United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 512 490-0057 FAX 490-0974

MAY - 2 2017 Stephen L. Brooks Chief, Regulatory Division Department of the Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 17300 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion (Opinion) and conference opinion on the Corps of Engineers' (Corps) issuance of Clean Water Act section 404 authorizations for stream crossings associated with the proposed Village of Salado (Village) Wastewater Improvement Project located in Salado, Bell County, Texas, and its effects on the federally listed Salado salamander (Ewycea chisholmensis) and its proposed critical habitat in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your March 9, 2017, request for formal consultation was received on March 13, 2017.

It is our understanding, from the biological assessment and your March 22, 2017, email correspondence, that you have determined the project will have no effect on the Least Tern, Piping plover, and Red Knot as these species were only to be considered for wind energy projects. In addition, you have also determined that the black capped vireo and the golden­ cheeked warbler will not be affected by the proposed activities as habitat for these species does not occur in the project area. Finally, we understand you have determined the project may affect, but will not likely adversely affect the whooping crane as it is unlikely to stopover in the project area. We concur with these determinations and the whooping crane will not be carried forward for further analysis in this opinion.

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the March 8, 2107 biological assessment, April 6, 2017, and April 21, 2017, emails from the Village of Salado and information in our files. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at this office.

Consultation History

On November 16, 2015, consultants for the Village requested a list of threatened and endangered species from the Service to be considered for potential effects with respect to impacts from their 2 proposed project. This was provided through the Service's Information for Planning and Conservation online tool. This list was updated again February 3, 2017.

In a May 26, 2016, email, the Corps of Engineers notified the Service that they were evaluating a project for the Village under Nationwide Permit 12 for utility lines (Project Number: SWF-2015- 00517). The Corps requested technical assistance regarding the potential for this project to impact Salado salamanders and their proposed critical habitat. At that time, the Corps was potentially taking jurisdiction over seven stream crossings and the Village was proposing to bore under Salado Creek which would not require Corps approval. As an attachment to the email, the Corps also provided an April 21 , 2016, preliminary waters of the United States (WOTUS) determination from Terracon Consultants, Inc. showing the seven stream crossings determined to fall within the Corps jurisdiction.

In a June 15, 2016, email, after a telephone conversation with the Corps, the Service provided additional information regarding what information would be necessary to evaluate possible effects to listed species.

On September 6, 2016, the Corps provided preliminary information to the Service assembled by the project's consultant regarding potential impacts to listed species and proposed critical habitat, the project locations and potential impacts to WOTUS.

On September 27, 2016, the Corps, the Service, the Village and KPA Engineering met to discuss preliminary issues regarding conducting section 7 consultation between the Corps and the Service.

In a November 8, 2016, meeting with the Village, the Corps and the Service, the Village introduced Zara Environmental, LLC as the consultants who would be writing the biological assessment for the proposed project.

In a December 15, 2016, email, Zara provided the Service information regarding a preliminary action area for the proposed project and its interrelated and interdependent affects.

On January 4, 2017, the applicant and their consultants, the Service, and the Corps, as well as representatives from Senator Cornyn's and Congressman Carter's offices, met to discuss information that the consultants would need to gather to complete a biological assessment for the project.

The Service received a draft biological assessment on March 2, 2017, and the final version on March 10, 2017. This was followed by a request for formal consultation from the Corps which arrived March 13, 2017. By our letter dated April 7, 2017, the Service acknowledged that Corps had initiated consultation according to 50CFR402.14( c ).

The Village of Salado provided a brief description of O&M measures they expect to implement after construction of the WWTP is complete and guidelines they plan to follow in April 6, 2017, and April 21, 2017, emails. 3

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

I. Description of Proposed Action

Project Description

The Village of Salado has requested authorization from the Corps under Nationwide Permit 12 for l O water crossings as a part of their project to improve and expand their current wastewater facilities (see Figure 1). These crossings would occur during Phase I and II of a three phase project. Phase I includes the installation of wastewater pipelines and two lift stations to serve existing businesses and homes in downtown Salado and to extend service along Royal Street for future development. Phase II involves the construction of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and the decommissioning of the existing Stagecoach WWTP. Phase I and II would occur simultaneously and have already received funding. Phase III would include the decommissioning of existing private septic tanks and has not yet received funding.

Phase I of the project would include installing approximately 22,133 linear feet of 6-15 inch gravity sewer pipelines and low pressure pipelines via open cut trench excavation with concrete encasement, including approximately 20,059 linear feet within the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and 2,430 linear feet within the I 00-year floodplain of Salado Creek. Trenches would be approximately three to four feet wide and range between four and 18 feet deep. A temporary work area of approximately three to four feet on either side of the trenches would be required for equipment and construction access. Excavation would be either done with a backhoe or a chain­ saw trencher to excavate bedrock. All excess materials will be loaded in dump trucks and removed to a long term spoils storage area located in a field south of the private access road on the Sanctuary property.

Approximately 152 linear feet of the open cut installation will be conducted within four ephemeral tributaries to Salado Creek including Campbell Branch (four locations), an unnamed tributary to Salado Creek (two locations), another unnamed tributary to Salado Creek (two locations) and Smith Branch Creek (one location). At each proposed crossing, the pipelines would be installed by open cut concrete encasement between the ordinary high watermark (OHWM), a minjmum of two feet below the surface.

For the Salado Creek crossing, the pipeline would be installed via open cut concrete encasement capped with a concrete cap approximately 10 inches thick below the OHWM. Layers of 0.5-3 inch rock would be added to the base and top of the trench to maintain and facilitate potential mesocavernous flow paths that may be encountered during excavation. The width of the proposed trench in this area would be approximately three feet and the depth would be 12.5 feet at the northern bank sloping up to approximately six feet at the southern bank.

If construction in Salado Creek cannot be conducted in the dry, flow would be diverted around the area under construction using coffer dams to divert water flow away from construction areas until the concrete was sufficiently set. The construction would be conducted on one-half of the creek at a time to avoid having to pump water around the construction area. 4

An additional 750 linear feet of 10-15 inch of pipeline would be installed via trenchless excavation (horizontal boring) with steel encasement under existing pavement at the main lanes and access road of IH-35, No1th Main Street at the intersection of Salado Plaza Drive, South Main Street at Royal Street, and Royal Street at the intersection with Center Circle. All boring locations are within the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and the boring under South Main Street would occur within proposed critical habitat. All borings would have a 30 x 15 foot bore pit and a IO x 10 foot receiving pit with varying depths ranging from seven to 12 feet deep. Bedrock is expected to be encountered while excavating all proposed horizontal borings and pits with the exception of the two locations on North Main Street. Bore and receiving pits would be excavated using backhoes and dump trucks and then lined with 0.32 inch polyethylene sheeting to prevent contamination from possible machinery leakage. Once the pits are constructed, a horizontal boring machine would drill a 20-24 inch diameter hole below each of the roads. A steel encasement would be jacked into the hole and then the gravity sewer pipelines and/or low pressure pipelines would be installed through the encasement.

Two lift stations would be also be installed as a part of Phase I. One would be installed on Church Street, approximately 400 feet south of Blacksmith Road and the other would be installed on Royal Street, approximately 475 feet east of South Main Street. Both lift stations would be located within the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone. The Royal Street Lift station would be located in the Salado Creek 100-year floodplain and within proposed critical habitat. Each lift station would consist of an eight foot diameter fiberglass wet well approximately 24 feet deep, two incoming gravity sewer lines and two outgoing pressw:-e mains. It is expected that bedrock would be encountered approximately two feet below the sw:-face during excavation at the Church Street and approximately six feet below the surface at the Royal Street Lift station.

Phase II of the proposed project would include the construction of a WWTP within the Sanctuary Property in the southeastern portion of the Project Area to treat wastewater inflows from the proposed pipelines. The proposed WWTP is designed to treat 0.200 - 0.300 million gallons per day (MGD) of sewage; however, the cun-ently proposed construction is an interim phase that would treat up to 0.200 MGD and is expected to be sufficient for 7-10 years. The proposed WWTP site would be constructed on an approximately six-acre parcel and would consist of an influent lift station, headworks, five treatment units, two blower units, a filter, two fiberglass buildings, a sludge trailer storage pad, an effluent aeration and metering structure, a metal office and storage building, piping connecting various treatment units and for filter overflow, and a discharge pipeline and outfall structure with rock rip rap.

Excavation would be required to construct the influent lift station and the treatment unit. The influent lift station would be 12 x 14 feet and would require excavation approximately 24 feet into bedrock. The 40.5 x 9-foot effluent aeration and metering structure would require approximately five to seven feet of excavation into bedrock. The foundations for the blower units, filter, chlorination building and sludge trailer storage pad would cover approximately 0.15 acres and require less than one foot of excavation into bedrock while the metal office and storage building would require two to three feet of excavation in a 53 x 30-foot area. Installation of piping connecting the various treatment units and for filter overflow would require 3-foot trenches approximately two to six feet deep. 5

The proposed l 5-inch PVC outfall pipeline would be approximately 133 linear feet long and discharge between 0.2-0.3 MGD of treated effluent into the 100-year floodplain of Smith Branch approximately 40 feet east of the Smith Branch OHWM. Construction of the outfall pipeline would require excavating trenches approximately three feet wide with depths into bedrock of approximately two to three feet. The area between the end of the discharge pipeline and the OHWM of Smith Branch would be graded approximately eight feet underground or approximately seven feet into the bedrock. The treated effluent would flow over a 20 x 12-foot rock rip rap sloped end treatment prior to entering the creek. The banks and OHWM of Smith Branch would not be modified by the installation of the outfall pipeline. In addition, removed vegetation and brush from construction of the WWTP and outfall pipeline would be mulched on site and stored outside the 100-year floodplain of Smith Branch.

The current Stage Coach WWTP would be decommissioned and abandoned in place once the proposed wastewater pipelines and WWTP are constructed and operational. All above ground units and mechanical equipment would be removed; however, the existing foundations would not be disturbed unless removal can be accomplished with less than one foot of excavation. The exception to this would be if an existing structure conflicts with the proposed project construction then the existing structure would be demolished and removed completely. The current discharge pipeline into Salado Creek would be capped at the WWTP and abandoned in place.

During Phase III of the proposed project, current septic systems would be decommissioned and abandoned in place at an undetermined date after the proposed wastewater pipelines and WWTP are constructed and operational. During the decommissioning process, remaining sewage would be pumped from each structure and holes placed in the top and bottom to ensure they do not hold runoff The cavities would then be completely filled with sand to match existing grade and the bedding would be graded.

Construction Timeline

Construction of the wastewater pipelines and WWTP are planned to be conducted concurrently. The pipelines are expected to take no more than 11 months and the WWTP is expected to take approximately 12 months. Construction is expected to begin as soon as the appropriate permits have been received. Each lift station will take approximately five days to construct and each creek crossing is expected to take approximately two to three days with the exception of Salado Creek. The crossing at Salado Creek is anticipated to take approximately eight days with construction within the proposed critical habitat unit lasting two to three months.

The proposed decommissioning of the Stagecoach WWTP would occur once the wastewater pipelines and WWTP are constructed and operational. The proposed decommissioning of the exjsting septic tarucs has yet to be funded and no timeline has been established

Operations and Maintenance

The proposed wastewater gravity pipelines would be tested for deflection per Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) regulations prior to being put into service (TCEQ 2015). 6

Manholes would be vacuum-tested and installed with water tight covers when located within the Salado Creek 100-year floodplain. All wastewater force mains would be pressure tested per TCEQ regulations before pipelines become active.

In addition, the applicant has provided the following items to be included in the Village's future operation and maintenance plan:

• The Village will not allow any future service connections to the wastewater gravity pipelines that are within the OHWM at all creek crossings.

• The project plans include the installation of 6" detectable tape 12" above all buried wastewater collection and force main pipelines as a measure to protect the pipelines from potential damage that could be caused by future unrelated excavations.

• Wastewater manholes that contain drop connections and manholes that receive pumped flow from force mains will have a 100% Solids Epoxy Coating applied to the interior to protect from hydrogen sulfide gas corrosion which exists under the conditions experienced at these types of manholes.

• The flow rates from lift stations within the wastewater collection system will be metered and transmitted via the project SCADA System which will allow for monitoring of irregular flows which would be caused by a pipeline leak in the system. These meters and the SCADA System are included in the project plans.

• Village Maintenance Staff will periodically field inspect above ground conditions along the pipeline alignments to confirm no leaks in the system. Furthennore, manholes which receive pumped flow from force mains will be periodically inspected to ensure flow is being conveyed during pump run times.

• Any pipelines constructed within TCEQ's designated Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone wi ll be visually inspected in accordance with TCEQ Chapter 213 -Subchapter A Requirements.

• Future service connections will be visually inspected by Village Maintenance Staff to ensure the work complies with all TCEQ Requirements.

• The Village of Salado will adopt an Ordinance detailing the requirements of future service connections as an additional means of ensuring the wastewater system integrity. 7

Conservation measures

The proposed waste water pipeline construction across Salado Creek was initially designed for trenchless installation via horizontal boring. Due to the length and diameter of the proposed pipeline, the applicant decided to install the pipeline using open cut trenching so potential impacts to groundwater flow paths and severed aquifer conduits could be assessed and repaired. Layers of 0.5 - 3 inch rock would also be added to the base and top of the trench to maintain and facilitate potential mesocavernous flow paths.

A void mitigation plan would be in place prior to any construction activities and environmental monitors will be on-site during construction. All proposed excavations within the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone would comply with the TCEQ measures for the Protection of Water Quality in the Edwards Aquifer (RG-348A, TCEQ 2007) to maintain hydraulic connectivity in the event that a groundwater flow path is severed or encountered during open trenching or bore pit excavation. During the period where excavation will occur within the proposed critical habitat unit, springflow at the Salado Springs Complex would be monitored by a Service pennitted biologist and post construction monitoring of springflow would occur within 30 days of project completion. In addition, during trench excavation within and along the banks of Salado Creek, a scientist holding a valid U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Permit for Salado salamanders would be present to identify when karst conduits or voids have been breached that may provide habitat or passage for aquifer-dependent species. The scientist would work with the contractor to design artificial passages to restore karst connectivity using PVC or concrete conduits.

Larger diameter (>3 inches diameter at breast height) vegetation removed during construction activities would be replanted where possible. Trees not removed during construction would be protected from damage due to mechanical injuries or harm from equipment exhaust. Revegetation within the stream banks and critical habitat areas will be accomplished in a manner to minimize runoff into Salado Creek or other tributaries. Removed vegetation and brush from the construction of the proposed WWTP would be disposed of outside of the Northern Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and 100- year floodplain of Smith Branch. In addition, pesticide and herbicide use would be prohibited within the proposed critical habitat.

All equipment would be pre-fabricated away from the project areas and moved to each proposed staging area when required. Construction would cease and any unnecessary vehicles and material would be removed from proposed critical habitat or 100-year flood plain areas when heavy rainfall events occur. Personal vehicles other than required work trucks would not be allowed in proposed critical habitat or 100-year floodplain areas and vehicles and other equipment would be inspected for leaks daily. Spills would be remediated immediately. Long­ term spoils storage would not occur with the proposed critical habitat, 100-year :floodplain areas, or the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone. Temporary Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water control measures such as silt fences and rock berms would be used to reduce potential impacts from contamination to Salado Creek, its tributaries and the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone. In addition, because proposed horizontal borings would occur withjn the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, all bore and receiving pits would be sealed with 0.32 inch polyethylene sheeting to prevent contaminants from possible machinery leakage. 8

Action Area

Due to construction related disturbance, noise and vibrations, and the potential for silt and contaminants to be released into the surface and subsurface waters, the Service considers the action area for the proposed project to be the surface water and ground water areas within 900 feet of where the pipelines, lift stations and wastewater treatment plant will be constructed and those areas down gradient of the construction zones within the Northern Edwards recharge zone or downstream in Salado Creek and its tributaries as far as the East Amity Road Crossing of Salado Creek.

Il. Status of the Species/Critical Habitat

On February 24, 2014, the Service published its Final Rule to list the Salado salamander as a threatened species (79 FR 10236). Critical habitat for the Salado salamander was proposed on August 22, 2012, but has yet to be finalized (77 FR 50768).

a. Species/critical habitat description

The Salado salamander is an aquatic, neotenic (does not transform into a terrestrial form) amphibian within the family Plethodontidae. This family comprises the largest family of salamanders within the Order Caudata, and is characterized by an absence oflungs (Petranka 1998, pp. 157-158). Neotenic salamanders retain external feathery gills and inhabit aquatic habitats (springs, spring-runs, wet caves, and groundwater) throughout their lives (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 1). In other words, the Salado salamander is aquatic and respires through gills and permeable skin (Duellman and Trueb 1986, p. 217). Adult salamanders of this species are about 2 inches long (Chippindale et al. 2000, pp. 32-42; Hillis et al. 2001, p. 268).

The Salado salamander has reduced eyes compared to other spring-dwelling Eurycea species in north-central Texas and lacks well-defined melanophores (pigment containing cells). It has a relatively long and flat head, and a blunt and rounded snout. The upper body is generally grayish-brown with a slight cinnamon tinge and an irregular pattern of tiny, light flecks. The underside is pale and translucent. The posterior portion of the tail generally has a well-developed dorsal fin, but the ventral tail fin is weakly developed (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 42).

Proposed critical habitat for this species consists of four essential physical and biological features: ( l) water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, (2) rocky substrate with interstitial spaces, (3) aquatic invertebrates for food, and ( 4) subterranean aquifer for shelter and protection during periods of drought or dewatering on the surface in and around spring sites. Proposed critical habitat includes both surface and subsurface habitats. The proposed surface critical habitat would include the spring outlets and the spring run extending 50 meters downstream. Generally, the proposed subsurface critical habitat would include the groundwater and water-filled conduits of the Edwards Aquifer within 300 meters of the spring (or water-filled) cave. 9

Four critical habitat units were proposed for the Salado salamander. Units one through three occur upstream of the proposed project area and surround Cistern Spring, Hog Hollow Spring, and Solana Spring. Each of these units encompasses a circular area of approximately 69 acres centered on each spring opening. The fourth unit encompasses Robertson Springs and the Salado Springs Complex and is about 168 acres in size. Possible threats to these physical or biological features include water quality degradation from contaminants, alteration to natural flow regimes, and physical habitat modification (Service 2012). b. Life history

The Salado salamander relies on the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer as the primary supply of water for its habitat (Cole J 995, p. 33). Water is provided by infiltration of surface water through the soil and stream beds into the aquifer which discharges from springs as groundwater (Schram 1995, p. 91). The Salado salamander occurs where water emerges from the ground as a spring-fed stream, and depends on this water in sufficient quantity and quality to meet its life requirements for survival, growth, and reproduction.

Within the spring ecosystem, Salado salamander proximity to the springhead is important because of the appropriate stable water chemistry and temperature, substrate, and flow regime. Eurycea salamanders are rarely found more than 66 feet from a spring source (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2011 , p. 3). However, Jollyville Plateau salamanders, a closely related species, have been found farther from a spring opening in the Bull Creek drainage. A recent study using mark-recapture methods found marked individuals moved up to 262 feet both upstream and downstream from the Lanier Spring outlet (Bendik 2013, pers. comm.). This study demonstrates that Eurycea salamanders in central Texas can travel greater distances from a discrete spring opening than previously thought, including upstream areas, if suitable habitat is present.

Salado salamanders are also thought to use the underground aquifer for habitat in times of drought when surface habitat is no longer available or suitable (TPWD 201 l, p. 3), similar to other closely related Eurycea species (Bendik 201 la, p. 31). We assume that these salamanders also use subsurface areas to some extent during normal flow conditions. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify springs, associated streams, and underground spaces within the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer to be the primary space essential for individual and population growth and for normal behavior.

Salado salamanders have been observed under cover objects, such as rocks (Gluesenkamp 2011 a, TPWD, pers. comm.). Although no study has demonstrated the substrate preference of the Salado salan1ander, we assume that this species prefers large rocks over other cover objects, similar to other closely related Eurycea salamanders. Larger rocks provide more suitable interstitial spaces for foraging and cover. 10

Eurycea salamanders are known to move an unknown depth into the interstitial spaces (empty voids between rocks) within the substrate, using these spaces for foraging habitat and cover from predators (Cole 1995, p. 24; Pierce and Wall 2011 , pp. 16-17). These spaces should have minimal sediment, as sediment fills interstitial spaces, eliminating resting places and also reducing habitat of the prey base (small aquatic invertebrates) (O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34). Because of its similarity to other Eurycea salamanders in central Texas, we assume that the Salado salamander spends some proportion of its life below the swface between rocks.

No species-specific dietary study has been completed, but the diet of the Salado salamander is presumed to be similar to other Eurycea species, consisting of small aquatic invertebrates such as amphipods, copepods, isopods, and insect larvae (reviewed in COA 2001, pp. 5-6). In addition, flatworms were found to be the primary food source for the related Barton Springs salamander (Gillespie 2013, p. 5), suggesting that flatworms may also contribute to the diet of the Salado salamander if present in the invertebrate community.

These salamanders, and the prey that they feed on, require water sourced from the Edwards Aquifer at sufficient flows ( quantity) to meet all of their physiological requirements. This water should be flowing and unchanged in chemistry, temperature, and volume from natural conditions. Concentrations of contaminants should be below levels that could exert direct lethal or sublethal effects (such as effects to reproduction, growth, development, or metabolic processes), or indirect effects (such as effects to the Salado salamander's prey base).

Little is known about the reproductive habits of this species in the wild. However, the Salado salamander is fully aquatic, and therefore spends all of its life cycles in aquifer and spring waters. Eggs of central Texas Eurycea species are rarely seen on the surface, so it is widely assumed that eggs are laid underground (Gluesenkamp 201 la, TPWD, pers. comm.; Bendik 201 lb, COA, pers. comm.). c. Population dynamics

There is a limited amount of data on Salado salamander populations and how these populations respond to stressors. There are no population estimates for any of known Salado salamander populations, and salamanders are very rarely seen. In addition, no studies have used controlled experiments to understand how environmental changes might affect Salado salamander individuals. d. Status and distribution

Distribution

When first described, the Salado salamander was known only from two locations, Big Boiling(= Main, Salado, or Siren) Springs and Robertson Springs at Salado, Bell County, Texas (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 43). In response to a request for infonnation from the 11

Service, TPWD (2011) provided additional locality data that included four histo1ical localities (Big Boiling Spring, Lazy Days Fish Fann Spring [ also known as Elm Spring and Critchfield Spring], Lil' Bubbly Spring [also known as Little Bubbly Spring], and Robertson Springs) and provided an additional three springs farther upstream within the Salado Creek watershed where the salamander was discovered in 2009 and 2010. The three additional springs were Cistern Sp1ing, Hog Hollow Spring, and Solana Spring #1 (TPWD 2011 ). These seven localities were carried forward into the final rule to list the Salado salamander as a threatened species (Service 2014).

Anderson and Benedict Springs, downstream of Big Boiling Spring, have also been surveyed by TPWD periodically since June, 2009 (Gluesenkamp 2010, pers. comm.) with no salamanders detected. Surveys by the Service in 2015 and 20 I 6 found a single Salado salamander at Anderson Spring (Service 2015, p. 8).

All of these springs bubble up through faults in the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer and associated limestone along Salado Creek (Brune 1975, p. 31). Water from each of these spring sites all contribute to flow in Salado Creek. Under Brune's (1975, p. 5) definition, which identifies springs depending on flow, all sites are considered small (4.5 to 45 gallons per minute) to medium springs (45 to 449 gallons per minute).

In 2015, Hillis et al. conducted phylogenetic analyses of all known described and undescribed neotenic Eurycea species in central Texas. The genetic research completed as part of the study indicates that several Eurycea populations in Williamson County, Texas, previously considered to be those of the Georgetown salamander are Salado salamanders (Hillis et al. 2015, p. 1 I). This research extends the known range of the Salado salamander from Bell County to the southwest into Williamson County, with the following sites assigned to the Salado salamander rather than the Georgetown salamander: Bat Well Cave, Cobb Spring, Cowan Creek Spring, Taylor Ray Hollow Spring, and Twin Springs. Walnut Spring was not sampled by Hillis et al. (2015), but given that site's proximity to Twin Springs, salamanders from Walnut Springs should be treated as Salado salamanders.

Of the three Eurycea species found in Bell and Williamson Counties, Salado salamanders have been observed the least and are therefore less understood. An occupancy model produced for Big Boiling Spring suggests that salamanders are present within the spring, but very difficult to detect (Service 2015). Biologists were unable to observe this species in its type locality (location from which a specimen was first collected and identified as a species) despite over 20 visits to Big Boiling Springs that occurred between 1991 and 1998 (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 43). The Service, however, was able to collect two salamanders at this site in 2015 (Service 2015, p. 7). Likewise, TPWD surveyed the Salado Springs Complex weekly from June 2009 until May 2010, and found one salamander (Gluesenkamp 2010, pers. comm.) at Lil' Bubbly Spring. One additional unconfinned sighting of a Salado salamander in Big Boiling Springs was reported in 2008, by a citizen of Salado, Texas. In 2009, TPWD was granted access to Robertson Springs to survey for the Salado salamander. This species was reconfirmed at this location in February 2010 (Gluesenkamp 2010, pers. comm.). Three Salado salamanders 12 were also collected by the Service at Robertson Springs in 2015 (Service 2015, p. 9), and an additional 27 were collected during 2016 surveys (Service 2016, p. 9). During the 2016 surveys, the Service also mapped a total of 31 spring openings in this area. In general, it appears that Salado salamander populations are larger at spring sites upstream of the Village of Salado, probably due to the higher quality of the habitat (Gluesenkamp 2011 c, pers. comm.).

Reasons for Listing

1. Habitat Modification Habitat modification, in the fo1m of degraded water quality and quantity and disturbance of spring sites, is the primary threat to the Salado salamander. Water quality degradation in salamander habitat has been cited in several studies as the top concern for closely related salamander species in the central Texas region (Chippindale et al. 2000, pp. 36, 40, 43; Hillis et al. 2001 , p. 267; Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 118-119; O'Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 45- 50). Salado salamanders spend their entire life cycle in water. They have evolved under natural aquifer conditions both underground and as the water discharges from natural spring outlets. Deviations from high water quality and quantity have detrimental effects on salamander ecology because the aquatic habitat can be rendered unsuitable for salamanders by changes in water chemistry and flow patterns. Substrate modification is also a major concern for aquatic salamander species (City of Austin (COA) 2001, pp. 101, 126; Geismar 2005, p. 2; O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34).

Unobstructed interstitial space is a critical component to the surface habitat for the Salado salamander, as it provides cover from predators and habitat for their macroinvertebrate prey items within surface sites. When the interstitial spaces become compacted or filled with fine sediment, the amount of available foraging habitat and protective cover for salamanders with these behaviors is reduced, resulting in population declines (Welsh and Ollivier I 998, p. 1,128; Geismar 2005, p. 2; O 'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34).

Threats to the habitat of the Salado salamander (including those that affect water quality, water quantity, or the physical habitat) may affect only the surface habitat, only the subsurface habitat, or both habitat types. For example, substrate modification degrades the surface springs and spring-runs but does not impact the subsurface environment within the aquifer, while water quality degradation can impact both the surface and subsurface habitats, depending on whether the degrading elements are moving through groundwater or are running off the ground surface into a spring area (surface watershed).

Water Quality Degradation: Urbanization Urbanization is one of the most significant sources of water quality degradation and can reduce the survival of aquatic organisms, such as the Salado salamander (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 119; Chippindale and Price 2005, pp. 196-197). Urban development leads to various stressors on spring systems, including increased frequency and magnitude of high flows in streams, increased sedimentation, increased contamination and toxicity, and changes in stream morphology and water chemistry (Coles et al. 2012, pp. 1-3, 24, 38, 50-51 ). Urbanization can also impact aquatic species by negatively affecting their 13 invertebrate prey base (Coles et al. 2012, p. 4). Urbanization also increases the sources and risks of an acute or catastrophic contamination event, such as a leak from an underground storage tank or a hazardous materials spill on a highway.

Rapid human population growth is occurring within the range of the Salado salamander. Growing human population sizes increase demand for residential and commercial development, drinking water supply, flood control, and other municipal foods and services that alter the environment, often degrading salamander habitat by changing hydrologic regimes and decreasing the quantity and quality of water resources (Coles et al. 2012, pp. 9-10). As development increases within the watersheds where Salado salamanders occur, more opportunities exist for the detrimental effects of urbanization to impact salamander habitat without further conservation measures. A comprehensive study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found that across the United States contaminants, habitat destruction, and increasing stream flow flashiness (rapid response oflarge increases of stream flow to storm events) resulting from urban development have been associated with the disruption of biological communities, particularly the loss of sensitive aquatic species (Coles et al. 2012, p. l).

The Service reviewed and analyzed the published effects of impervious cover in its February 24, 2014, Final Rule (Final Rule) to list the Salado salamander as a threatened species (79 FR 10236). While the effects of an increase in impervious cover for a given site depend on local conditions, the observed trend is a degradation of aquatic habitats that increases with greater levels of impervious cover. In the Final Rule, we also describe the contaminants expected to be found in urban runoff and as a result ofland applications of pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals. Residential subdivisions in central Texas often include lawn irrigation systems that may overwater the turfgrass and ornamental gardens. Irrigation systems may leak creating a means of mobilizing chemicals used in lawn applications. In addition to suspended solids, nutrients (p1imarily nitrogen and phosphorous compounds), trace metals (e.g., lead, copper, and zinc), pesticides (includes herbicides), and coliform bacteria are transported by runoff. Runoff with these contaminants may result in a decrease in invertebrates including part of the salamander's prey base. Polluted runoff may also directly affect salamander health, growth, reproduction, and potentially survival.

Vulnerability of Groundwater to Pollution Alley et al. (1999) stated "in principle, vi1tually any human activity at and near the land surface can be a source of contaminants to ground water as long as water and possibly other fluids move from the land surface to the water table." The first step and challenge to protecting ground water quality and quantity in Bell and Williamson counties is to know which areas contribute groundwater recharge to the subject springs and caves. Unfortunately, in springs and caves with karst aquifers as a source, a significant difficulty is identifying the recharge zone, which may or may not coincide with the surface watershed. The recharge zone for a subject spring, referred to here as the springshed, may conform or overlap with the surface watershed in part or in whole. However, while karst groundwater flows downgradient, the flow paths do not necessarily conform to surface topography and groundwater may flow under topographic highs (B. Mahler, 14

USGS, pers. comm., 2013). Groundwater dye tracing is considered the primary means of delineating the springshed and recharge features.

The USGS considered multiple methods of assessing the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination in the San Antonio, Texas, area (Clark 2000, Clark 2003). These reports analyzed natural aspects related to soils, hydraulic properties of outcropping hydro geologic units, presence or absence of caves, sinkholes and closed depressions, and slope of land surface. While depth to water was not used in the USGS vulnerability rating, depth to water is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's DRASTIC method (Aller et al. 1987) to evaluate groundwater pollution potential. In short, areas of the Edwards aquifer recharge zone with caves are rated relatively high for vulnerability to contamination. Additionally, abandoned wells may become conduits for groundwater pollution. Musgrove et al. (2011) identified the following anthropogenic sources that may affect groundwater quality: (1) septic systems, (2) leakage from municipal water and wastewater systems, (3) industrial, commercial, or residential use of fertilizers, pesticides, and volatile organic compounds.

The Edwards Aquifer recharge zone in Bell and Williamson counties is at risk from hazardous material that may be spilled or leaked potentially contaminating surface water, groundwater, or both. Several groundwater contamination incidents have occurred within Salado salamander habitat (Price et al. 1999, p. 10). Big Boiling Springs is located on the south bank of Salado Creek, near locations of past contamination events (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 43). Between 1989 and 1993, at least four incidents occurred within 0.25 mi from the spring site, including a 700-gallon and 400-gallon gasoline spill and petroleum leaks from two underground storage tanks associated with a gas station and a gas distributor business, respectively (Price et al. 1999, p. 10). Because no follow-up studies were conducted, we have no infonnation to indicate what effect these spills had on the species or its habitat.

The transport of hazardous materials is common on many highways, which are major transportation routes (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 1). Every year, thousands of tons of hazardous materials are transported over Texas highways (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 1). Transporters of hazardous materials (such as gasoline, cyclic hydrocarbons, fuel oils, and pesticides) caiTy volumes ranging from a few gallons up to 10,000 gallons or more of hazardous material (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 1). An accident involving hazardous materials can cause the release of a substantial volume of material over a very short period of time. As such, the capability of standard storm water management structures ( or best management practices) to trap and treat such releases might be overwhelmed (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 2).

Transportation accidents involving hazardous materials spills at bridge crossings are of particular concern because recharge areas in creek beds can transport contaminants directly into the aquifer (Service 2005, p. 1.6- 14). Salado salamander sites located downstream oflnterstate Highway 35 may be particularly vulnerable due to their proximity to this major transportation corridor. Interstate Highway 35 crosses Salado Creek just 760 to 1,100 ft upstream from several spring sites (Big Boiling, Lil' Bubbly, 15

Lazy Days Fish Fa1m, and Anderson Springs) where the Salado salamander is known to occur. The highway also crosses the surface watershed of additional Salado salamander sites at Robertson Springs. Should a hazardous materials spill occur at the Interstate Highway 35 bridge that crosses at Salado Creek or over the watershed of Robertson Springs, the Salado salamander could be at risk from contaminants ente1ing the water flowing into its surface habitat downstream.

Sewage spills often include contaminants such as nutrients, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and high levels of fecal coliform bacteria (Turner and O'Donnell 2004, p. 27). Increased ammonia levels and reduced dissolved oxygen are the most likely impacts of a sewage spill that could cause rapid mortality of large numbers of salamanders (Turner and O'Donnell 2004, p. 27). Fecal coliform bacteria from sewage spills cause diseases in salamanders and their prey base (Turner and O'Donnell 2004, p. 27). The threat of water quality degradation from water and sewage lines alone (that is, without the consideration of additional threat sources that may be present at specific sites) could cause irreversible declines or extirpation in local populations or significant declines in habitat quality with only one exposure event. We consider this to be an ongoing threat of high impact to salamander populations that is likely to increase in the future as urbanization expands within the ranges of these species.

Water Quantity Reduction in Relation to Urbanization or Industry Effects Adequate springflows and groundwater levels are essential to maintaining the known populations of the Salado salamander. Salado salamander populations in water-filled caves may also need groundwater movement through their habitat. A risk to Salado salamander populations is groundwater development (pumping). Pumping during severe drought may result in loss of springflow and loss of all accessible salamander habitat. The reduction or cessation of springflow at springs supporting salamanders may result in extirpation of that population. Boghici (2011) noted that the northern section of the Edwards Aquifer lacks a contributing zone and recharge is mostly from diffuse infiltration of rainfall on the Edwards Limestone outcrop. The future aquifer levels of the Edwards Aquifer in Williamson County will depend on precipitation, the recharge rate, springflow rates, and groundwater demand.

2. Physical Modification of Surface and Subsurface Habitat

Physical modification of surface habitat may occur through construction, impoundments, feral hogs, livestock, and other human activities. The physical construction of pipelines, shafts, wells, and similar structures that penetrate the subsurface has the potential to negatively affect subsurface habitat for salamander species. It is known that the Salado salamander inhabits the subsurface environment and that water flows through the subsurface to the surface habitat. Tunneling for underground pipelines can destroy potential habitat by removing subsurface material, thereby destroying subsurface spaces/conduits in which salamanders can live, grow, forage, and reproduce. Additional material can become dislodged and result in increased sediment loading into the aquifer and associated spring systems. 16

In addition, disruption of water flow to springs inhabited by salamanders can occur through the construction of tunnels and vertical shafts to access them. Because of the complexity of the aquifer and subsurface structure and because detailed maps of the underground conduits that feed springs in the Edwards Aquifer are not available, tunnels and shafts have the possibility of intercepting and severing those conduits (COA 201 0a, p. 28). Affected springs could rapidly become dry and would not support salamander populations. The closer a shaft or tunnel location is to a spring, the more likely that the construction will impact a spring (COA 20 l Oa, p. 28). Even small shafts pose a threat to nearby spring systems. As the human population is projected to increase by 128 percent in the range of the Salado salamander by 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau 2008), we expect subsurface construction of pipelines, shafts, wells, and similar structures to be a threat to their surface and subsurface habitats. lmpoundments can alter the Salado salamanders' physical habitat in a variety of detrimental ways including altering the natural flow regime of streams, increasing siltation, and supporting larger, predatory fish (Bendik 2011 b, COA, pers. comm.). This can lead to a variety of impacts to Salado salamanders and their surface habitats. For example, a low water crossing on a tributary of Bull Creek occupied by the Jollyville Plateau salamander resulted in sediment build-up above the impoundment and a scour hole below the impoundment that supported predaceous fish (Bendik 201 lb, COA, pers. comm.). As a result, Jollyville Plateau salamanders were not found in this degraded habitat after the impoundment was constructed. Impoundments have also impacted some of the Salado salamanders' surface habitats. Two sites for the Salado salamander (Cistern Springs and Lazy Days Fish Farm) have been modified by impoundments.

The threat of physical modification of surface habitat from impoundments by itself may be unlikely to cause significant population declines, but it could negatively impact the Salado salamander in combination with other threats and contribute to significant declines in the population size or habitat quality. We consider impoundments to be an ongoing threat of moderate impact to the Salado salamander and their surface habitats that will continue in the future.

Cattle and horses may trample spring runs and trample and disturb wetland and riparian areas. Feral hogs are also becoming more abundant at spring sites with salamanders in Bell, Travis, and Williamson counties (O'Donnell et al. 2006, Glen 2012, Sedgwick LLP, pers. comm.).

There are multiple other instances where humans have conducted activities in spring habitat supporting Eurycea, potentially resulting in loss or severe reduction in suitable salamander habitat. For example, in the summer of 2008, a spring opening at a Salado salamander site was covered with gravel (Service 20 I 0, p. 6). The modification of springs for recreation or other purposes degrades natural riparian areas, which are important for controlling erosion and attenuating floodwaters in aquatic habitats. Other human activities at Big Boiling Spring include pumping water from the spring opening, contouring the substrate of the spring environment, and covering spring openings with gravel (TPWD 2011, p. 4). In the fall of 2011 , the outflow channels and edges of Big 17

Boiling and Lil' Bubbly Springs were reconstructed with large limestone blocks and mortar. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a cease and desist order to the Salado Chamber of Commerce in October 2011 , for unauthorized discharge of dredged or fill material that occurred in this area (Brooks 2011, U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, pers. comm.). This order was issued in relation to the need for a section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). Also in October 2011 , a TPWD game warden issued a citation to the Salado Chamber of Commerce due to the need for a sand and gravel permit from the TPWD for these activities being conducted within TPWD's jurisdiction (Heger 2012a, TPWD, pers. comm.). The citation was issued because the Salado Chamber of Commerce had been directed by the game warden to stop work within TPWD's jurisdiction until they obtained a permit, which the Salado Chamber of Commerce did temporarily, but work started again despite the game warden's directive (Heger 2012a, TPWD, pers. comm.). A sand and gravel permit was obtained on March 21 , 2012. The spring run modifications were already completed by this date, but further modifications in the springs were prohibited by the permit. Additional work on the bank of Salado Creek upstream of the springs was permitted and completed (Heger 2012b, TPWD, pers. comm.).

The threat of physical modification of surface habitat from human visitation, recreation, and alteration is not significantly affecting the Salado salamander now. However, the Service considers this will be a threat in the future as the human population increases in Bell and Williamson counties.

3. Small Population Size, Drought, Flooding, and Climate Change

As detailed in the Final Rule, there are other factors that may affect the continued occupation of a site by Salado salamanders and the viability of the taxon. There are no population estimates available for any Salado salamander sites, but recent surveys have indicated that Salado salamanders are exceedingly rare at the four most impacted sites and much more abundant at the three least impacted sites (Gluesenkamp 201 la, b, TPWD, pers. comm.). Because most of the sites occupied by the Salado salamander are not known to have many individuals, any of the threats or stochastic events that would not otherwise be considered a threat could extirpate populations. As Morris and Doak (2002) noted, given a small populations size," a string of bad years will cause it to actually hit the ( extinction) threshold".

Drought, particularly a multiyear drought, may reduce or eliminate habitats range-wide. Severe drought would lower surface water supplies and ground water levels. Lower groundwater levels means some springs will have decreased springflow or will cease to flow altogether. Flooding may result in, geomorphic changes to the river channel, potentially scouring springs along the river margin. Lastly, according to Alley et al. 1999, climate change could affect groundwater sustainability in several ways: "(1) changes in ground-water recharge resulting from changes in average precipitation and temperature or in the seasonal distribution of precipitation, (2) more severe and longer lasting droughts, (3) changes in evapotranspiration resulting from changes in vegetation, and (4) possible increased demands for ground water as a backup source of water 18 supply." While climate models are being downscaled to address regions like central Texas, there are indications that the southwest part of the U.S. will experience temperature increases along with more frequent hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation (IPCC 2007). e. Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to be affected

Of the four critical habitat units originally proposed, the easternmost of these units, Unit 4 or the IH 35 Unit, occurs within the action area and encompasses the Salado Springs Complex and Robertson Springs in the Village of Salado. The proposed critical habitat designation includes the spring outlets of the four springs thought to be occupied by the species at the time of the proposed designation in 2012 (Robertson Spring, Big Boiling Spring, Lil ' Bubbly Spring [Little Bubbly Spring], and Lazy Days Fish Fann [Critchfield Spring]) and outflow up to the high water line and 164 feet of downstream habitat, representing the extent of the surface critical habitat. The subsurface critical habitat includes a radius of 984 feet around each of the four springs. Approximately 123 of the 168 acres of this unit fall within the action area for the proposed project. However, of that area, approximately 48 acres is within the construction zone or downstream in Salado Creek or downgradient in the Northern Edwards Aquifer from the construction and potentially exposed to surface and subsurface sedimentation or contamination effects. The rest is within the area that may be exposed to noise from construction related activities but no direct physical disturbance. Less than 1.5 acres of the 48 is likely to be directly exposed to trenching/boring/vegetation clearing activities.

The proposed wastewater treatment upgrades will be constructed downstream of the Robertson Springs and upstream of the Salado Springs Complex. Because the Robertson Springs are more than 900 feet away from the proposed activities and because they are upstream with respect to both ground water and surface water flow, the remainder of this biological opinion will only focus on the project's effects on the critical habitat within the project area and the salamanders occupying the Salado Springs Complex. 19

Ill. Environmental Baseline

a. Status of the species within the action area

The Salado Springs Complex, which includes the following occupied springs: Lil' Bubbly Spring, Big Boiling Spring, Lazy Days Fish Fann Spring and Anderson Spring, is within the area potentially affected by the proposed project. Big Boiling Spring has had the most observations of salamanders ( approximate! y 21) while each of the others have only had salamanders detected in them once. Three additional springs, Benedict Spring, Rock Spring and Side Spring, are also known from this area but salamanders have not been observed in them. With the exception of Rock Spring, all of the above springs occur on the south side of Salado Creek downstream of the Main Street bridge. As no major groundwater contributions to Salado Creek have been found downstream of the above mentioned springs, we do not expect additional springs or salamander locations downstream of the Salado Springs Complex (Wong and Yelderman 2015, p. 21).

The principal surface hydrological regime of the action area is associated with Salado Creek and its ttibutaries, including Campbell's Branch and Smith Branch (intermittent streams) and other unnamed ephemeral streams. Water generally flows west to east along Salado Creek with tributaries south of the creek flowing north and north of the creek flowing south. Water enters Salado Creek and its tributaries via surface water runoff, as well as through groundwater emanating from various springs.

The action area for the proposed project generally lies at the intersection of the unconfined and confined zones of the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer; however, all of the known occupied springs occur in the unconfined zone. The unconfined zone is the area where the Edwards and associated limestones are exposed at the surface. Water enters the aquifer through holes and fractures in the limestone throughout the unconfined zone and recharges, or adds to the water level of the aquifer.

Groundwater and surface water mix in the unconfined zone and Salado Creek; and its tributaries act as both gaining and losing streams throughout the outcrop area. Thus, discharge from one stream may act as recharge to another spring lower in the basin. Although some recharge may occur locally, recharge for the major springs in the Salado Springs Complex is regional in nature involving a much larger springshed. Figure 2 illustrates the cmTently estmated springshed for the Robertson Springs and the Salado Spring Complex. This springshed can be affected by pumping and surface flow Jevels, and thus the boundaries of the springshed may be modified as more detailed data is gathered (Yelderman 2013, p. 8).

Although a few of the spring outlets in the area such as Lil' Bubbly Spring and some of the Robertson Springs upstream of the Salado Springs Complex have been dry in the past, the majority of the Salado Springs and Robertson Springs have continued to flow during both the drought of record ( 1950 to 1957) and the more recent 2011 to 2015 drought (Brune 1981; Norris et al. 2012). The Salado Springs Complex and Roberson 20

Springs have historically provided additional baseflow to Salado Creek averaging between 16 and 43 cubic feet per second (Norris et al. 20 I 2).

Under normal flow conditions, the perennial section of Salado Creek in downtown Salado acts as a groundwater divide. This means that groundwater from areas south of the creek flows to the major springs in the Salado Springs Complex but groundwater from the north, while adding flow to Salado Creek, does not act as recharge for the springs on the south side of the creek (Yelderman 2013, p. 6). Multiple groundwater tracing studies have been conducted under high and low flow conditions from the Stagecoach Inn Cave south of the Salado Creek to springs in the Salado Springs Complex (Mahler et al. 1998; Wong and Yelderman 2015). These studies confirm that all of the springs on Salado Creek from Big Boiling Spring downstream are part of an interconnected system and indicate that salamanders may be able to move throughout this system. (Wong and Yelderman 2015).

Rock Spring, the only spring known from the north side of Salado Creek, receives groundwater flows from the same source as the springs on the south side of the creek. However, augering to install piezometers on the north bank point bar in Salado Creek caused turbidity in the water discharging from Rock Spring, suggesting that this spring may also receive groundwater contribution from the north side of Salado Creek. Further studies confirmed this (Wong and Yelderman 2015). b. Factors affecting species environment within the acti.on area

Physical Disturbance

The surface habitat in the proposed critical habitat unit and the area around the Salado Springs Complex has been considerably modified from its natural state. Two roadways, Main Street and 1H 35, cross Salado Creek via bridges. The IH 35 bridge across Salado Creek was replaced in the fall of 2015, which involved drilling of piers adjacent to the creek (02ETAU00-2014-I-0100). Near the Salado Springs Complex, Salado Creek has been modified by the installation of a series of low dams originally used for grain mills. In addition, several of the springs in the Salado Springs Complex have also been subjected to physical modifications. Big Boiling Spring has been modified with landscaping boulders and a concrete pad on one side and Lil' Bubbly Spring has been modified with surrounding boulders causing documented effects from sedimentation and to water temperature within the associated spring run from these modifications (Norris et al. 2012). In addition, both of these springs have been modified by the removal of gravel substrate from within the stream bed. Benedict Spring has had a concrete structure constructed at its mouth and Anderson Spring has had a small stone dam constructed about 20 feet downstream of its orifice. Direct pumping of water from spring openings, the use of heavy machinery in Salado Creek and at the springs, and clearing and grading of riparian areas also have been observed (Norris et al. 2012). 21

Water Quality

Immediately upgradient of the Salado Springs Complex is a variety of impervious cover such as roadways, parking lots, and buildings, which typically increases overland surface water flow and sediment loading into receiving streams. In addition, the area downstream of IH 35 is maintained as parkland with mowed turf grasses. The banks of Salado Creek in this area, being largely devoid of native riparian vegetation, afford little to no filtration of contamination or sediments from runoff. In addition, an off-channel impoundment and a drainfield for a wastewater treatment system serving the nearby Stagecoach Inn and adjacent businesses were insta1led on the south bank of Salado Creek, just upstream of the Main Street bridge. Treated effluent from this wastewater treatment system enters Salado Creek from an outfall in this area as well.

In and around Salado and Robertson springs, researchers have documented nitrate levels that exceed the TCEQ nitrate screening level for freshwater streams on numerous occasions (Rodusky 1997; Norris et al. 2012; Brazos River Authority 2012; Service 2015). In 2015, researchers also documented an increase in nitrate levels in groundwater at Stage Coach Inn Cave that correlated with "high-load" occupancy of the Village of Salado (i.e., peak tourism periods; Wong and Yelderman 2016). In some cases, the increased nitrate levels could be associated with increased runoff from rainfall events; however, the increase could also indicate that increased population growth may be stressing local septic systems, causing nitrates to be leached into groundwater.

Water Quantity

The Northern Segment of the Edwards Balcones Fault Zone aquifer is the primary water supply to much of the population in and around the Salado Creek basin in Bell County (Yelderman 2013, p. ii). Groundwater is pumped in the action area for domestic use, irrigation use and public water supply.

The Clearwater Underground Water Conservation District (CUWCD) was established in Bell County by the Texas Legislature in 1989 with a mission to, "develop and implement an efficient, economical and environmentally sound groundwater management program to protect and enhance the water resources of the District" (CUWCD 2016, p.3). CUWCD developed a management plan for groundwater resources and established the desired future condition of the Edwards Aquifer within Bell County to maintain Salado Springs discharge under drought of record conditions with a minimum spring discharge of 100 acre-feet per month and a preferred spring discharge of200 acre-feet per month (CUWCD 2016, p. 8).

[n 2013, the USGS installed a CWUCD-funded gauging station on Salado Creek (Station ID 08104300) to measure discharge downstream of all known spring outlets and provide data to aid groundwater management decisions. The CUWCD uses Salado Creek discharge data gathered at this gauging station along with precipitation data to monitor and trigger drought stages with voluntary conservation and usage reduction measures aimed at preserving the desired future conditions described above. 22

The majority of the action area that does not use private or exempt wells is supplied water by the Salado Water Supply Corporation (WSC). The Salado WSC has groundwater withdrawal pe1mits from CUWCD ofup to 1,509.29 acre-feet per year (LBG Guyton Associates 2017). This production is regulated by the CUWCD under the drought management plan that allows curtailment of production from all permit holders should the 5-day average of maximum daily flow recorded at the USGS gauge drop below 100 acre-feet per month (LBG Guyton Associates 2017).

Groundwater extraction in the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer in the vicinity of Salado Springs increased from about 16,000 acre-feet per year in 1980 to over 30,000 acre-feet per year in 2000 (Norris et al. 2012). Synoptic water level measurements were recorded for wells in the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer in Bell County in both 20 l O and 2013 to ascertain groundwater flow directions and provide a basis for assessing changes in flow directions and changes in the overall aquifer water volume. These measurements indicated steady water levels between pre-drought and post-drought measurements even though the stream and spring flow had decreased. These data would indicate the aquifer was managed well and that current usage patterns appear sustainable under the current management (Wong and Yelderman 2015).

Proposed Critical Habitat

As mentioned above, surface modifications in and around the spring openings have reduced the amount of rocky substrate with interstial spaces available for the salamanders on the surface. In addition, runoff from residential and commercial development and water withdrawls have affected the quantity and quality of surface and subsurface water available for the salamanders in this unit. Road construction projects across Salado Creek have also modified portions of the subsurface critical habitat during construction of supports for the bridges.

IV. Effects of the Action

The construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed wastewater treatment system upgrades is anticipated to include effects from vegetation removal; noise and vibration; ground disturbing activities adjacent to Salado Creek and within its tributaries; bedrock disturbing activities within the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, including under Salado Creek, immediately upstream of the Salado Springs Complex; and discharge of treated effluent into Smith Branch Creek within the recharge zone. The proposed project is also anticipated to include effects from the retirement of septic systems located within the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and the decommissioning of the Stagecoach WWTP and its outfall pipe upstream of the Salado Springs Complex. 23

Vegetation removal

Effects from vegetation removal include the potential for increased sedimentation in Salado Creek and downstream spring runs and may occur during the eight days construction is scheduled to occur along the banks of Salado Creek. Sedimentation could fill interstitial spaces in the substrate of the creek bed thus reducing protective cover and foraging habitat for the salamanders. Vegetation removal affects are expected to be temporary and occur from removal of less than 0.25 acres of maintained grasses, shrubs and small trees in the Salado Creek floodplain of which only 0. l 0 acre is along the banks of Salado Creek. Erosion and sediment control BMPs will be used to further reduce the likelihood of impacts from these activities. Disturbed areas would be revegetated so that no long term affects are anticipated.

Noise

Research has shown that aquatic vertebrates, including plethodontid salamanders, can detect and respond to sound and vibrations underwater (Fay and Simmons 1999, Hilton 1952, Monath 1965). Salamanders occupying areas near above-ground construction as well as trenching and boring activities are expected to be exposed to noise and vibration from equipment operation, especially those activities occurring near the spring outlets. Proposed construction adjacent to the Salado Creek complex is expected to last 16 days. The resulting noise frequencies and pressure levels that might reach and potentially have negative impacts on salamanders are unknown. However, studies on the related Barton Springs salamander did not detect a difference in abundance and density at Parthenia Springs during cleaning days at Barton Springs Pool where sound levels are comparable to those expected from the proposed construction activities. Thus, possible short-term effects to Salado salamanders from noise and vibration are not anticipated to be more than a startle and/or avoidance response during the time construction is occurring near spring outlets.

Rock disturbance

Trenching, boring and excavation activities are expected to disturb 568,691 cubic feet of bedrock within the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone. It is known that the Salado salamander inhabits the subsurface environment in water that flows to surface habitat at springs (Service 2013); however, it is unknown how far away from spring outlets the Salado salamander's range may extend within the aquifer. At the time of the proposed critical habitat designation, a related species, the Barton Springs salamander, had been found approximately 984 feet from the nearest spring opening (Service 2012). New evidence suggests this species' range may extend further throughout the subsurface habitat, potentially as much as seven miles (McDennid et al. 2015; Chippendale 2014). Thus, bedrock disturbance within areas inundated by groundwater may encounter salamanders or their habitat some distance from the springs.

Bedrock excavation for construction of the proposed wastewater system varies in depth and the groundwater table fluctuates significantly within the aquifer in response to rainfall and drought (TWDB 2003); therefore, it is not possible to determine how deep groundwater would be encountered below the surface at any given time. However, the CUWCD has monitoring wells distributed across the Village of Salado which can be used to estimate the likelihood of 24 encountering groundwater at certain depths across the Project Area (CUWCD 2017). Based on well data, groundwater may be encountered during proposed construction of the Church Street and Royal Street lift stations and proposed open cut trench excavation along Main Street south of the Church Street lift station. Groundwater is also expected to be encountered during proposed open cut trench excavation along the banks of and across Salado Creek.

Bedrock disturbing activities can affect potential Salado salamander habitat by removing subsurface material and destroying spaces and conduits used by the salamander to live, grow, forage, and reproduce (Service 2013). Material can also become dislodged and result in increased sediment loading within the aquifer and Salado Springs. Additionally, bedrock excavation below the water table could directly injure or kill salamanders occupying those areas or disrupt flow paths to springs.

Waste Water Treatment Plant Operations

Sections of the wastewater pipelines are being installed within Salado Creek upstream of the Salado Springs Complex and the potential for rupture or leakage over the life of the project, once the plant is operational, exists. However, the project description describes steps the applicant will take to minimize the likelihood of wastewater pipelines rupturing. In addition, the applicants have stated in a April 6, 2017, email that they plan to follow the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission's Optimizing Operation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation of Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems manual when creating the operation and maintenance plan for their wastewater treatment system. Thus, they do not anticipate ruptures or leaks. Therefore, this biological opinion will not consider accidental wastewater pipeline ruptures or leaks further, and no incidental take coverage will be provided.

Operation of the new wastewater treatment plant itself will occur 2.4 miles upstream of Salado Creek on Smith Branch, a tributary of Salado Creek. Although, waste water treatment plant effluent can have deleterious effects on salamanders, the new plant occurs on a disjunct arm of the Northern Edwards Aquifer downgradient and some distance from any known salamander occurrences. In addition, the Salado Creek surface water into which the effluent will eventually flow is over two miles downstream of any known locations and outside of the critical habitat. Thus, no effects from construction and operation of the wastewater treatment plant are expected to occur on Salado salamanders or their critical habitat.

Decommissioning of Stagecoach Inn WWTP and private septics

The Stagecoach WWTP and current private septic systems would be decommissioned and abandoned in place once the proposed wastewater pipelines and WWTP are constructed and operational. As increased nitrates have been detected on numerous occasions at Salado Springs Complex, it is anticipated that decommissioning these older systems could have a positive effect on the Salado salamander and its surface and subsurface habitats if the existing sewage storage tanks, pipelines, and/or septic tanks are leaking. Removing these systems may remove excess nitrates from water that flows into Salado Creek or the springs in the area. 25

Proposed Critical Habitat

The proposed critical habitat for the Salado salamanders consists of four essential physical and biological features: (1) water from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, (2) rocky substrate with interstitial spaces, (3) aquatic invertebrates for food, and (4) subterranean aquifer for shelter and protection during periods of drought or dewatering on the surface in and around spring sites. Construction activity within the proposed critical habitat unit is expected to last 21 days and remove approximately 4,950 cubic feet of bedrock potentially intersecting groundwater from open cut trenching along the banks of Salado Creek and approximately 4,165 cubic feet of bedrock below the water table within Salado Creek, approximately 200 feet upstream from the Salado Springs complex. Groundwater may also be encountered during proposed bedrock excavation of the Royal Street lift station and along Main Street south of Thomas Arnold Road within the proposed subsurface critical habitat.

Excavation in bedrock intersecting water from the aquifer would result in the removal of subsurface material, potentially destroying interstitial spaces and water conduits used by the salamander to live, grow, forage, and reproduce (Service 2013). Material could also become dislodged and result in increased sediment loading within the proposed surface and subsurface critical habitat. Additionally, bedrock excavation could disrupt flow paths to springs within the proposed critical habitat and result in the degradation of surface habitat from reduced springflows. Although sediment loading may reduce surface and subsurface aquatic invertebrate abundance within the project area, we expect these effects to be temporary.

The applicant will use BMPs to reduce the potential for sediments and other contaminants to enter the surface and subsurface waterways within the project area and if possible, work within the creek will be conducted in the dry further reducing the potential for contamination. In addition, as a part of the project plan, the applicant will take measures to identify and preserve potential mesocavernous flow paths and interstial spaces around the wastewater pipelines within the creek. Springflow at the Salado Springs Complex would also be monitored by a Service permitted biologist while excavating in proposed critical habitat and post construction monitoring of springflow would occur within 30 days of project completion to ensure that flowpaths are not affected. Finally, elimination of potentially leaking private septics in the project area and the effluent outfall upstream of the Salado Spring Complex has the potential to improve water quality for this area. Thus, we do not expect long-term or significant effects to occur to proposed subsurface and surface critical habitat from the proposed activities.

V. Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area are considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act.

In 2010, the Village of Salado had a population of2,126 persons, and Bell County had a total population of310,235 persons (U.S. Census Bureau 2017). Population estimates for the Village of Salado indicate the population has reduced by 23 percent from 2010 to 2015 (U.S. Census 26

Bureau 2017) and Bell County increased by 8 percent. Texas Demographic Center data indicate that population growth in Bell County will continue with moderate estimates placing the 2050 population between 557,163 and 703,153 persons. Although much of the area near Salado Creek and within the springshed of the Salado Springs Complex is already developed, we expect additional development to continue to occur within the springshed as several developments are currently planned or being constructed in or near the action area. Additional residential and commercial development will continue to add impervious cover and continue to increase water withdrawals from the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer.

VI. Conclusion

After reviewing the current status of Salado salamanders, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed wastewater treatment system upgrades, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biolog1cal opinion that the project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Salado salamander, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify the proposed critical habitat.

INCIDENT ALTAKE ST ATEMENT

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined (50 CFR 17.3) to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined (50 CFR 17.3) as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)( 4) and section 7(o )(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the Corps so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the Village of Salado, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the Village to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o )(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Village must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement. [50 CFR §402. l 4(i)(3)] 27

Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated

The Service anticipates individual Salado salamanders residing in or near the project area could be taken as a result of this proposed action. The incidental take is expected to be in the fonn of harassment as individuals are driven from areas near the construction activities or disturbed by noise from machinery and harm or death from crushing or being trapped in conduits potentially cutoff temporarily or permanently from other habitat areas during bedrock disturbing activities.

The Service anticipates incidental take of Salado salamanders will be difficult to detect because the species occurs in habitat ( e.g., subsurface water-filled cavities) that makes detection difficult. As surveys only ever found one salamander at three of the springs in the Salado Springs Complex and 21 at one other site despite extensive searching, we do not believe salamanders occur in high abundance in this area. Therefore, we anticipate take of no more than five salamanders.

Effect of the take

In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure(s) are necessary and appropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of Salado salamanders:

1. Minimize harm and harassment of Salado salamanders during all construction and operational activities associated with the wastewater treatment system upgrade project described in the biological assessment.

2. Salvage any individual salamanders found in the project area.

Terms and conditions

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the Corps must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. 28

Minimize Harm and Harassment

1. Implement sedimentation and contamination prevention BMPs as described in the BA and in TCEQ guidelines. 2. Restore karst connectivity in the event of a breach of a karst void or conduit during trenching or boring.

Salvage of species

1. Prior to conducting work in wetted surface habitats in Salado Creek, o Make sure a 10 or 20 gallon insulated cooler is available on-site. o Survey for salamanders in the affected area immediately prior to work in wetted areas. • Efforts must be made to avoid stepping within the habitat before it is searched. If stepping into the habitat is required, stepping on cover objects greater than 25 mm (.98 in) must be avoided. • Look under all cover objects greater than 25mm in size for the presence of salamanders. 2. If salamanders are found in an area scheduled for physical disturbance follow the procedures described below: o Live Individuals: • Capture the individual(s) and place in a regular 10 or 20 gallon insulated cooler filled one-third full with water from where the salamander was collected. • Close the cooler lid and place the cooler in a shaded location near the water source so, if necessary, additional water can be added from the same source. • Check the temperature every 30 minutes to one hour. Optimally, the temperature should be maintained between 18 and 23° Celsius, however, water temperatures should be prevented from getting above 25 to 26° Celcius. • Once salamander(s) have been placed in a cooler, contact Justin Crow at the San Marcos Aquatic Resources Center (Office: 512-353-0011 ext. 226, Cell: 512-712-3134) to arrange for transportation to the Center. If Justin is unavailable, contact either Randy Gibson or Pete Diaz at 512-353-001 l. • If the salamanders cannot be transported on the same day, they can be kept in the cooler in an air conditioned office for one to two days, however the water should be refreshed from the original source if the salamanders cannot be transported within 48 hours. o Dead Individuals • Salamanders found dead should be collected and fixated in 95 to 100 percent ethanol (not denatured). • Call the Austin Ecological Services Field Office at 512.490-0057 to arrange for transportation of specimens to a Service approved location.

The Service believes that no more than five Salado salamanders will be incidentally taken as a result of the proposed action. The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might 29 otherwise result from the proposed action. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Federal agency must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures.

Conservation Recommendations

Section 7(a)(l) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.

• Conduct water quality monitoring within spring habitats daily for 30 days after construction that encounters ground water in the Northern Edwards Aquifer upgradient of the Salado Springs Complex to capture any changes in quality or quantity of water from construction activities.

• Conduct water quality monitoring monthly after decommission of septic systems and the Stagecoach Inn waste water treatment plant to detennine if water quality is improved.

In order for the Service to be kept infonned of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations.

Reinitiation notice

This concludes fonnal consultation on the action(s) outlined in the request. As provided in 50 CFR § 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: ( 1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new info1mation reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or c1itical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation. 30

The Service appreciates the coordination and cooperation of the Corps staff during this consultation. If further assistance or information is required, please contact Jenny Wilson at (512) 490-0057, extension 231.

Zerrenner Field Supervisor 31

Literature Cited

Aller, Linda, Truman Bennett, J. H. Leer, R. J. Petty, and Glenn Hackett. 1987. DRASTIC- a standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPN600/2-87/035. 455 p.

Alley, William M., Thomas E. Reilly, and 0. Lehn Franke. 1999. Sustainability of groundwater resources. U.S. Geo1ogica1 Survey Circular 1186.

Bendik, N. 2011 a. Jollyville Plateau Salamander Status Report. City of Austin Watershed Protection. SR-11-10. 43 pp.

Bendik, N. 201 lb. Personal communication. Jollyville Plateau Salamander (Eurycea tonkawae). Presentation from City of Austin Watershed Protection to U.S. Fish and Widlife Service. October 5, 2011.

Bendik N., T. A. Morrison, A.G. Gluesenkamp, M. S. Sanders, and L. J. O'Donnell. 2013. Computer-assisted photo identification outperforms visible implant elastomers in an endangered salamander, Eurycea tonkawae. PLoS ONE 8 (3): e59424.

Boghici, R. 2011. Changes in water levels in Texas, 1995 to 2005. Texas Water Development Board. Report 379. July 2011. 64 pp.

Bowles, B. D., M. S. Sanders, and R. S. Hansen. 2006. Ecology of the Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae: Plethodontidae) with an assessment of the potential effects of urbanization. Hydrobiologia 553: 111-120.

Brazos River Authority. Basin summary report - 2012: Lampasas River Watershed. Web accessed December 2016. http://www.brazos.org/ About-Us/Water-Quality/Clean­ Rivers-Program/Basin-Surnmary-Report

Brooks, S. L. 2011. Cease and desist order from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2 pp.

Brune, G. 1975. Major and Historical Springs of Texas. Texas Water Development Board Report 189. Austin, Texas.

Brune, G. 1981. Salado Creek and Springs in Springs of Texas, v. 1. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. pp. 67-69. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/LitCited/4TX_Sa1/Brune_l981_p_6 67_69.pdf

Chippindale, P. T., and A.H. Price. 2005. Conservation of Texas spring and cave salamanders (Eurycea). In Lannoo, M. (ed.) pp. 193-197, Amphibian Declines: Conservation Status of United States Species, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Chippindale, P. T., A.H. Price, Wiens, J. J., and D. M. Hillis. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships and systematic revision of central Texas hemidactyliine plethodontid salamanders. Herpetological Monographs 14: 1-80. 32

Chippindale, P. T. 2014. Final Report: Status of newly discovered cave and spring salamanders (Eurycea) in southern Travis and northern Hays counties. 29pp.

Clark, Allan. 2000. Vulnerability of ground water to contamination, Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, Bexar County, Texas, 1998. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4149.

Clark, Amy. 2003. Vulnerability of ground water to contamination. Northern Bexar County, Texas. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4072.

Clearwater Underground Water Conservation District. 2016. District Management Plan. Adopted January 13, 2016. Available at: http://www.cuwcd.org/pdflCUWCD­ District%20Management%20Plan.pdf. Accessed 7 December 2016. 104 p.

COA (City of Austin). 2001. Jollyville Plateau water quality and salamander assessment. Water quality report series COA-ERM 1999-01. Prepared by City of Austin, Watershed Protection Department, Environmental Resources Management Division, Water Resource Evaluation Section. Austin, Texas. 381 pp.

COA (City of Austin). 2010a. Preconstrucbon groundwater assessment for the Jollyville transmission main WTP4. Department of Public Worlcs and Austin Water Utility. December 2010. 126 pp.

Cole, R. A. 1995. A review of status, research and management oftaxon viability for three neotenic aquatic salamanders in Travis County, Texas. Pages 15-57 in Bowles, D.E., ed. A Review of the Status of Current Critical Biological and Ecological Information on the Eurycea Salamanders Located in Travis County, Texas, Resource Protection Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Coles, J. F., G. McMahon, A.H. Bell, L. R. Brown, F. A. Fitzpatrick, B. C. Eikenberry, M. D. Woodside, T. F. Cuffuey, W. L. Bryant, K. Cappiella, L. Fraley-McNeal, and W.P. Stack. 2012. Effects of urban development on stream ecosystems in nine metropolitan study areas across the United States. Circular 1373. U.S. Geological Survey. 152 pp.

Duellman, W. E. and L. Trueb. 1986. Biology of amphibians. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 670 pp.

Fay, R.R. and A.M. Simmons. 1999. The sense of hearing in fishes and amphibians. In: Fay RR, Popper AN, editors. Comparative Hearing: Fishes and Amphibians. Spring, New York (NY). p. 269-318.

Geismar, E. 2005. Sediment Accumulation in the Barton Springs Complex. City of Austin, Watershed Protection and Development Review Department, Austin, Texas. 14 pp.

Gillespie, J. H. 2013. Application of stable isotope analysis to study temporal changes in foraging ecology in a highly endangered amphibian. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53041. 33

Glen, A. 2012. Personal communication. Public comments on proposed rule (FWS-R2 -ES-2012-0035). Sedgwick LLP. October 22, 2012. 8 pp.

Gluesenkamp, A. 2010. Personal communication. Email from Dr. Andy Gluesenkamp, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to Paige Najvar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Re: Eurycea chisolmensis. May 4, 2010.

Gluesenkamp, A. 2011a. Personal communication. Presentation to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 12, 2011. Austin, Texas.

Gluesenkamp, A. 2011 b. Personal communication. Phone conversation with Erik Orsak, Arlington Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 20, 2011. 3 pp.

Gluesenkamp, A. 2011 c. Personal communication. Site visit report for Salado salamander. September 15, 2011. Salado, Texas. 1 p.

Heger, T. 2012a. Personal communication. Email from Tom Heger Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to Alisa Shull, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Re: Salado salamander site. February 2, 2012.

Heger, T. 2012b. Personal communication. Email from Tom Heger Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to Joshua Booker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Re: Update on Salado Spring citation. May 16, 2012.

Hillis, D. M., Chamberlain, D. A. Wilcox, T. P. and P. T. Chippindale. 2001. A new species of subterranean blind salamander (Plethodontidae: Hemidactyliini: Eurycea: Typhlomolge) from Austin, Texas, and nomenclature of the major clades of central Texas paedomorphic salamanders. Herpetologica 53: 266-280.

Hillis, D. M., David C. Cannatella, Thomas J. Devitt, and April M. Wright. 2015. Genomic Assessment of Taxonomic Status of Central Texas Eurycea Salamanders. Final Section 6 Grant Report TX E158-R-1. 24pp.

Hilton, W.A. 1952. The ear components of salamanders. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 71: 405-408.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K., and A. Reisinger (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 104 pp. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications and data/publications ipcc fourth assessment report s ynthesis report.htrn

LBG Guyton Associates. 2017. Technical Memorandum: Simulated effects of production from Salado WSC related to the Sanctuary development. From Michael Keester, P.G. to Dirk 34

Aaron, General Manager, Clearwater Underground Water Conservation District. January 3, 2017, 5 p.

Mahler, Barbara. 2013. Personal communication. Email to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patrick Connor. November 6.

Mahler, B.J., Bennett, P.C. and Zimmerman, M. 1998. Lanthanide-labeled clay: A new method for tracing sediment transport in Karst. Ground Water v. 36(5): 835-843. doi: 10. l 11 l/j. l 745-6584.1998.tb02202.x. Accessed 10 February 2017.

Mahler, B.J., Musgrove, M., Herrington, C., and Sample, T.L. 2011. Recent (2008-10) concentrations and isotopic compositions of nitrate and concentrations of wastewater compounds in the Barton Springs zone, south-central Texas, and their potential relation to urban development in the contributing zone. U.S. Geological Survey. Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5018. vi+ 48 pp.

McDermid, K.M., P. Sprouse, and J. Krejca. 2015. Note on geographical distribution of Eurycea sosorum. Herpetological Review 46(4), p. 556.

Monath, T. 1965. The opercular apparatus of salamanders. Journal of Morphology 116: 149-170.

Morris, William F. and Daniel F. Doak. 2002. Quantitative conservation biology, Theory and practice of population viability analysis. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA.

Norris, C. and A. Gluesenkamp, J. Singhurst, and D. Bradsby. 2012. A biological and hydrogeological assessment of the Salado Springs Complex, Bell County, Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 71 pp.

O'Donnell, L., M. Turner, M. Sanders, E. Geismar, S. Heilman, and L. Zebehazy. 2006. Summary of Jollyville Plateau salamander data (1997-2006). City of Austin Watershed and Development Review Department. December 2006. 50 pp.

Petranka, J. W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Pierce, B., and A. Wall. 2011. Review ofresearch literature related to the biology, evolution, and conservation of Georgetown salamander, Eurycea naufragia. Report to the Williamson County Conservation Foundation, Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas. 40 pp.

Price, A.H., P. T. Chippendale, and D. M. Hillis. 1999. A status report on the threats facing populations of perennibranchiate Hemidactyliinae plethodontid salamanders of the genus Eurycea north of the Colorado River in Texas. Final Section 6 Report, Part III, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas. 24 pp.

Rodusky, P .S. 1997. Non-point source pollution and implications regarding groundwater-surface water interactions in Salado Creek Basin, Texas. M.S. Thesis Baylor University, Waco, TX. 176 pp. 35

Schram, M. D. 1995. Comments and recommendations for salamander conservation in the Travis County area. In: Bowles, D.E., ed., A Review of the Status of Current Critical Biological and Ecological Information on the Eurycea Salamanders Located in Travis County, Texas, Resource Protection Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas, pp. 84-93.

Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Barton Springs Salamander (Eurycea sosorum) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 144 pp.

Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Candidate listing and priority assessment forms for the Salado salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Austin, Texas, USA. 14 pp.

Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Four Central Texas Salamanders and Designation of Critical Habitat. 77 Federal Register 50767 (22 October 2012): 50768-50854. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-08-22/pdf/2012-19659.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2017.

Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Refined Impervious Cover Analysis for the Four Central Texas Salamanders Currently Proposed for Listing and Designation of Critical Habitat. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office. August 2013.

Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of threatened species status for the Georgetown salamander and Salado salamander throughout their ranges; Final Rule. 79 Federal Register 10235 (2 February 2014): 10236 - 10293. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2014/2014- 03717.pdf. Accessed on IO February 2017.

Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015. Salado Salamander Final Monitoring Report 2015. Texas Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office. San Marcos, Texas. 20pp.

Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2016. Salado Salamander Final Monitoring Report 2016. Texas Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office. San Marcos, Texas. 21pp.

TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). 2007. Optional Enhanced Measures for the Protection of Water Quality in the Edwards Aquifer (Revised). Available at https://www.tceq.texas.gov/publications/rg/rg-348/rg-348a.html. Accessed 12 February 2017.

TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). 2015. Design Criteria for Domestic Wastewater Systems (30 TAC Chapter 217). Available at: https://www.tceg.texas.gov/permittinglwastewater/plans/WW design requirements.html. Accessed 12 February 2017.

Thompson, D. B., Morse, A., and J. Acker. 2011. Analysis of the occurrence and statistics of 36

hazardous materials spill incidents along Texas highways and suggestions for mitigation of Transport-related spills to receiving waters. Texas Department of Transportation. Report 0-5200-1. July 2011. 156 pp.

TPWD (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department). 2011. Personal communication. Letter to Alisa Shull, in response to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service request for information on the status and threats to Salado salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis), Georgetown salamander (E. naufragia), Jollyville Plateau salamander (E. tonkawae), and Austin blind salamander (E. waterlooensis). October 18, 2011. 19 pp.

Turner M., and L. O'Donnell. 2004. Barton Springs salamander catastrophic spill plan. City of Austin Environmental Resource Management Division. SR-05-01. 76 pp.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. Table 1: Projections of the Population and Components of Change for the United States: 2010 to 2050 (NP2008-Tl ). Population Division. Release date: August 14, 2008. Accessed on April 10, 2012. http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html

U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. Bell County, Texas and Salado, Texas Population 2010 Census and 2015 estimate. Available at: https://factfinder.census.gov/. Accessed IO February 2017.

Welsh, H.H., and L. M. Ollivier. 1998. Stream amphibians as indicators of ecosystem stress: a case study from California's redwoods. Ecological Applications 8: 1118-1132.

Wong, S.S. and J.C. Yelderman. 2015. An Investigation into the Recharge Pathways and Mechanisms in the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, Bell County, Texas. A final research report submitted to the Clearwater Underground Water Conservation District, Bell County, Texas. December 2015.

Wong. S.S. and J.C. Yelderman. 2016. The Northern Segment of the Edwards Balcones Fault Zone Aquifer: What We Know Now. PowerPoint slides presentation at the 16th Annual Bell County Water Symposium. November 16, 2016. Provided by the authors.

Yelderman, J. 2013. Hydrogeology of the Northern Segment of the Edwards Balcones Fault Zone Aquifer in the Salado Creek Basin and Environs. Available at: http://www.cuwcd.org/pdf/Aguifer-Science/CUWCD-NorthernSegment-EdwardsBFZ-2- 15-2013.pdf. Accessed 19 April 2017. 16 p. 37

Figure 1.

V\{>TUS Crossings =--• Robertson Springs CJ Proposed Crltcal Habitat • (\Naters of the U.S.) • Lift Stations - Waste Water Pipelines - VVVVTP +N • Salado Springs Complex -- River ~ Aquifer 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 38

Figure 2.

Sour~s: Esn, HER6'DeLorme, USGS ln1ennap ,ncrement P Corp., NRCAN Esn,Cepan METI, &iii ~ona.(Hoog Kong), Esri (Tharland), Mepmy1ndia 0 Oii'nStreetMap c~lbu $, and the GIS U$er Canmunoty D SaladoSpringshed * Roberston Springs and Salado Springs Complex N C Northern Edwards Aquifer o o.5 1 2 Miles --- Rivers +