DOCSLIB.ORG

Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan Amended to Include the Austin Blind Salamander

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan Amended to Include the Austin Blind Salamander U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Barton Springs Salamander (Eurycea sosorum) Recovery Plan Amended to include Austin Blind Salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) September 2005 amended January 2016 BARTON SPRINGS SALAMANDER RECOVERY PLAN DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which the best available science indicates are required to recover or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act (U.S.C. 1341) or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after the plan has been signed by the Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new information, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. Please check for updates or revisions at the website below before using. Literature citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Barton Springs Salamander (Eurycea sosorum) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. Additional copies may be obtained from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Office Southwest Regional Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 500 Gold Street, SW Austin, TX 78758 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Tel. #512-490-0057 Tel. #505-248-6665 On Line: http://www.fws.gov/endangered ii BARTON SPRINGS SALAMANDER RECOVERY PLAN ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gratefully acknowledges the commitment, dedication, and efforts of the Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Team in the preparation of this recovery plan. Without their valuable expertise and assistance, this recovery plan would not have been possible. BARTON SPRINGS SALAMANDER RECOVERY TEAM Technical Subcommittee Andy Price, Biology Leader Raymond Slade, Hydrology Leader Texas Parks and Wildlife Department U.S. Geological Survey (Retired) Casey Berkhouse Mary Ambrose HNTB Corporation Texas Commission on Environmental Quality David Bowles Southwest Missouri State University Michael Barrett Center for Research in Water Resources Robert Hansen University of Texas - Austin Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. Nico Hauwert Clifton Ladd City of Austin Loomis Austin Watershed Protection and Development Review Department Lisa O’Donnell City of Austin Glenn Longley Watershed Protection and Development Texas State University – San Marcos Review Department BARTON SPRINGS SALAMANDER RECOVERY TEAM Implementation Subcommittee David Armbrust Nancy McClintock Armbrust, Brown, and Davis City of Austin Watershed Protection and Development Helen Besse Review Department Capital Environmental Services George Murfee Henry Brooks Murfee Engineering Company Rick Coneway Melanie Oberlin City of Dripping Springs Henry and Poplin iii BARTON SPRINGS SALAMANDER RECOVERY PLAN Laurie Dries John Orr City of Austin Watershed Protection and Development Jim Powers Review Department Hays County Judge Alan Glen Mike Rutherford, Jr. Smith, Robertson, Elliot, and Glen Hank Smith Mark Kirkpatrick C. Faulkner Engineering University of Texas – Austin Byron Townsend John Kuhl Travis County Ed Wendler, Jr. Sherri Kuhl Ira Yates Lower Colorado River Authority Yates Cattle Jim Dwyer Technical Consultant to the Recovery Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia Missouri Ecological Services Paige Najvar Recovery Team Liaison U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would also like to express its appreciation for the many individuals, groups, and agencies actively involved in the recovery of the Barton Springs salamander, particularly those gathering the information needed to achieve the goals of stabilizing the habitat and populations of the Barton Springs salamander. We look forward to continued collaboration with these partners to conserve this species and the ecosystem on which it depends. We would also like to acknowledge the work of Matthew Lechner, Lisa O’Donnell, and Krishna Gifford in preparing early drafts of this recovery plan during their previous roles as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service liaisons to the recovery team. iv BARTON SPRINGS SALAMANDER RECOVERY PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Species' Status: The Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum) was federally listed as an endangered species on May 30, 1997 (62 FR 23377-23392). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has assigned the salamander a recovery priority number of 2C. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. The Barton Springs salamander is also listed as endangered by the State of Texas. Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: The Barton Springs salamander has only been documented at four spring outlets (collectively known as Barton Springs) within the City of Austin’s Zilker Park in Travis County, Texas. Habitat for the Barton Springs salamander occurs in stenothermal (that is, having a narrow temperature range) springflows with substrates that are free of sediment and have various mixtures of gravel, cobble, aquatic plants, and leaf litter. The primary threats or reasons for listing the Barton Springs salamander were “the degradation of the quality and quantity of water that feeds Barton Springs” as a result of urban expansion over the watershed. The species’ restricted range makes it vulnerable to both acute and chronic groundwater contamination. The salamander is also vulnerable to catastrophic hazardous materials spills, increased water withdrawals from the Edwards Aquifer, and impacts to the surface habitat. Recovery Strategy: Comprehensive regional plans are needed to address water quality and quantity threats. A number of interested parties are working on comprehensive regional approaches to aid in the conservation of this species; however, these approaches have not been fully implemented. Because of the extremely limited range of this species, captive breeding is important as insurance against extinction while other conservation measures are being put in place. Local surface habitat management and education and outreach programs are also important components of the recovery strategy for this species. While additional actions may be necessary to ensure the recovery of the Barton Springs salamander, further study is needed to guide and refine management and assess effectiveness of the various protection efforts. See Section 2.1, Recovery Strategy for a more detailed discussion. Recovery Goal: The goal of this recovery plan is to ensure the long-term viability of the Barton Springs salamander in the wild to the point that it can be delisted. Recovery Criteria: Reclassify status from endangered to threatened: The Barton Springs salamander should be considered for reclassification when (1) the Barton Springs watershed is sufficiently protected to maintain adequate water quality (including sediment quality) and ensure the long-term survival of the Barton Springs salamander in its natural environment; (2) a plan is implemented to avoid, respond to, and remediate hazardous material spills within the Barton Springs watershed such that the risk of harm to the Barton Springs salamander is insignificant; (3) an Aquifer Management Plan is implemented to ensure adequate water quantity in the Barton v BARTON SPRINGS SALAMANDER RECOVERY PLAN Springs watershed and natural springflow at the four spring outlets that comprise Barton Springs; (4) healthy, self-sustaining natural populations of Barton Springs salamanders are maintained at the four spring sites; (5) surface management measures to remove local threats to the Barton Springs ecosystem have been implemented; and (6) captive breeding populations have been established and a contingency plan is in place to ensure the survival of the species should a catastrophic event destroy the wild population. Delisting: The Barton Springs salamander should be considered for removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) when (1) the measures listed above have been implemented and shown to be effective; (2) the Barton Springs salamander populations continue to be self-sustaining and stable; and (3) commitments are in place to maintain conservation measures and recovered status. Actions Needed: (1) Protect and, as necessary, improve water quality (including the quality of sediment) within the Barton Springs watershed. (2) Minimize catastrophic water quality threats. (3) Sustain adequate water quantity at Barton Springs. (4) Manage surface habitat at Barton Springs. (5) Maintain captive populations of Barton Spring salamanders for research and restoration purposes. (6) Develop and implement an outreach plan. (7) Monitor the current salamander populations and the results of recovery efforts. Estimated Cost (Dollars x 1000): Cost estimates reflect costs for specific actions needed to achieve Barton Springs salamander recovery. Estimates do not include costs that agencies or other entities
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Checklist and Annotated Bibliography of the Subterranean Aquatic Fauna of Texas
    A CHECKLIST AND ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE SUBTERRANEAN AQUATIC FAUNA OF TEXAS JAMES R. REDDELL and ROBERT W. MITCHELL Texas Technological College WATER RESOURCES \ CENTER Lubbock, Texas WRC 69-6 INTERNATIONAL CENTER for ARID and August 1969 SEMI-ARID LAND STUDIES A CHECKLIST AND ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE SUBTERRANEAN AQUATIC FAUNA OF TEXAS James R. Reddell and Robert W. Mitchell Department of Biology Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas INTRODUCTION In view of the ever-increasing interest in all studies relating to the water resources of Texas, we have found it timely to prepare this guide to the fauna and biological literature of our subterranean waters. The value of such a guide has already been demonstrated by Clark (1966) in his "Publications, Personnel, and Government Organizations Related to the Limnology, Aquatic Biology and Ichthyology of the Inland Waters of Texas". This publication dea ls primarily with inland surface waters, however, barely touching upon the now rather extensive literature which has accumulated on the biology of our subterranean waters. To state a n obvious fact, it is imperative that our underground waters receive the attention due them. They are one of our most important resources. Those subterranean waters for which biological data exi st are very un­ equally distributed in the state. The best known are those which are acces­ sible to collection and study via the entrances of caves. Even in cavernous regions there exist inaccessible deep aquifers which have yielded little in­ formation as yet. Biological data from the underground waters of non-cave rn­ ous areas are virtually non-existant.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    DES #12-29 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Habitat Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service June 2012 DES #12-29 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Habitat Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service June 2012 DES #12-29 Cover Sheet COVER SHEET Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Authorization of Incidental Take and Implementation of the Habitat Conservation Plan Developed by the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Type of Statement: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Responsible Official: Adam Zerrenner Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas Tel: 512-490-0057 For Information: Tanya Sommer Branch Chief U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas Tel: 512-490-0057 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received an application from the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA), San Antonio Water System, City of New Braunfels, City of San Marcos, and Texas State University for a permit to take certain federally protected species incidental to otherwise lawful activities pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addresses the potential environmental consequences that may occur if the application is approved and the HCP is implemented. The Service is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Relationships and Systematic Revision of Central Texas Hemidactyliine Plethodontid Salamanders
    HerpetologicalMonographs, 14, 2000, 1-80 ? 2000 by The Herpetologists'League, Inc. PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS AND SYSTEMATIC REVISION OF CENTRAL TEXAS HEMIDACTYLIINE PLETHODONTID SALAMANDERS PAUL T. CHIPPINDALE,15 ANDREW H. PRICE,2 JOHN J. WIENS,3 AND DAVID M. HILLIS4 'Dept. of Biology, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, U.S.A. 2Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744, U.S.A. 3Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 4400 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213-4080, U.S.A. 4Section of Integrative Biology and Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, U.S.A. ABSTRACT: Genetic variation and phylogenetic relationships of central Texas nontransforming spring and cave salamanders, genera Eurycea and Typhlomolge (Plethodontidae: Plethodontinae: Hemidactyliini), were examined using 25 allozyme loci and DNA sequence data for a maximum of 356 bp of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene. Monophyly of the central Texas hemidactyliines is well supported. High levels of divergence occur among many populations and groups of populations, and there clearly are many more species in the group than previously recognized. Many have extremely restricted distributions in isolated islands of aquatic habitat. Several major monophyletic groups were identified that correspond to geographically circumscribed areas of the Edwards Plateau region. The deepest phylogenetic split in the group occurs between populations northeast versus southwest of the Colorado River. Species that have been assigned to the genus Typhlomolge are phylogenetically nested within the central Texas Eurycea; therefore, the genus Typhlomolge is placed in the synonymy of Eurycea. Continued recognition of the species E.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Factors Potentially Affecting Eurycea Naufragia
    Report to the Williamson County Conservation Foundation Review of Research Literature Related to the Biology, Evolution, and Conservation of Georgetown Salamander, Eurycea naufragia Benjamin A. Pierce and Ashley Wall Department of Biology Southwestern University Georgetown, Texas 78626 June 22, 2011 1 The Georgetown Salamander The Georgetown salamander, Eurycea naufragia, is a spring and cave-dwelling salamander restricted to the San Gabriel River drainage of Williamson County, Texas. The species is known from only 15 sites occurring along the major tributaries of the upper San Gabriel River (South, Middle, and North forks and Berry Creek; Figure 1). At some of these sites, salamanders have not been observed in recent years and access to all sites is not available. All but two of the known sites are on privately-owned land. The entire range of the species occurs within the immediate vicinity of Georgetown, Texas, an area that is undergoing rapid urbanization (Figure 2), and nearly all known populations are at risk from urban development. The Georgetown salamander has been included as a candidate for listing as an endangered species (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001) but is not currently protected by federal or state regulation. Candidate species are given a priority listing by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which ranges from 1 to 12 and indicates the magnitude and immediacy of threats they face and their taxonomic uniqueness, with higher priority assigned to lower numbers. Largely because of the implementation of the Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 2008 reduced the listing priority number of the Georgetown salamander from 2 to 8 (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Barton Springs Salamander (Eurycea Sosorum)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Barton Springs Salamander (Eurycea sosorum) Recovery Plan September 2005 BARTON SPRINGS SALAMANDER RECOVERY PLAN DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which the best available science indicates are required to recover or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act (U.S.C. 1341) or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after the plan has been signed by the Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new information, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. Please check for updates or revisions at the website below before using. Literature citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Barton Springs Salamander (Eurycea sosorum) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. Additional copies may be obtained from: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles & Crocodilians
    STANDARD COMMON AND CURRENT SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR NORTH AMERICAN AMPHIBIANS, TURTLES, REPTILES & CROCODILIANS Sixth Edition Joseph T. Collins TraVis W. TAGGart The Center for North American Herpetology THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY www.cnah.org Joseph T. Collins, Director The Center for North American Herpetology 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 (785) 393-4757 Single copies of this publication are available gratis from The Center for North American Herpetology, 1502 Medinah Circle, Lawrence, Kansas 66047 USA; within the United States and Canada, please send a self-addressed 7x10-inch manila envelope with sufficient U.S. first class postage affixed for four ounces. Individuals outside the United States and Canada should contact CNAH via email before requesting a copy. A list of previous editions of this title is printed on the inside back cover. THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY BO A RD OF DIRE ct ORS Joseph T. Collins Suzanne L. Collins Kansas Biological Survey The Center for The University of Kansas North American Herpetology 2021 Constant Avenue 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Kelly J. Irwin James L. Knight Arkansas Game & Fish South Carolina Commission State Museum 915 East Sevier Street P. O. Box 100107 Benton, Arkansas 72015 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Walter E. Meshaka, Jr. Robert Powell Section of Zoology Department of Biology State Museum of Pennsylvania Avila University 300 North Street 11901 Wornall Road Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Kansas City, Missouri 64145 Travis W. Taggart Sternberg Museum of Natural History Fort Hays State University 3000 Sternberg Drive Hays, Kansas 67601 Front cover images of an Eastern Collared Lizard (Crotaphytus collaris) and Cajun Chorus Frog (Pseudacris fouquettei) by Suzanne L.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibian Taxon Advisory Group Regional Collection Plan
    1 Table of Contents ATAG Definition and Scope ......................................................................................................... 4 Mission Statement ........................................................................................................................... 4 Addressing the Amphibian Crisis at a Global Level ....................................................................... 5 Metamorphosis of the ATAG Regional Collection Plan ................................................................. 6 Taxa Within ATAG Purview ........................................................................................................ 6 Priority Species and Regions ........................................................................................................... 7 Priority Conservations Activities..................................................................................................... 8 Institutional Capacity of AZA Communities .............................................................................. 8 Space Needed for Amphibians ........................................................................................................ 9 Species Selection Criteria ............................................................................................................ 13 The Global Prioritization Process .................................................................................................. 13 Selection Tool: Amphibian Ark’s Prioritization Tool for Ex situ Conservation ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior FISH and WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 512490-0057 FAX 490-0974
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 512490-0057 FAX 490-0974 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico ThrOUgh:/~sistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico From: Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, Austin, Te as Subject: Biological and Conference Opinions for the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Habitat Conservation Plan - Permit TE-63663A-0 (Consultation No. 214S0-201O-F-OllO) Enclosed are the biological and conference opinions for the final Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (EARlP) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that describes actions the Applicants have proposed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects to the endangered Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana), Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis), Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), Peck's Cave amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), fountain darter (Etheostomafonticola), San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia georgei), Texas blind salamander (Typhlomolge [=EwyceaJ rathbuni), the threatened San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana), and the non-listed Texas cave diving beetle (Haideoporus texanus, also referred to as the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle), Texas troglobitic water slater (Lirceolus smithii), and Comal Springs salamander (Eurycea sp.) over a period of IS-years. We appreciate your staffs assistance throughout this consultation. If you have any questions regarding this biological opinion, please contact Tanya Sommer at SI2-490-00S7, extension 222. The biological opinion is based on the EARIP HCP dated December 2011 and the associated Enviromnental Impact Statement dated June 2012 pursuant to the National Enviromnental Policy Act of 1969; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) files; discussions with species experts; published and un-published literature on the species of concern and related impacts; and other sources of information available to the Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting Information Tables
    Mapping the Global Emergence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus Deanna H. Olson, David M. Aanensen, Kathryn L. Ronnenberg, Christopher I. Powell, Susan F. Walker, Jon Bielby, Trenton W. J. Garner, George Weaver, the Bd Mapping Group, and Matthew C. Fisher Supplemental Information Taxonomic Notes Genera were assigned to families for summarization (Table 1 in main text) and analysis (Table 2 in main text) based on the most recent available comprehensive taxonomic references (Frost et al. 2006, Frost 2008, Frost 2009, Frost 2011). We chose recent family designations to explore patterns of Bd susceptibility and occurrence because these classifications were based on both genetic and morphological data, and hence may more likely yield meaningful inference. Some North American species were assigned to genus according to Crother (2008), and dendrobatid frogs were assigned to family and genus based on Grant et al. (2006). Eleutherodactylid frogs were assigned to family and genus based on Hedges et al. (2008); centrolenid frogs based on Cisneros-Heredia et al. (2007). For the eleutherodactylid frogs of Central and South America and the Caribbean, older sources count them among the Leptodactylidae, whereas Frost et al. (2006) put them in the family Brachycephalidae. More recent work (Heinicke et al. 2007) suggests that most of the genera that were once “Eleutherodactylus” (including those species currently assigned to the genera Eleutherodactylus, Craugastor, Euhyas, Phrynopus, and Pristimantis and assorted others), may belong in a separate, or even several different new families. Subsequent work (Hedges et al. 2008) has divided them among three families, the Craugastoridae, the Eleutherodactylidae, and the Strabomantidae, which were used in our classification.
    [Show full text]
  • San Marcos Salamander Critical Habitat Was Designated July 14, 1980
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 (512) 490-0057 JAN 11 2008 Consultation No. 21450-2007-F-0056 Mark. A. Pohlmeier, Colonel Department of the Air Force HQ AETC/A7C 266 F Street West Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4319 Dear Colonel Pohlmeier: This is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the effects of ongoing Edwards aquifer (Balcones Fault Zone) well withdrawals by the Department of Defense (DoD) on listed threatened and endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act). The groundwater withdrawals support the existing and future missions at the following Department of Defense (DoD) military installations in Bexar County, Texas: (1) Fort Sam Houston, (2) Lackland Air Force Base (AFB), and (3) Randolph AFB (Figure 1). Species evaluated for effects are the following: (1) Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana), (2) Peck’s cave amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), (3) Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis), (4) Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), (5) San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia georgei), (6) fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola), (7) San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana), and (8) Texas blind salamander (Eurycea rathbuni). We evaluated effects to designated critical habitat of the following species: Texas wild-rice, fountain darter, San Marcos gambusia, San Marcos salamander, Peck’s cave amphipod, Comal Springs dryopid beetle, and Comal Springs riffle beetle. Brooks City-Base also uses water from the Edwards aquifer. However, DoD did not want to include it in this consultation.
    [Show full text]
  • SERDP Project ER18-1653
    FINAL REPORT Approach for Assessing PFAS Risk to Threatened and Endangered Species SERDP Project ER18-1653 MARCH 2020 Craig Divine, Ph.D. Jean Zodrow, Ph.D. Meredith Frenchmeyer Katie Dally Erin Osborn, Ph.D. Paul Anderson, Ph.D. Arcadis US Inc. Distribution Statement A Page Intentionally Left Blank This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. Page Intentionally Left Blank Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
    [Show full text]
  • Southeast Priority Species (RSGCN): Amphibians
    Southeast Priority Species (RSGCN): Amphibians Updated as of February 3, 2021 The following amphibian species were identified as Regional Species of Greatest Conservation Need (RSGCN) through a collaborative assessment process carried out by the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (SEAFWA) Wildlife Diversity Committee. “Regional Stewardship Responsibility" refers to the portion of a species' range in the Southeast relative to North America as a whole. Additional details of this assessment can be found at: http://secassoutheast.org/2019/09/30/Priorities-for-Conservation-in-Southeastern-States.html Very High Concern Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Southeast State Range Regional Stewardship Status* Responsibility Eurycea waterlooensis Austin blind salamander LE TX SEAFWA Endemic Eurycea sosorum Barton Springs Salamander LE TX SEAFWA Endemic Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Berry Cave Salamander TN SEAFWA Endemic Necturus alabamensis Black Warrior Waterdog LE AL SEAFWA Endemic Eurycea robusta Blanco blind Salamander TX SEAFWA Endemic Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods Salamander (Frosted) LT FL GA SC SEAFWA Endemic Lithobates okaloosae Florida Bog Frog At-risk FL SEAFWA Endemic Plethodon fourchensis Fourche Mountain Salamander AL AR SEAFWA Endemic Eurycea naufragia Georgetown Salamander LT TX SEAFWA Endemic Lithobates capito Gopher Frog At-risk AL FL GA MS NC SC TN 75-100% of Range Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender (including Eastern AL AR GA KY MO MS NC TN VA WV 50-75% of Range (including alleganiensis and and Ozark)
    [Show full text]