tributary, which is spring is located on Bull Creek Jollyville Plateau salamander. The occupied by the Jollyville Plateau springs are located on an unnamed Tributary 3. The unit contains the salamander. The spring is located on primary constituent elements essential tributary to Tanglewood Creek. The unit Long Hog Hollow Tributary. The unit contains the primary constituent for the conservation of the species. contains the primary constituent The unit requires special management elements essential for the conservation elements essential for the conservation of the species. because of the potential for groundwater of the species. pollution from current and future The unit requires special management The unit requires special management because of the potential for groundwater development in the watershed, potential because of the potential for groundwater for vandalism, and depletion of pollution from current and future pollution from current and future development in the watershed, potential groundwater (see Special Management development in the watershed, potential Considerations or Protection section). for vandalism, and depletion of for vandalism, and depletion of The proposed designation includes groundwater (see Special Management groundwater (see Special Management the spring outlet and outflow up to the Considerations or Protection section). Considerations or Protection section). high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of The proposed designation includes The proposed designation includes downstream habitat. The unit was the spring outlets and outflow up to the the spring outlet and outflow up to the further delineated by drawing a circle high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around downstream habitat. The unit was downstream habitat. The unit was the springs, representing the extent of further delineated by drawing a circle further delineated by drawing a circle the subterranean critical habitat. with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the springs, representing the extent of the springs, representing the extent of Unit 27: Troll Spring Unit the subterranean critical habitat. We the subterranean critical habitat. joined the edges of the resulting circles. Unit 27 consists of 98 ac (40 ha) of Unit 25: Tributary 3 Unit private land in northern Travis County, Unit 23: Tanglewood Spring Unit Unit 25 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of Texas. The unit is located west of the Unit 23 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of private land in northern Travis County, intersection of Jollyville Road and private land in northern Travis County, Texas. The unit is centered between Taylor Draper Lane. The eastern and Texas. The unit is centered north of the Bluegrass Drive and Spicebush Drive. western part of the unit is in residential intersection of Spicewood Springs Road The eastern and western part of the unit development. A wooded corridor and Yaupon Drive. Spicewood Springs is in residential development. There are crosses the central part of the unit from Road crosses the unit from southwest to wooded corridors in the central part of north to south. This unit contains two east. Residential and commercial the unit, and scattered woodland in the springs, Hearth Spring and Troll Spring, development is found in most of the eastern and western part. There is a golf which are occupied by the Jollyville unit except in a stream corridor in the course in the north-central part of the Plateau salamander. The springs are central part of the unit. An undeveloped unit. This unit contains Tributary No. 3, located on Bull Creek Tributary 3. The stream corridor crosses the unit from which is occupied by the Jollyville unit contains the primary constituent east to west. This unit contains Plateau salamander. The spring is elements essential for the conservation Tanglewood Spring, which is occupied located on Bull Creek Tributary 3. The of the species. by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. unit contains the primary constituent The unit requires special management The spring is located on Tanglewood elements essential for the conservation because of the potential for groundwater Creek, a tributary to Bull Creek. The of the species. pollution from current and future unit contains the primary constituent The unit requires special management development in the watershed, potential elements essential for the conservation because of the potential for groundwater for vandalism, and depletion of of the species. pollution from current and future groundwater (see Special Management The unit requires special management development in the watershed, potential Considerations or Protection section). because of the potential for groundwater for vandalism, and depletion of The proposed designation includes pollution from current and future groundwater (see Special Management the spring outlets up to the high water development in the watershed, potential Considerations or Protection section). line and 164 ft (50 m) of downstream for vandalism, and depletion of The proposed designation includes habitat. The unit was further delineated groundwater (see Special Management the spring outlet and outflow up to the by drawing a circle with a radius of 984 Considerations or Protection section). high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of ft (300 m) around the springs, The proposed designation includes downstream habitat. The unit was representing the extent of the the spring outlet and outflow up to the further delineated by drawing a circle subterranean critical habitat. We

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50818 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

connected the edges of the resulting high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of The proposed designation includes circles. downstream habitat. The unit was the spring outlet and outflow up to the further delineated by drawing a circle high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of Unit 28: Stillhouse Unit with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around downstream habitat. The unit was Unit 28 consists of 203 ac (82 ha) of the springs, representing the extent of further delineated by drawing a circle private land in northern Travis County, the subterranean critical habitat. with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around Texas. The unit is centered due north of the springs, representing the extent of Unit 30: Indian Spring Unit the intersection of West Rim Drive and the subterranean critical habitat. Burney Drive. The northern and Unit 30 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of Unit 32: Balcones District Park Spring southern part of the unit is in residential private land in northern Travis County, Unit development. A wooded corridor Texas. The unit is centered just south of crosses the central part of the unit from Greystone Drive about half way between Unit 32 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of east to west. This unit contains seven its intersection with Edgerock Drive and City of Austin and private land in springs: Barrow Hollow Spring, Spring Chimney Corners Drive. Most of the unit northern Travis County, Texas. The unit 20, Stillhouse Hollow Tributary, is covered with residential development is centered about 470 yards (430 m) Stillhouse Tributary, Little Stillhouse except for a small wooded corridor that northeast of the intersection of Duval Hollow Spring, Stillhouse Hollow crosses the central part of the unit from Road and Amherst Drive. Most of the Spring, and Barrow Preserve Tributary. east to west. This unit contains Indian unit is in a city park (Balcones All are occupied by the Jollyville Spring, which is occupied by the Community Park) with a swimming Plateau salamander. The springs are Jollyville Plateau salamander. The pool. A substantial amount of the park located on an unnamed tributary to Bull spring is located on an unnamed is wooded and undeveloped. There is Creek. The unit contains the primary tributary to Shoal Creek. The unit dense commercial development in the constituent elements essential for the contains the primary constituent southern and southeastern portions of conservation of the species. elements essential for the conservation the unit. This unit contains Balcones The unit requires special management of the species. District Park Spring, which is occupied because of the potential for groundwater The unit requires special management by the Jollyville Plateau salamander. pollution from current and future because of the potential for groundwater The spring is located in the streambed development in the watershed, potential pollution from current and future of an unnamed tributary to Walnut for vandalism, and depletion of development in the watershed, potential Creek. The unit contains the primary groundwater (see Special Management for vandalism, and depletion of constituent elements essential for the Considerations or Protection section). groundwater (see Special Management conservation of the species. The proposed designation includes Considerations or Protection section). The unit requires special management the spring outlets and outflows up to the because of the potential for groundwater high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of The proposed designation includes pollution from current and future downstream habitat. The unit was the spring outlet and outflow up to the development in the watershed, potential further delineated by drawing a circle high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of for vandalism, and depletion of with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around downstream habitat. The unit was groundwater (see Special Management the springs, representing the extent of further delineated by drawing a circle Considerations or Protection section). the subterranean critical habitat. We with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around connected the edges of the resulting the springs, representing the extent of The proposed designation includes circles. the subterranean critical habitat. the spring outlet and outflow up to the Unit 31: Spicewood Spring Unit high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of Unit 29: Salamander Cave Unit downstream habitat. The unit was Unit 29 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of Unit 31 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of further delineated by drawing a circle private land in northern Travis County, private land in northern Travis County, with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around Texas. The unit is centered near the Texas. The unit is centered just the springs, representing the extent of southern end of Raintree Place, just northeast of the intersection of Ceberry the subterranean critical habitat. Drive and Spicewood Springs Road, just north of Spicewood Springs Road. Most Unit 33: Tributary 4 Unit of the unit is covered with commercial downstream of the bridge on Ceberry and residential development, except for Drive. Most of the unit is covered with Unit 33 consists of 159 ac (64 ha) of a small portion of wooded area near the commercial and residential private and City of Austin land in center. A wooded corridor crosses the development except for a small wooded northern Travis County, Texas. The unit central part of the unit from east to west. corridor along the stream, which crosses is located west of the intersection of This unit contains Salamander Cave, the unit from north to east. This unit Spicewood Springs Road and Old which is occupied by the Jollyville contains two springs, Spicewood Spring Lampasas Trail in the Bull Creek Ranch Plateau salamander. The spring is and Spicewood Tributary, which are community. The extreme western, located on an unnamed tributary to occupied by the Jollyville Plateau northern, and eastern portions of the Shoal Creek. The unit contains the salamander. The springs are located in unit are residential development. primary constituent elements essential an unnamed tributary to Shoal Creek. Undeveloped stream corridors cross the for the conservation of the species. The unit contains the primary unit from west to east. This unit The unit requires special management constituent elements essential for the contains three spring sites: Tributary 4 because of the potential for groundwater conservation of the species. upstream, Tributary 4 downstream, and pollution from current and future The unit requires special management Spicewood Park Dam, which are development in the watershed, potential because of the potential for groundwater occupied by the Jollyville Plateau for vandalism, and depletion of pollution from current and future salamander. The springs are located on groundwater (see Special Management development in the watershed, potential Tributary 4 and an unnamed tributary to Considerations or Protection section). for vandalism, and depletion of Bull Creek. The unit contains the The proposed designation includes groundwater (see Special Management primary constituent elements essential the spring outlet and outflow up to the Considerations or Protection section). for the conservation of the species.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50819

The unit requires special management depletion of groundwater (see Special further delineated by drawing a circle because of the potential for groundwater Management Considerations or with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around pollution from current and future Protection section). the spring, representing the extent of the development in the watershed, potential The proposed designation includes subterranean critical habitat. the spring outlets and outflow up to the for vandalism, and depletion of Unit 5: Twin Springs Unit groundwater (see Special Management high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of Considerations or Protection section). downstream habitat. The unit was Unit 5 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of The proposed designation includes further delineated by drawing a circle private and Williamson County land the spring outlets and outflow up to the with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around located in west-central Williamson high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of the spring, representing the extent of the County, Texas. The northern portion of downstream habitat. The unit was subterranean critical habitat. the unit contains low-density residential development; the remainder of the unit further delineated by drawing a circle Unit 3: Bat Well Unit with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around is undeveloped. The majority of the unit the springs, representing the extent of Unit 3 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of is part of Williamson County the subterranean critical habitat. We private land located in west-central Conservation Foundation’s Twin joined the edges of the resulting circles. Williamson County, Texas. The western, Springs Preserve. The preserve is northern, and southern portion of the managed by Williamson Conservation Georgetown Salamander unit contains residential development. Foundation as a mitigation property for Unit 1: Cobb Unit This unit contains Bat Well, located in the take of golden-cheeked warbler and a cave and known to be occupied by the Bone Cave under the Williamson Unit 1 consists of 83 ac (34 ha) of Georgetown salamander. The cave is County Regional Habitat Conservation private land located in northwestern located in the Cowan Creek watershed. Plan. The preserve habitat will be Williamson County, Texas. The unit is The unit contains the primary undeveloped in perpetuity. Salamander undeveloped land. This unit contains constituent elements essential for the populations are monitored, and there is two springs, Cobb Springs and Cobb conservation of the species. some control of public access. This unit Well, both known to be occupied by the The unit requires special management contains Twin Springs, which is Georgetown salamander. Cobb Springs because of the potential for groundwater occupied by the Georgetown is located on Cobb Springs Branch, and pollution from current and future salamander. The spring is located on Cobb Well is located on a tributary to development in the watershed and Taylor Ray Hollow, a tributary of Lake the stream. The unit contains the depletion of groundwater (see Special Georgetown. The unit contains the primary constituent elements essential Management Considerations or primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of the species. Cobb Protection section). for the conservation of the species. Springs is a surface location, and Cobb The proposed designation includes The unit requires special management Well is a subterranean location for the the cave. The unit was further because of the potential for groundwater species. delineated by drawing a circle with a pollution from current and future The unit requires special management radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the cave, development in the watershed and because of the potential for groundwater representing the extent of the depletion of groundwater (see Special pollution from future development in subterranean critical habitat. Management Considerations or the watershed and depletion of Protection section). groundwater (see Special Management Unit 4: Walnut Spring Unit The proposed designation includes Considerations or Protection section). Unit 4 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of the spring outlets and outflow up to the The proposed designation includes private and Williamson County land high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of the spring outlets and outflow up to the located in west-central Williamson downstream habitat. The unit was high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of County, Texas. The western, eastern, further delineated by drawing a circle downstream habitat for Cobb Springs. and northeastern portions of the unit with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around The unit was further delineated by contain low-density residential the spring, representing the extent of the drawing a circle with a radius of 984 ft development; the southern and north- subterranean critical habitat. (300 m) around the spring and well, central portions are undeveloped. The representing the extent of the extreme southeastern corner of the unit Unit 6: Hogg Hollow Spring Unit subterranean critical habitat. We joined is part of Williamson County Unit 6 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of the edges of the resulting circles. Conservation Foundation’s Twin private and Federal undeveloped land Springs Preserve. This unit contains located in west-central Williamson Unit 2: Cowen Creek Spring Unit Walnut Spring, which is occupied by County, Texas. Part of this unit is on the Unit 2 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of the Georgetown salamander. The spring U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lake private land located in west-central is located on Walnut Spring Hollow. Georgetown’s property. There are Williamson County, Texas. The The unit contains the primary currently no plans to develop the northern portion of the unit is constituent elements for the property. There is some control of residential development; the remainder conservation of the species. public access. This unit contains Hogg is undeveloped. This unit contains The unit requires special management Hollow Spring, which is occupied by Cowan Creek Spring, which is occupied because of the potential for groundwater the Georgetown salamander. The spring by the Georgetown salamander. The pollution from current and future is located on Hogg Hollow, a tributary spring is located on Cowan Creek. The development in the watershed and to Lake Georgetown. The unit contains unit contains the primary constituent depletion of groundwater (see Special the primary constituent elements elements essential for the conservation Management Considerations or essential for the conservation of the of the species. Protection section). species. The unit requires special management The proposed designation includes The unit requires special management because of the potential for groundwater the spring outlet and outflow up to the because of the potential for groundwater pollution from current and future high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of pollution from current and future development in the watershed and downstream habitat. The unit was development in the watershed and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50820 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

depletion of groundwater (see Special contains the primary constituent pollution from current and future Management Considerations or elements essential for the conservation development in the watershed and Protection section). of the species. depletion of groundwater (see Special The proposed designation includes The unit requires special management Management Considerations or the spring outlets and outflow up to the because of the potential for groundwater Protection section). high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of pollution from current and future The proposed designation includes downstream habitat. The unit was development in the watershed present the spring outlet and outflow up to the further delineated by drawing a circle operations and future expansion of the high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around quarry, and depletion of groundwater downstream habitat. The unit was the spring, representing the extent of the (see Special Management further delineated by drawing a circle subterranean critical habitat. Considerations or Protection section). with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around The proposed designation includes Unit 7: Cedar Hollow Spring Unit the spring, representing the extent of the the spring outlets and outflows up to the subterranean critical habitat. Unit 7 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of private land in west-central Williamson downstream habitat. The unit was Unit 11: Buford Hollow Spring Unit County, Texas. A secondary road further delineated by drawing a circle Unit 11 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of crossed the extreme southern portion of with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around Federal and private land in west-central the unit, and there are residences in the each of the two springs, representing the Williamson County, Texas. The unit is northwestern, southwestern, and west extent of the subterranean critical located just below the spillway for Lake central portions of the unit. This unit habitat. We joined the edges of the Georgetown. The U.S. Army Corps of contains Cedar Hollow Spring, which is resulting circles. Engineers owns most of this unit as part occupied by the Georgetown of Lake Georgetown. The D.B. Wood salamander. The spring is located on Unit 9: Water Tank Cave Unit Road, a major thoroughfare, crosses the Cedar Hollow, a tributary to Lake Unit 9 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of eastern part of the unit. The rest of the Georgetown. The unit contains the private land in west-central Williamson unit is undeveloped. This unit contains primary constituent elements essential County, Texas. A golf course crosses the Buford Hollow Springs, which is for the conservation of the species. unit from northwest to southeast, and occupied by the Georgetown The unit requires special management there are several roads in the eastern because of the potential for groundwater salamander. The spring is located on part of the unit. A secondary road Buford Hollow, a tributary to the North pollution from current and future crosses the extreme southern portion of development in the watershed and Fork San Gabriel River. The unit the unit, and there are residences in the contains the primary constituent depletion of groundwater (see Special northwestern, southwestern, and west Management Considerations or elements essential for the conservation central portions of the unit. This unit of the species. Protection section). contains Water Tank Cave, a The unit requires special management The proposed designation includes subterranean location, which is because of the potential for groundwater the spring outlet and outflow up to the occupied by the Georgetown pollution from current and future high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of salamander. The unit contains the development in the watershed and downstream habitat. The unit was primary constituent elements essential depletion of groundwater (see Special further delineated by drawing a circle for the conservation of the species. with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around The unit requires special management Management Considerations or the spring, representing the extent of the because of the potential for groundwater Protection section). subterranean critical habitat. pollution from current and future The proposed designation includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the Unit 8: Lake Georgetown Unit development in the watershed and depletion of groundwater (see Special high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of Unit 8 consists of 132 ac (53 ha) of Management Considerations or downstream habitat. The unit was Federal and private land in west-central Protection section). further delineated by drawing a circle Williamson County, Texas. Part of the The proposed designation includes with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around unit is U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the subterranean cave. The unit was the spring, representing the extent of the Lake Georgetown property. There are further delineated by drawing a circle subterranean critical habitat. currently no plans to develop the with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around Unit 12: Swinbank Spring Unit property. There is some control of the cave, representing the extent of the public access. Unpaved roads are found subterranean critical habitat. Unit 12 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of in the western portion of the unit, and City and private land in west-central a trail begins in the central part of the Unit 10: Avant Spring Unit Williamson County, Texas. The unit is unit and leaves the northeast corner. A Unit 10 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of located near River Road south of secondary road crosses the extreme private land in west-central Williamson Melanie Lane. The northern part of the southern portion of the unit, and there County, Texas. The northern part of a unit is primarily in residential are residences in the northwestern, large quarry is along the southwestern development, while the southern part of southwestern, and west central portions edge of the unit. The rest of the unit is this unit is primarily undeveloped. This of the unit. A large quarry is located a undeveloped. This unit contains unit contains Swinbank Spring, which short distance southeast of the unit. Avant’s (Capitol Aggregates) Spring, is occupied by the Georgetown This unit two springs, Knight (Crockett which is occupied by the Georgetown salamander. The spring is located just Gardens) Spring and Cedar Breaks salamander. The spring is close to the off the main channel of North Fork San Hiking Trail Spring, which are occupied streambed of the Middle Fork of the San Gabriel River. The unit contains the by the Georgetown salamander. The Gabriel River. The unit contains the primary constituent elements essential springs are located on an unnamed primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of the species. The tributary to Lake Georgetown. A portion for the conservation of the species. population of Georgetown salamanders of the northern part of the unit extends The unit requires special management in the spring is being monitored under Lake Georgetown. The unit because of the potential for groundwater monthly as part of the Williamson

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50821

County Regional HCP’s efforts to Unit 14: San Gabriel Springs Unit The unit requires special management conserve the species. because of the potential for groundwater Unit 14 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of pollution from future development in The unit requires special management City of Georgetown land in west-central the watershed, destruction of habitat by because of the potential for groundwater Williamson County, Texas. The unit is pollution from current and future feral hogs, future depletion of located between North College Street groundwater, and disturbance of habitat development in the watershed and and East Morrow Street, just north of the depletion of groundwater (see Special by livestock (see Special Management San Gabriel River in San Gabriel Park. Considerations or Protection section). Management Considerations or The northern part of the unit contains Protection section). Although the The proposed designation includes some park buildings, parking lots, and the spring outlets and outflow up to the Georgetown salamander has been given other impervious surfaces, but only the special consideration under the high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of subterranean aquifer that extends below downstream habitat. The unit was Williamson County Regional HCP, take these structures is included in the is not covered for this species further delineated by drawing a circle critical habitat unit. The southern part with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around (Williamson County Conservation of the unit is primarily undeveloped. Foundation 2008, pp. 4–19). Actions the spring, representing the extent of the This unit contains San Gabriel Springs, subterranean critical habitat. authorized under the HCP for the which is occupied by the Georgetown covered species may impact the salamander. Even though the species Unit 2: Solana Spring #1 Unit Georgetown salamander through habitat has not been collected on the surface degradation (Williamson County Unit 2 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of there since 1991 (Chippindale et al. private land located in southwestern Conservation Foundation 2008, pp. 4– 2000, p. 40; Pierce 2011b, pers. comm.), 19). This includes increased impervious Bell County, Texas. The unit is it may occur on the subsurface. primarily undeveloped ranch land. This cover and the associated decline in Therefore, we consider this unit to be water quality. unit contains Solana Spring #1, which currently occupied. The spring is is occupied by the Salado salamander. The proposed designation includes located just off the main channel of the The unit is located on a tributary to the spring outlets and outflow up to the San Gabriel River, downstream of the Rumsey Creek in the Salado Creek high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of confluence of the North San Gabriel and drainage and contains the primary downstream habitat. The unit was South San Gabriel rivers. A city well is constituent elements essential for the further delineated by drawing a circle located approximately 82 ft (25 m) from conservation of the species. The owners with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around one of the spring outlets, and causes the of the spring are interested in the spring, representing the extent of the spring to go dry when it is active during conserving the species, but there are subterranean critical habitat. the summer (TPWD 2011a, p. 9). The currently no long-term commitments to Unit 13: Shadow Canyon Unit unit contains the primary constituent conservation in place. elements essential for the conservation The unit requires special management Unit 13 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of of the species. because of the potential for groundwater City and private land in west-central The unit requires special management pollution from future development in Williamson County, Texas. The unit is because of the potential for groundwater the watershed, destruction of habitat by located just south of State Highway 29. pollution from current and future feral hogs, future depletion of This unit contains Shadow Canyon development in the watershed and groundwater, and disturbance of habitat Spring, which is occupied by the depletion of groundwater from pumping by livestock (see Special Management Georgetown salamander. The spring is (see Special Management Considerations or Protection section). located on an unnamed tributary of Considerations or Protection section). The proposed designation includes South Fork San Gabriel River. The unit the spring outlets and outflow up to the contains the essential primary The proposed designation includes the spring outlets and outflow up to the high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of constituent elements for the downstream habitat. The unit was conservation of the species. The unit is high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of downstream habitat. The unit was further delineated by drawing a circle authorized for development under the with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around Shadow Canyon HCP. Impacts to the further delineated by drawing a circle with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around the spring, representing the extent of the endangered golden-cheeked warbler subterranean critical habitat. (Dendroica chrysoparia) and Bone Cave the spring, representing the extent of the harvestman (Texella reyesi) are subterranean critical habitat. Unit 3: Cistern Spring Unit permitted; however, impacts to Salado Salamander Unit 3 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of Georgetown salamander are not covered Unit 1: Hog Hollow Spring Unit private land located in southwestern under the HCP. Bell County, Texas, on the same private The unit requires special management Unit 1 consists of 68 ac (28 ha) of ranch as Units 1 and 2 for the Salado because of the potential for groundwater private land located in southwestern salamander. The unit is primarily pollution from current and future Bell County, Texas. The unit is undeveloped ranch land. This unit development in the watershed and primarily undeveloped ranch land. This contains Cistern Spring, which is depletion of groundwater (see Special unit contains Hog Hollow Spring, which occupied by the Salado salamander. The Management Considerations or is occupied by the Salado salamander. unit is located on a tributary to Rumsey Protection section). The unit is located on a tributary to Creek in the Salado Creek drainage and The proposed designation includes Rumsey Creek in the Salado Creek contains the primary constituent the spring outlets and outflow up to the drainage and contains the primary elements essential for the conservation high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of constituent elements essential for the of the species. The owners of the spring downstream habitat. The unit was conservation of the species. The owners are interested in conserving the species, further delineated by drawing a circle of the spring are interested in but there are currently no long-term with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around conserving the species, but there are commitments to conservation in place. the spring, representing the extent of the currently no long-term commitments to The unit requires special management subterranean critical habitat. conservation in place. because of the potential for groundwater

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50822 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

pollution from future development in modifications in the springs were responsible Federal agency (action the watershed, destruction of habitat by prohibited by the permit. Additional agency) must enter into consultation feral hogs, future depletion of work on the bank upstream of the with us. Examples of actions that are groundwater, and disturbance of habitat springs was permitted and completed subject to the section 7 consultation by livestock (see Special Management (Heger 2012b, pers. comm.). process are actions on State, tribal, Considerations or Protection section). The unit requires special management local, or private lands that require a The proposed designation includes to protect it from illegal dumping within Federal permit (such as a permit from the spring outlets and outflow up to the the stream channel, surface runoff from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of nearby roads and other development, section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 downstream habitat. The unit was the potential for groundwater pollution U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the further delineated by drawing a circle from future development in the Service under section 10 of the Act) or with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around watershed, future depletion of that involve some other Federal action the spring, representing the extent of the groundwater, and habitat disturbance (such as funding from the Federal subterranean critical habitat. from livestock and feral hogs (see Highway Administration, Federal Unit 4: IH–35 Unit Special Management Considerations or Aviation Administration, or the Federal Protection section). Emergency Management Agency). Unit 4 consists of 168 ac (68 ha) of The proposed designation includes Federal actions not affecting listed private, State, and City of Salado land the spring outlets and outflow up to the species or critical habitat, and actions located in southwestern Bell County, high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of on State, tribal, local, or private lands Texas, in the southern part of the downstream habitat. The unit was that are not federally funded or Village of Salado. The unit extends further delineated by drawing a circle authorized, do not require section 7 along Salado Creek on both sides of with a radius of 984 ft (300 m) around consultation. Interstate Highway 35 (IH 35). The IH 35 each of the four springs, representing As a result of section 7 consultation, right of way crosses Salado Creek and is the extent of the subterranean critical we document compliance with the owned by the Texas Department of habitat. We then joined the edges of the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through Transportation. The unit is a mixture of resulting circles. our issuance of: residential and commercial properties (1) A concurrence letter for Federal on its eastern portion, with some Effects of Critical Habitat Designation actions that may affect, but are not undeveloped ranch land in the western Section 7 Consultation likely to adversely affect, listed species part west of IH 35. This unit contains Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires or critical habitat; or four springs, all located on private (2) A biological opinion for Federal Federal agencies, including the Service, property: Robertson Spring, Big Boiling actions that may affect, or are likely to to ensure that any action they fund, Spring, Lil’ Bubbly Spring, and Lazy adversely affect, listed species or critical authorize, or carry out is not likely to Days Fish Farm, all known to be habitat. occupied by the Salado salamander. jeopardize the continued existence of When we issue a biological opinion There has been some recent any endangered species or threatened concluding that a project is likely to modification to the spring habitat species or result in the destruction or jeopardize the continued existence of a within this unit. In the fall of 2011, the adverse modification of designated listed species and destroy or adversely outflow channels and edges of Big critical habitat of such species. In modify critical habitat, we provide Boiling and Lil’ Bubbly Spring were addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act reasonable and prudent alternatives to reconstructed with large limestone requires Federal agencies to confer with the project, if any are identifiable, that blocks and mortar. In addition, in the Service on any agency action which would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy response to other activity in the area, is likely to jeopardize the continued and destruction or adverse modification the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued existence of any species proposed to be of critical habitat. We define a cease and desist order to the Salado listed under the Act or result in the ‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ Chamber of Commerce in October 2011, destruction or adverse modification of (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions for unauthorized discharge of dredged proposed critical habitat. identified during consultation that: or fill material that occurred in this area Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit (1) Can be implemented in a manner (Brooks 2011, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Courts of Appeals have invalidated our consistent with the intended purpose of pers. comm.). This order was issued in regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or the action, relation to the need for a section 404 adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) (2) Can be implemented consistent permit under the Clean Water Act. A (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. with the scope of the Federal agency’s citation from a TPWD game warden was Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d legal authority and jurisdiction, also issued in October 2011, due to the 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. (3) Are economically and need for a sand and gravel permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 technologically feasible, and the TPWD for work being conducted F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we (4) Would, in the Director’s opinion, within TPWD jurisdiction (Heger 2012a, do not rely on this regulatory definition avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the pers. comm.). The citation was issued when analyzing whether an action is continued existence of the listed species because the Salado Chamber of likely to destroy or adversely modify and avoid the likelihood of destroying Commerce had been directed by the critical habitat. Under the statutory or adversely modifying critical habitat. game warden to stop work within provisions of the Act, we determine Reasonable and prudent alternatives TPWD’s jurisdiction, which the Salado destruction or adverse modification on can vary from slight project Chamber of Commerce did temporarily, the basis of whether, with modifications to extensive redesign or but work started again in spite of the implementation of the proposed Federal relocation of the project. Costs game warden’s directive (Heger 2012a, action, the affected critical habitat associated with implementing a pers. comm.). A sand and gravel permit would continue to serve its intended reasonable and prudent alternative are was obtained on March 21, 2012. The conservation role for the species. similarly variable. spring run modifications were already If a Federal action may affect a listed Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require completed by this date, but further species or its critical habitat, the Federal agencies to reinitiate

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50823

consultation on previously reviewed point source or by dispersed release designate as critical habitat any lands or actions in instances where we have (non-point source). These activities other geographic areas owned or listed a new species or subsequently could alter water conditions to levels controlled by the Department of designated critical habitat that may be that are beyond the tolerances of the Defense, or designated for its use, that affected and the Federal agency has four Texas salamander species and are subject to an integrated natural retained discretionary involvement or result in direct or cumulative adverse resources management plan prepared control over the action (or the agency’s effects to these individuals and their life under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 discretionary involvement or control is cycles. U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines authorized by law). Consequently, (3) Actions that would deplete the in writing that such plan provides a Federal agencies sometimes may need to aquifer to an extent that decreases or benefit to the species for which critical request reinitiation of consultation with stops the flow of occupied springs or habitat is proposed for designation.’’ us on actions for which formal that reduce the quantity of subterranean There are no Department of Defense consultation has been completed, if habitat used by the species. Such lands within the proposed critical those actions with discretionary activities could include, but are not habitat designation. involvement or control may affect limited to, excessive water withdrawals Exclusions subsequently listed species or from aquifers and channelization or designated critical habitat. other modification of recharge features Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act Application of the ‘‘Adverse that would decrease recharge. These Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that Modification’’ Standard activities could dewater habitat or cause the Secretary shall designate and make reduced water quality to levels that are The key factor related to the adverse revisions to critical habitat on the basis beyond the tolerances of the four Texas of the best available scientific data after modification determination is whether, salamanders and result in direct or with implementation of the proposed taking into consideration the economic cumulative adverse effects to these impact, national security impact, and Federal action, the affected critical individuals and their life cycles. habitat would continue to serve its any other relevant impact of specifying intended conservation role for the Exemptions any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from species. Activities that may destroy or Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act adversely modify critical habitat are critical habitat if he determines that the those that alter the physical or The Sikes Act Improvement Act of benefits of such exclusion outweigh the biological features to an extent that 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) benefits of specifying such area as part appreciably reduces the conservation required each military installation that of the critical habitat, unless he value of critical habitat for the four includes land and water suitable for the determines, based on the best scientific salamander species. As discussed above, conservation and management of data available, that the failure to the role of critical habitat is to support natural resources to complete an designate such area as critical habitat life-history needs of the species and integrated natural resources will result in the extinction of the provide for the conservation of the management plan (INRMP) by species. In making that determination, species. November 17, 2001. An INRMP the statute on its face, as well as the Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us integrates implementation of the legislative history are clear that the to briefly evaluate and describe, in any military mission of the installation with Secretary has broad discretion regarding proposed or final regulation that stewardship of the natural resources which factor(s) to use and how much designates critical habitat, activities found on the base. Each INRMP weight to give to any factor. involving a Federal action that may includes: In considering whether to exclude a destroy or adversely modify such (1) An assessment of the ecological particular area from the designation, we habitat, or that may be affected by such needs on the installation, including the identify the benefits of including the designation. need to provide for the conservation of area in the designation, identify the Activities that may affect critical listed species; benefits of excluding the area from the habitat, when carried out, funded, or (2) A statement of goals and priorities; designation, and evaluate whether the authorized by a Federal agency, should (3) A detailed description of benefits of exclusion outweigh the result in consultation for the four management actions to be implemented benefits of inclusion. If the analysis salamander species. These activities to provide for these ecological needs; indicates that the benefits of exclusion include, but are not limited to: and outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the (1) Actions that would physically (4) A monitoring and adaptive Secretary may exercise his discretion to disturb the spring habitat upon which management plan. exclude the area only if such exclusion these four Texas salamander species Among other things, each INRMP would not result in the extinction of the depend. Such activities could include, must, to the extent appropriate and species. but are not limited to, channelization applicable, provide for fish and wildlife When identifying the benefits of and other activities that result in the management; fish and wildlife habitat inclusion for an area, we consider the physical destruction of habitat or the enhancement or modification; wetland additional regulatory benefits that area modification of habitat so that it is not protection, enhancement, and would receive from the protection from suitable for the species. restoration where necessary to support adverse modification or destruction as a (2) Actions that would increase the fish and wildlife; and enforcement of result of actions with a Federal nexus; concentration of silt in the surface or applicable natural resource laws. the educational benefits of mapping subsurface habitat. Such activities could The National Defense Authorization essential habitat for recovery of the include, but are not limited to, increases Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– listed species; and any benefits that may in impervious cover in the surface 136) amended the Act to limit areas result from a designation due to State or watershed, improper erosion controls on eligible for designation as critical Federal laws that may apply to critical the surface and subsurface watersheds, habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) habitat. release of pollutants into the surface of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) When identifying the benefits of water or connected groundwater at a now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not exclusion, we consider, among other

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50824 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

things, whether exclusion of a specific variety of factors, including but not will result in extinction, we will not area is likely to result in conservation; limited to, whether the plan is finalized; exclude it from the designation. the continuation, strengthening, or how it provides for the conservation of Based on the information that will be encouragement of partnerships; or the essential physical or biological provided by entities seeking exclusion, implementation of a management plan features; whether there is a reasonable as well as any additional public that provides equal to or more expectation that the conservation comments we receive during the open conservation than a critical habitat management strategies and actions public comment period (see DATES), we designation would provide. contained in a management plan will be will evaluate whether certain lands in In the case of the four central Texas implemented into the future; whether the proposed critical habitat for salamanders, the benefits of critical the conservation strategies in the plan Jollyville Plateau salamander in the Bull habitat include public awareness of are likely to be effective; and whether Creek 3 Unit (Unit 19 for the Jollyville Austin blind salamander, Georgetown the plan contains a monitoring program Plateau salamander) are appropriate for salamander, Jollyville Plateau or adaptive management to ensure that exclusion from the final designation salamander, and Salado salamander the conservation measures are effective under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If the presence and the importance of habitat and can be adapted in the future in analysis indicates that the benefits of protection, and in cases where a Federal response to new information. excluding lands from the final nexus exists, increased habitat After identifying the benefits of designation outweigh the benefits of protection for Austin blind salamander, inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, designating those lands as critical Georgetown salamander, Jollyville we carefully weigh the two sides to habitat, then the Secretary may exercise Plateau salamander, and Salado evaluate whether the benefits of his discretion to exclude the lands from salamander due to the protection from exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. the final designation. adverse modification or destruction of If our analysis indicates that the benefits After considering the following areas critical habitat. of exclusion outweigh the benefits of under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are When we evaluate the existence of a inclusion, we then determine whether proposing to exclude them from the conservation plan when considering the exclusion would result in extinction. If critical habitat designation for Jollyville benefits of exclusion, we consider a exclusion of an area from critical habitat Plateau salamander.

TABLE 11—AREAS CONSIDERED FOR EXCLUSION BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT FOR THE JOLLYVILLE PLATEAU SALAMANDER

Areas Areas meeting considered for the definition of possible Unit Specific area critical habitat, in exclusion, acres (hectares) in acres (hectares)

Unit 19: Bull Creek 3 Unit ...... Four Points HCP ...... 254 ac (103 ha) 152 ac (62 ha).

We are considering these areas for and entities that pump water from the of critical habitat for Austin blind exclusion, because we believe that: aquifers. salamander, Georgetown salamander, (1) Their value for conservation will We will announce the availability of Jollyville Plateau salamander, and be preserved for the foreseeable future the draft economic analysis as soon as Salado salamander are not owned or by existing protective actions, or it is completed, at which time we will managed by the Department of Defense, (2) They are appropriate for exclusion seek public review and comment. At and, therefore, we anticipate no impact under the ‘‘other relevant factor’’ that time, copies of the draft economic on national security. Consequently, the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. analysis will be available for Secretary does not propose to exercise downloading from the Internet at However, we specifically solicit his discretion to exclude any areas from http://www.regulations.gov, or by comments on the inclusion or exclusion the final designation based on impacts contacting the Austin Ecological of such areas. In the paragraphs below, on national security. Services Field Office directly (see FOR we provide a detailed analysis of our FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). During exclusion of these lands under section Exclusions Based on Other Relevant the development of a final designation, Impacts 4(b)(2) of the Act. we will consider economic impacts, Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts public comments, and other new Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we information, and areas may be excluded consider any other relevant impacts, in Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we from the final critical habitat addition to economic impacts and consider the economic impacts of designation under section 4(b)(2) of the impacts on national security. We specifying any particular area as critical Act and our implementing regulations at consider a number of factors including habitat. In order to consider economic 50 CFR 424.19. impacts, we are preparing an analysis of whether the landowners have developed the economic impacts of the proposed Exclusions Based on National Security any HCPs or other management plans critical habitat designation and related Impacts for the area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be factors. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we Sectors that may be affected by the consider whether there are lands owned encouraged by designation of, or proposed designation include private or managed by the Department of exclusion from, critical habitat. In developers of residential and Defense (DOD) where a national security addition, we look at any tribal issues, commercial property; city, county, and impact might exist. In preparing this and consider the government-to- State governments that construct and proposal, we have determined that the government relationship of the United maintain roads and other infrastructure; lands within the proposed designation States with tribal entities. We also

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50825

consider any social impacts that might golden-cheeked warbler habitat and by proposed listing and designation of occur because of the designation. initiating clearing and construction only critical habitat. during times of year when birds are not We will consider all comments and Land and Resource Management Plans, present. Approximately 52 ac (21 ha) information we receive during this Conservation Plans, or Agreements that contains six caves (Owl Eyes, comment period on this proposed rule Based on Conservation Partnerships Japygid, Eluvial, Fernpit, M.W.A., and during our preparation of a final We consider a current land Jollyville) known to be inhabited by determination. Accordingly, the final management or conservation plan (HCPs Tooth Cave ground beetle and the Bone decision may differ from this proposal. as well as other types) to provide Cave harvestman have been Public Hearings adequate management or protection if it permanently preserved. meets the following criteria: Protection of this area is also expected Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for (1) The plan is complete and provides to contribute to the maintenance of one or more public hearings on this the same or better level of protection water quality, and, therefore, the quality proposal, if requested. Requests must be from adverse modification or of salamander habitat at resurgence received within 45 days after the date of destruction than that provided through springs (Spring No. 12, Spring No. 22, publication of this proposed rule in the a consultation under section 7 of the and Spring No. 24) down-gradient of the Federal Register. Such requests must be Act; preserve area. In addition, runoff from sent to the address shown in the FOR (2) There is a reasonable expectation multi-family residential areas and the FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. that the conservation management hotel will be routed to avoid drainages We will schedule public hearings on strategies and actions will be which contain springs known to support this proposal, if any are requested, and implemented for the foreseeable future, Jollyville Plateau salamanders. announce the dates, times, and places of based on past practices, written In addition to the karst preserve, those hearings, as well as how to obtain guidance, or regulations; and reasonable accommodations, in the (3) The plan provides conservation another approximately 135 ac (54 ha) of the property was permanently set aside Federal Register and local newspapers strategies and measures consistent with at least 15 days before the hearing. currently accepted principles of and maintained as a golden-cheeked conservation biology. warbler preserve. Required Determinations We believe that the Four Points HCP All preserve areas will be permanently fenced and posted to Regulatory Planning and Review— fulfills the above criteria, and are Executive Order 12866 considering the exclusion of non- preclude public access, and red Federal lands covered by this plan that imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) Executive Order 12866 provides that provide for the conservation of Jollyville will be controlled in the karst preserves. the Office of Information and Regulatory Plateau salamander. We are requesting Fire ants are a pervasive, nonnative ant Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant comments on the benefit to Jollyville species originally introduced to the rules. The Office of Information and Plateau salamander from this HCP. United States from South America over Regulatory Affairs has determined that 50 years ago and are an aggressive this rule is not significant. Four Points Habitat Conservation Plan predator and competitor that has spread Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the The Permittee (TPG Four Points Land, across the southern United States. They principles of E.O. 12866 while calling L.P.) is authorized to ‘‘take’’ (kill, harm, often replace native species, and for inprovements in the nation’s or harass) the golden-cheeked warbler, evidence shows that overall arthropod regulatory system to promote black-capped vireo, Tooth Cave ground diversity, as well as species richness predictability, to reduce uncertainty, beetle, Bone Cave harvestman, Bee and abundance, decreases in infested and to use the best, most innovative, Creek Cave harvestman, Tooth Cave areas. Fire ants are spread by activities and least burdensome tools for pseudoscorpion (Tartarocreagris that accompany urbanization and that achieving regulatory ends. The texana), Tooth Cave spider (Tayshaneta result in soil disturbance and disruption executive order directs agencies to myopica), Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle to native ant communities. As such, fire consider regulatory approaches that (Texamaurops reddelli), and the Coffin ants will be controlled by limiting these reduce burdens and maintain flexibility Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes texanus) at types of activities. No pesticides or and freedom of choice for the public a known location (the 333-ac (135-ha) herbicides will be used within preserve where these approaches are relevant, Four Points Property, located areas, and any pesticides or herbicides feasible, and consistent with regulatory approximately 11 mi (18 km) northwest used within developed areas will be objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes of Austin near the intersection of RM used according to the EPA label further that regulations must be based 2222 and RM 620, Travis County, instructions. on the best available science and that Texas), of habitat for these species, Peer Review the rulemaking process must allow for incidental to activities necessary for the public participation and an open construction of mixed use real estate In accordance with our joint policy on exchange of ideas. We have developed development projects and attendant peer review published in the Federal this rule in a manner consistent with utilities as described in the original Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), these requirements. Permittee’s (P–WB Joint Venture) we will seek the expert opinions of at Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 application and habitat conservation least three appropriate and independent et seq.) plan. The HCP also covers the Jollyville specialists regarding this proposed rule. Plateau salamander as if it were a listed The purpose of peer review is to ensure Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act species, meaning that impacts to this that our listing determination and (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as amended salamander species from construction critical habitat designation are based on by the Small Business Regulatory activites described in the permit are scientifically sound data, assumptions, Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 permitted. and analyses. We have invited these (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), The HCP requires avoidance of direct peer reviewers to comment during this whenever an agency is required to impacts to warblers by not conducting public comment period on our specific publish a notice of rulemaking for any clearing or construction in occupied assumptions and conclusions in this proposed or final rule, it must prepare

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50826 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

and make available for public comment itself, and not the potential impacts to Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— a regulatory flexibility analysis that indirectly affected entities. The Executive Order 13211 describes the effects of the rule on small regulatory mechanism through which Executive Order 13211 (Actions entities (small businesses, small critical habitat protections are realized Concerning Regulations That organizations, and small government is section 7 of the Act, which requires Significantly Affect Energy Supply, jurisdictions). However, no regulatory Federal agencies, in consultation with Distribution, or Use) requires agencies flexibility analysis is required if the the Service, to ensure that any action to prepare Statements of Energy Effects head of the agency certifies the rule will authorized, funded, or carried by the when undertaking certain actions. not have a significant economic impact Agency is not likely to adversely modify We do not expect the designation of on a substantial number of small critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal this proposed critical habitat to entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA action agencies are directly subject to significantly affect energy supplies, to require Federal agencies to provide a the specific regulatory requirement distribution, or use, because the certification statement of the factual (avoiding destruction and adverse majority of the lands we are proposing basis for certifying that the rule will not modification) imposed by critical as critical habitat are privately owned, have a significant economic impact on and do not have energy production or a substantial number of small entities. habitat designation. Under these distribution. Therefore, this action is not According to the Small Business circumstances, it is our position that Administration, small entities include only Federal action agencies will be a significant energy action, and no small organizations such as directly regulated by this designation. Statement of Energy Effects is required. independent nonprofit organizations; Therefore, because Federal agencies are However, we will further evaluate this small governmental jurisdictions, not small entities, the Service may issue as we conduct our economic including school boards and city and certify that the proposed critical habitat analysis, and review and revise this town governments that serve fewer than rule will not have a significant assessment as warranted. 50,000 residents; and small businesses economic impact on a substantial Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses number of small entities. U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) include such businesses as We acknowledge, however, that in In accordance with the Unfunded manufacturing and mining concerns some cases, third-party proponents of Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et with fewer than 500 employees, the action subject to permitting or seq.), we make the following findings: wholesale trade entities with fewer than funding may participate in a section 7 (1) This rule would not produce a 100 employees, retail and service consultation, and thus may be indirectly Federal mandate. In general, a Federal businesses with less than $5 million in affected. We believe it is good policy to annual sales, general and heavy mandate is a provision in legislation, construction businesses with less than assess these impacts if we have statute, or regulation that would impose $27.5 million in annual business, sufficient data before us to complete the an enforceable duty upon State, local, or special trade contractors doing less than necessary analysis, whether or not this tribal governments, or the private sector, $11.5 million in annual business, and analysis is strictly required by the RFA. and includes both ‘‘Federal forestry and logging operations with While this regulation does not directly intergovernmental mandates’’ and fewer than 500 employees and annual regulate these entities, in our draft ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ business less than $7 million. To economic analysis we will conduct a These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. determine whether small entities may brief evaluation of the potential number 658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental be affected, we will consider the types of third parties participating in mandate’’ includes a regulation that of activities that might trigger regulatory consultations on an annual basis in ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty impacts under this designation as well order to ensure a more complete upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ as types of project modifications that examination of the incremental effects with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a may result. In general, the term of this proposed rule in the context of condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also ‘‘significant economic impact’’ is meant the RFA. excludes ‘‘a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal to apply to a typical small business In conclusion, we believe that, based firm’s business operations. program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates on our interpretation of directly to a then-existing Federal program Importantly, the incremental impacts regulated entities under the RFA and of a rule must be both significant and under which $500,000,000 or more is relevant case law, this designation of substantial to prevent certification of the provided annually to State, local, and critical habitat will only directly rule under the RFA and to require the tribal governments under entitlement regulate Federal agencies which are not preparation of an initial regulatory authority,’’ if the provision would flexibility analysis. If a substantial by definition small business entities. ‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of number of small entities are affected by And as such, certify that, if assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or the proposed critical habitat promulgated, this designation of critical otherwise decrease, the Federal designation, but the per-entity economic habitat would not have a significant Government’s responsibility to provide impact is not significant, the Service economic impact on a substantial funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal may certify. Likewise, if the per-entity number of small business entities. governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust economic impact is likely to be Therefore, an initial regulatory accordingly. At the time of enactment, significant, but the number of affected flexibility analysis is not required. these entitlement programs were: entities is not substantial, the Service However, though not necessarily Medicaid; Aid to Families with may also certify. required by the RFA, in our draft Dependent Children work programs; Under the RFA, as amended, and economic analysis for this proposal we Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social following recent court decisions, will consider and evaluate the potential Services Block Grants; Vocational Federal agencies are only required to effects to third parties that may be Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, evaluate the potential incremental involved with consultations with Adoption Assistance, and Independent impacts of rulemaking on those entities Federal action agencies related to this Living; Family Support Welfare directly regulated by the rulemaking action. Services; and Child Support

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50827

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector Federalism—Executive Order 13132 the Austin blind salamander, mandate’’ includes a regulation that In accordance with Executive Order Georgetown salamander, Jollyville ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule Plateau salamander, and Salado upon the private sector, except (i) a does not have significant Federalism salamander within the designated areas condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a effects. A Federalism assessment is not to assist the public in understanding the duty arising from participation in a required. In keeping with Department of habitat needs of the species. voluntary Federal program.’’ the Interior and Department of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 The designation of critical habitat Commerce policy, we requested U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) does not impose a legally binding duty information from, and coordinated This rule does not contain any new on non-Federal Government entities or development of, this proposed critical collections of information that require private parties. Under the Act, the only habitat designation with appropriate approval by the Office of Management regulatory effect is that Federal agencies State resource agencies in Texas. The and Budget under the Paperwork must ensure that their actions do not designation of critical habitat in areas Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 destroy or adversely modify critical currently occupied by the Austin blind et seq.). This rule will not impose habitat under section 7. While non- salamander, Georgetown salamander, recordkeeping or reporting requirements Federal entities that receive Federal Jollyville Plateau salamander, and on State or local governments, funding, assistance, or permits, or that Salado salamander may impose nominal individuals, businesses, or otherwise require approval or additional regulatory restrictions to organizations. An agency may not authorization from a Federal agency for those currently in place and, therefore, conduct or sponsor, and a person is not an action, may be indirectly impacted may have little incremental impact on required to respond to, a collection of by the designation of critical habitat, the State and local governments and their information unless it displays a legally binding duty to avoid activities. The designation may have currently valid OMB control number. destruction or adverse modification of some benefit to these governments critical habitat rests squarely on the because the areas that contain the National Environmental Policy Act (42 Federal agency. Furthermore, to the physical or biological features essential U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) extent that non-Federal entities are to the conservation of the species are It is our position that, outside the indirectly impacted because they more clearly defined, and the elements receive Federal assistance or participate jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the features of the habitat necessary for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to in a voluntary Federal aid program, the to the conservation of the species are Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would prepare environmental analyses specifically identified. This information pursuant to the National Environmental not apply, nor would critical habitat does not alter where and what federally shift the costs of the large entitlement Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et sponsored activities may occur. seq.) in connection with designating programs listed above onto State However, it may assist local governments. critical habitat under the Act. We governments in long-range planning published a notice outlining our reasons (2) We do not believe that this rule (rather than having them wait for case- for this determination in the Federal would significantly or uniquely affect by-case section 7 consultations to Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR small governments because the occur). 49244). This position was upheld by the proposed areas that cover small Where State and local governments U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth government jurisdictions are small, and require approval or authorization from a Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 there is little potential that the proposal Federal agency for actions that may F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied would impose significant additional affect critical habitat, consultation 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). The proposed costs above those associated with the under section 7(a)(2) would be required. designation of critical habitat for the proposed listing of the species. While non-Federal entities that receive four Texas salamanders is entirely Therefore, a Small Government Agency Federal funding, assistance, or permits, within the 5th Circuit jurisdiction; Plan is not required. However, we will or that otherwise require approval or therefore, we do not intend to prepare further evaluate this issue as we authorization from a Federal agency for an environmental analysis in conduct our economic analysis, and an action may be indirectly impacted by connection with this proposed critical review and revise this assessment if the designation of critical habitat, the habitat designation. appropriate. legally binding duty to avoid Clarity of the Rule Takings—Executive Order 12630 destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the We are required by Executive Orders In accordance with Executive Order Federal agency. 12866 and 12988 and by the 12630 (Government Actions and Presidential Memorandum of June 1, Interference with Constitutionally Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 12988 1998, to write all rules in plain Protected Private Property Rights), we language. This means that each rule we will analyze the potential takings In accordance with Executive Order publish must: implications of designating critical 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office (1) Be logically organized; habitat for the Austin blind salamander, of the Solicitor has determined that the (2) Use the active voice to address Georgetown salamander, Jollyville rule does not unduly burden the judicial readers directly; Plateau salamander, and Salado system and that it meets the (3) Use clear language rather than salamander in a takings implications requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) jargon; assessment. Following publication of of the Order. We have proposed (4) Be divided into short sections and this proposed rule, a draft economic designating critical habitat in sentences; and analysis will be completed for the accordance with the provisions of the (5) Use lists and tables wherever proposed designation. The draft Act. This proposed rule uses standard possible. economic analysis will provide the property descriptions and identifies the If you feel that we have not met these foundation for us to use in preparing a elements of physical or biological requirements, send us comments by one takings implications assessment. features essential to the conservation of of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50828 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

section. To better help us revise the healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that recordkeeping requirements, rule, your comments should be as tribal lands are not subject to the same Transportation. specific as possible. For example, you controls as Federal public lands, to should tell us the numbers of the remain sensitive to Indian culture, and Proposed Regulation Promulgation sections or paragraphs that are unclearly to make information available to tribes. Accordingly, we propose to amend written, which sections or sentences are We determined that there are no part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title too long, the sections where you feel Tribal lands that are occupied by the 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, lists or tables would be useful, etc. four central Texas salamanders. as set forth below: Therefore, we are not proposing to Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes designate critical habitat for the PART 17—[AMENDED] salamander species on Tribal lands. In accordance with the President’s 1. The authority citation for part 17 memorandum of April 29, 1994 References Cited continues to read as follows: (Government-to-Government Relations A complete list of references cited in with Native American Tribal this rulemaking is available on the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– Order 13175 (Consultation and and upon request from the Austin 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. Coordination With Indian Tribal FOR Ecological Services Field Office (see 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding entries Governments), and the Department of FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we for ‘‘Salamander, Austin blind’’, readily acknowledge our responsibility Authors ‘‘Salamander, Georgetown’’, to communicate meaningfully with The primary authors of this package ‘‘Salamander, Jollyville Plateau’’, and recognized Federal Tribes on a are the staff members of the Austin ‘‘Salamander, Salado’’ in alphabetical government-to-government basis. In Ecological Services Field Office, order under AMPHIBIANS to the List of accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 Arlington Ecological Services Field Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Office, and the Texas Fish and Wildlife read as follows: Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Conservation Office. § 17.11 Endangered and threatened Responsibilities, and the Endangered wildlife. Species Act), we readily acknowledge List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 our responsibilities to work directly Endangered and threatened species, * * * * * with tribes in developing programs for Exports, Imports, Reporting and (h) * * *

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

******* AMPHIBIANS

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

******* Salamander, Eurycea naufragia U.S.A. (TX) ...... Entire ...... E ...... 17.95(d) NA Georgetown. Salamander, Eurycea tonkawae U.S.A. (TX) ...... Entire ...... E ...... 17.95(d) NA Jollyville Plateau.

******* Salamander, Sa- Eurycea U.S.A. (TX) ...... Entire ...... E ...... 17.95(d) NA lado. chisholmensis.

*******

3. Amend § 17.95(d) by adding entries (d) Amphibians. (i) Water from the Barton Springs for ‘‘Austin Blind Salamander (Eurycea * * * * * Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. The waterlooensis),’’ ‘‘Georgetown groundwater must be similar to natural Salamander (Eurycea naufragia)’’, Austin Blind Salamander (Eurycea aquifer conditions both underground ‘‘Jollyville Plateau Salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) and as it discharges from natural spring outlets. Concentrations of water quality tonkawae)’’, and ‘‘Salado Salamander (1) The critical habitat unit is (Eurycea chisholmensis)’’, in the same constituents that could have a negative depicted for Travis County, Texas, on impact on the salamander are below alphabetical order in which the species the map below. appear in the table at § 17.11(h), to read levels that could exert direct lethal or as follows: (2) Within this area, the primary sublethal effects (such as effects to constituent elements of the physical or reproduction, growth, development, or § 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. biological features essential to the metabolic processes), or indirect effects * * * * * conservation of Austin blind (such as effects to the Austin blind salamander consist of four components: salamander prey base). Hydrologic

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50829

regimes similar to the historical pattern must be provided for shelter and believe the salamander populations of the specific sites are present, with at protection. exist through underground conduits. least temporal surface flow for spring (3) Surface critical habitat includes The polygons were then simplified to sites and continuous flow for the spring outlets and outflow up to the reduce the number of vertices, but still subterranean sites. The water chemistry high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of retain the overall shape and extent. must be similar to natural aquifer downstream habitat, but does not Subsequently, polygons that were conditions, with temperatures between include manmade structures (such as within 98 ft (30 m) of each other were 67.8 and 72.3 °F (19.9 and 22.4 °C), buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, merged together. Each new merged dissolved oxygen concentrations and other paved areas) and the land on polygon was then revised to remove between 5 and 7 milligrams per liter, which they are located existing within extraneous divits or protrusions that and specific water conductance between the legal boundaries on the effective resulted from the merge process. The 605 and 740 microsiemens per date of this rule; however, the maps in this entry, as modified by any centimeter. subterranean aquifer may extend below accompanying regulatory text, establish (ii) Rocky substrate with interstitial such structures. The subterranean the boundaries of the critical habitat spaces. Rocks (boulders, cobble, or critical habitat includes underground designation. The coordinates or plot gravel) in the substrate of the features in a circle with a radius of 984 points or both on which each map is salamander’s surface aquatic habitat ft (300 m) around the springs. based are available to the public at the must be large enough to provide (4) Critical habitat map units. Data field office Internet site (http:// salamanders with cover, shelter, and layers defining map units were created www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ foraging habitat. The substrate and using a geographic information system AustinTexas/), http:// interstitial spaces should have minimal (GIS), which included species locations, www.regulations.gov at Docket No. sedimentation. roads, property boundaries, 2011 aerial FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035 and at the (iii) Aquatic invertebrates for food. photography, and USGS 7.5′ Service’s Austin Ecological Services The spring and cave environments must quadrangles. Points were placed on the Field Office. You may obtain field office be capable of supporting a diverse GIS. We delineated critical habitat unit location information by contacting one aquatic invertebrate community that boundaries by starting with the cave or of the Service regional offices, the includes crustaceans and insects. spring point locations that are occupied addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR (iv) Subterranean aquifer. During by the salamanders. From these cave or 2.2. periods of drought or dewatering on the springs points, we delineated a 984-ft (5) Unit 1: Barton Springs Unit, Travis surface in and around spring sites, (300-m) buffer to create the polygons County, Texas. Map of Unit 1 follows: access to the subsurface water table that capture the extent to which we BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50830 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

* * * * * (i) Water from the Northern Segment Georgetown salamander prey base). of the Edwards Aquifer. The Hydrologic regimes similar to the Georgetown Salamander (Eurycea groundwater must be similar to natural historical pattern of the specific sites naufragia) aquifer conditions both underground must be present, with at least temporal (1) Critical habitat units are depicted and as it discharges from natural spring surface flow for spring sites and for Williamson County, Texas, on the outlets. Concentrations of water quality continuous flow for subterranean sites. maps below. constituents that could have a negative The water chemistry must be similar to impact on the salamander should be natural aquifer conditions, with (2) Within these areas, the primary below levels that could exert direct temperatures between 68.4 and 69.8 °F constituent elements of the physical or lethal or sublethal effects (such as (20.2 and 21.0 °C), dissolved oxygen biological features essential to the effects to reproduction, growth, concentrations between 6 and 8 conservation of Georgetown salamander development, or metabolic processes), milligrams per liter, and specific water consist of four components: or indirect effects (such as effects to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.000 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50831

conductivity between 604 and 721 include manmade structures (such as exist through underground conduits. microsiemens per centimeter. buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, The polygons were then simplified to (ii) Rocky substrate with interstitial and other paved areas) and the land on reduce the number of vertices, but still spaces. Rocks (boulders, cobble, or which they are located existing within retain the overall shape and extent. gravel) in the substrate of the the legal boundaries on the effective Subsequently, polygons that were salamander’s surface aquatic habitat date of this rule; however, the within 98 ft (30 m) of each other were must be large enough to provide subterranean aquifer may extend below merged together. Each new merged salamanders with cover, shelter, and such structures. The subterranean polygon was then revised to remove foraging habitat. The substrate and critical habitat includes underground extraneous divits or protrusions that interstitial spaces must have minimal features in a circle with a radius of 984- resulted from the merge process. The sedimentation. ft (300-m) around the springs. maps in this entry, as modified by any (iii) Aquatic invertebrates for food. (4) Critical habitat map units. Data accompanying regulatory text, establish The spring and cave environments must layers defining map units were created the boundaries of the critical habitat using a geographic information system be capable of supporting a diverse designation. The coordinates or plot (GIS), which included species locations, aquatic invertebrate community that points or both on which each map is includes crustaceans and insects. roads, property boundaries, 2011 aerial based are available to the public at the (iv) Subterranean aquifer. During photography, and USGS 7.5′ field office Internet site (at Docket No. periods of drought or dewatering on the quadrangles. Points were placed on the FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035 and at the surface in and around spring sites, GIS. We delineated critical habitat unit access to the subsurface water table boundaries by starting with the cave or Service’s Austin Ecological Services must be provided for shelter and spring point locations that are occupied Field Office. You may obtain field office protection. by the salamanders. From these cave or location information by contacting one (3) Surface critical habitat includes springs points, we delineated a 984 ft of the Service regional offices, the the spring outlets and outflow up to the (300 m) buffer to create the polygons addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of that capture the extent to which we 2.2. downstream habitat, but does not believe the salamander populations (5) Index map follows:

(6) Unit 1: Cobb Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Unit 1 follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.001 50832 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(7) Unit 2: Cowen Creek Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Units 2 and 3 follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.002 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50833

(8) Unit 3: Bat Well Unit, Williamson (9) Unit 4: Walnut Spring County, Texas. Map of Units 2 and 3 is Unit,Williamson County, Texas. Map of provided at paragraph (7) of this entry. Units 4 and 5 follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.003 50834 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(10) Unit 5: Twin Springs Unit, Units 4 and 5 is provided at paragraph (11) Unit 6: Hogg Hollow Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of (9) of this entry. Williamson County, Texas. Map of Units 6, 7, 8, and 9 follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.004 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50835

(12) Unit 7: Cedar Hollow Spring Units 6, 7, 8, and 9 is provided at (15) Unit 10: Avant Spring Unit, Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of paragraph (11) of this entry. Williamson County, Texas. Map of Units 6, 7, 8, and 9 is provided at (14) Unit 9: Water Tank Cave Unit, Units 10, 11, 12, and 13 follows: paragraph (11) of this entry. Williamson County, Texas. Map of (13) Unit 8: Lake Georgetown Unit, Units 6, 7, 8, and 9 is provided at Williamson County, Texas. Map of paragraph (11) of this entry.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.005 50836 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(16) Unit 11: Buford Hollow Spring Units 10, 11, 12, and 13 is provided at (19) Unit 14: San Gabriel Springs Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of paragraph (15) of this entry. Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Units 10, 11, 12, 13 is provided at (18) Unit 13: Shadow Canyon Unit, Unit 14 follows: paragraph (15) of this entry. Williamson County, Texas. Map of (17) Unit 12: Swinbank Spring Unit, Units 10, 11, 12, and 13 is provided at Williamson County, Texas. Map of paragraph (15) of this entry.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.006 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50837

Jollyville Plateau Salamander (Eurycea aquifer conditions both underground must be present, with at least temporal tonkawae) and as it discharges from natural spring surface flow for spring sites and (1) Critical habitat units are depicted outlets. Concentrations of water quality continuous flow in subterranean for Travis and Williamson Counties, constituents that could have a negative habitats. The water chemistry must be Texas, on the maps below. impact on the salamander should be similar to natural aquifer conditions, below levels that could exert direct with temperatures between 65.3 and (2) Within these areas, the primary ° ° constituent elements of the physical or lethal or sublethal effects (such as 67.3 F (18.5 and 19.6 C), dissolved biological features essential to the effects to reproduction, growth, oxygen concentrations between 5.6 and conservation of Jollyville Plateau development, or metabolic processes), 7.1 milligrams per liter, and specific salamander consist of four components: or indirect effects (such as effects to the water conductance between 550 and 625 (i) Water from the Northern Segment Jollyville Plateau salamander’s prey microsiemens per centimeter. of the Edwards Aquifer. The base). Hydrologic regimes similar to the (ii) Rocky substrate with interstitial groundwater must be similar to natural historical pattern of the specific sites spaces. Rocks (boulders, cobble, or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.007 50838 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

gravel) in the substrate of the the legal boundaries on the effective retain the overall shape and extent. salamander’s surface aquatic habitat date of this rule; however, the Subsequently, polygons that were must be large enough to provide subterranean aquifer may extend below within 98 ft (30 m) of each other where salamanders with cover, shelter, and such structures. The subterranean merged together. Each new merged foraging habitat. The substrate and critical habitat includes underground polygon was then revised to remove interstitial spaces must have minimal features in a circle with a radius of 984 extraneous divits or protrusions that sedimentation. ft (300 m) around the springs. resulted from the merge process. The (iii) Aquatic invertebrates for food. (4) Critical habitat map units. Data maps in this entry, as modified by any The spring and cave environments must layers defining map units were created accompanying regulatory text, establish be capable of supporting a diverse the boundaries of the critical habitat aquatic invertebrate community that using a geographic information system (GIS), which included species locations, designation. The coordinates or plot includes crustaceans and insects. points or both on which each map is (iv) Subterranean aquifer. During roads, property boundaries, 2011 aerial photography, and USGS 7.5′ based are available to the public at the periods of drought or dewatering on the field office Internet site (http:// surface in and around spring sites, quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS. We delineated critical habitat unit www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ access to the subsurface water table AustinTexas/), http:// must be provided for shelter and boundaries by starting with the cave or www.regulations.gov at Docket No. protection. spring point locations that are occupied (3) Surface critical habitat includes by the salamanders. From these cave or FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035 and at the the spring outlets and outflow up to the springs points, we delineated a 984-ft Service’s Austin Ecological Services high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of (300-m) buffer to create the polygons Field Office. You may obtain field office downstream habitat, but does not that capture the extent to which we location information by contacting one include manmade structures (such as believe the salamander populations of the Service regional offices, the buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, exist through underground conduits. addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR and other paved areas) and the land on The polygons were then simplified to 2.2. which they are located existing within reduce the number of vertices, but still (5) Index map follows:

(6) Unit 1: Krienke Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Unit 1 follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.008 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50839

(7) Unit 2: Brushy Creek Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Unit 2 follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.009 50840 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(8) Unit 3: Testudo Tube Cave Unit, Williamson and Travis Counties, Texas. Map of Units 3, 4, and 5 follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.010 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50841

(9) Unit 4: Buttercup Creek Cave Unit, (10) Unit 5: Treehouse Cave Unit, (11) Unit 6: Avery Spring Unit, Travis and Williamson County, Texas. Williamson County, Texas. Map of Williamson County, Texas. Map of Unit Map of Units 3, 4, and 5 is provided at Units 3, 4, and 5 is provided at 6 follows: paragraph (8) of this entry. paragraph (8) of this entry.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.011 50842 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(12) Unit 7: PC Spring Unit, Williamson County, Texas. Map of Unit 7 follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.012 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50843

(13) Unit 8: Baker and Audubon Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas, Map of Unit 8 follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.013 50844 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(14) Unit 9: Wheless Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of Units 9 and 10 follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.014 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50845

(15) Unit 10: Blizzard R-Bar-B Spring Units 9 and 10 in provided at paragraph (16) Unit 11: House Spring Unit, Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of (14) of this entry. Travis County, Texas. Map of Units 11, 12, and 13 follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.015 50846 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(17) Unit 12: Kelly Hollow Spring (18) Unit 13: MacDonald Well Unit, (19) Unit 14: Kretschmarr Unit, Travis Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of Travis County, Texas. Map of Units 11, County, Texas. Map of Units 14, 15, 16, Units 11, 12, and 13 is provided at 12, and 13 is provided at paragraph (16) 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 follows: paragraph (16) of this entry. of this entry.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.016 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50847

(20) Unit 15: Pope and Hiers Spring 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 is provided at Units 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of paragraph (19) of this entry. is provided at paragraph (19) of this Units 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 (23) Unit 18: Bull Creek 2 Unit, Travis entry. County, Texas. Map of Units 14, 15, 16, is provided at paragraph (19) of this (26) Unit 21: Ivanhoe Spring Unit, entry. 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 is provided at paragraph (19) of this entry. Travis County, Texas. Map of Units 14, (21) Unit 16: Fern Gully Spring Unit, (24) Unit 19: Bull Creek 3 Unit, Travis 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 is provided Travis County, Texas. Map of Units 14, County, Texas. Map of Units 14, 15, 16, at paragraph (19) of this entry. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 is provided 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 is provided at (27) Unit 22: Sylvia Spring Unit, at paragraph (19) of this entry. paragraph (19) of this entry. Travis County, Texas. Map of Units 22, (22) Unit 17: Bull Creek 1 Unit, Travis (25) Unit 20: Moss Gulley Spring 23, 24, and 33 follows: County, Texas. Map of Units 14, 15, 16, Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.017 50848 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(28) Unit 23: Tanglewood Spring Unit, (29) Unit 24: Long Hog Hollow Unit, (30) Unit 25: Tributary 3 Unit, Travis Travis County, Texas. Map of Units 22, Travis County, Texas. Map of Units 22, County, Texas. Map of Units 25, 26, and 23, 24, and 33 is provided at paragraph 23, 24, and 33 is provided at paragraph 27 follows: (27) of this entry. (27) of this entry.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.018 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50849

(31) Unit 26: Sierra Spring Unit, (32) Unit 27: Troll Spring Unit, Travis (33) Unit 28: Stillhouse Unit, Travis Travis County, Texas. Map of Units 25, County, Texas. Map of Units 25, 26, and County, Texas. Map of Units 28, 29, 30, 26, and 27 is provided at paragraph (30) 27 is provided at paragraph (30) of this and 31 follows: of this entry. entry.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.019 50850 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

(34) Unit 29: Salamander Cave Unit, 29, 30, and 31 is provided at paragraph (37) Unit 32: Balcones District Park Travis County, Texas. Map of Units 28, (33) of this entry. Spring Unit, Travis County, Texas. Map 29, 30, 31 is provided at paragraph (33) (36) Unit 31: Spicewood Spring Unit, of Unit 32 follows: of this entry. Travis County, Texas. Map of Units 28, (35) Unit 30: Indian Spring Unit, 29, 30, and 31 is provided at paragraph Travis County, Texas. Map of Units 28, (33) of this entry.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.020 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50851

(38) Unit 33: Tributary 4 Unit, Travis biological features essential to the effects to reproduction, growth, County, Texas. Map of Units 22, 23, 24, conservation of Salado salamander development, or metabolic processes), and 33 is provided at paragraph (27) of consist of four components: or indirect effects (such as effects to the this entry. (i) Water from the Northern Segment Salado salamander’s prey base). * * * * * of the Edwards Aquifer. The Hydrologic regimes similar to the historical pattern of the specific sites Salado Salamander (Eurycea groundwater must be similar to natural must be present, with at least temporal chisholmensis) aquifer conditions both underground and as it discharges from natural spring surface flow for spring sites and (1) Critical habitat units are depicted outlets. Concentrations of water quality continuous flow for subterranean sites. for Bell County, Texas, on the maps constituents that could have a negative The water chemistry must be similar to below. impact on the salamander should be natural aquifer conditions, with (2) Within these areas, the primary below levels that could exert direct temperatures between 65.3 and 69.8 °F constituent elements of the physical or lethal or sublethal effects (such as (18.5 and 21.0 °C), dissolved oxygen

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.021 50852 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

concentrations between 5.6 and 8 include manmade structures (such as The polygons were then simplified to milligrams per liter, and conductivity buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, reduce the number of vertices, but still between 550 and 721 microsiemens per and other paved areas) and the land on retain the overall shape and extent. centimeter. which they are located existing within Subsequently, polygons that were (ii) Rocky substrate with interstitial the legal boundaries on the effective within 98 ft (30 m) of each other where spaces. Rocks (boulders, cobble, or date of this rule; however, the merged together. Each new merged gravel) in the substrate of the subterranean aquifer may extend below polygon was then revised to remove salamander’s surface aquatic habitat such structures. The subterranean extraneous divits or protrusions that must be large enough to provide critical habitat includes underground resulted from the merge process. The salamanders with cover, shelter, and features in a circle with a radius of 984 maps in this entry, as modified by any foraging habitat. The substrate and ft (300 m) around the springs. accompanying regulatory text, establish interstitial spaces must have minimal the boundaries of the critical habitat sedimentation. (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were created designation. The coordinates or plot (iii) Aquatic invertebrates for food. points or both on which each map is The spring and cave environments must using a geographic information system (GIS), which included species locations, based are available to the public at the be capable of supporting a diverse field office Internet site (http:// aquatic invertebrate community that roads, property boundaries, 2011 aerial photography, and USGS 7.5′ www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ includes crustaceans and insects. AustinTexas/), http:// (iv) Subterranean aquifer. During quadrangles. Points were placed on the www.regulations.gov at Docket No. periods of drought or dewatering on the GIS. We delineated critical habitat unit FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035 and at the surface in and around spring sites, boundaries by starting with the cave or access to the subsurface water table spring point locations that are occupied Service’s Austin Ecological Services must be provided for shelter and by the salamanders. From these cave or Field Office. You may obtain field office protection. springs points, we delineated a 984-ft location information by contacting one (3) Surface critical habitat includes (300-m) buffer to create the polygons of the Service regional offices, the the spring outlets and outflow up to the that capture the extent to which we addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR high water line and 164 ft (50 m) of believe the salamander populations 2.2. downstream habitat, but does not exist through underground conduits. (5) Index map follows:

(6) Unit 1: Hog Hollow Spring Unit, Bell County, Texas. Map of Units 1, 2, and 3 follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.022 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50853

(7) Unit 2: Solana Spring #1 Unit, Bell (8) Unit 3: Cistern Spring Unit, Bell (9) Unit 4: IH–35 Unit, Bell County, County, Texas. Map of Units 1, 2, and County, Texas. Map of Units 1, 2, and Texas. Map of Unit 4 follows: 3 is provided at paragraph (6) of this 3 is provided at paragraph (6) of this entry. entry.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.023 50854 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules

* * * * * Dated: July 31, 2012. Rachel Jacobson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 2012–19659 Filed 8–21–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:54 Aug 21, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22AUP2.SGM 22AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP22AU12.024