DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for Managed Groundwater Withdrawals from the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for Managed Groundwater Withdrawals from the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for Managed Groundwater Withdrawals from the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer Applicant: Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District Prepared by: Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District For: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Austin, Texas Initially Submitted - November 20, 2014 Last revised – May 25, 2017 ii Prepared By: District Staff: John T Dupnik, P.G., General Manager Brian A Smith, Ph.D. P.G., Principal Hydrogeologist Brian B Hunt, P.G., Senior Hydrogeologist Justin Camp, Hydrogeologic Technician Robin H Gary, Senior Public Information Coordinator and GIS Specialist Kendall Bell-Enders, Regulatory Compliance Coordinator Vanessa Escobar, Regulatory Compliance Coordinator Dana C Wilson, Senior Administrative Specialist and Editor Consultants: W F (Kirk) Holland, P.G., Management Consultant (and Former GM) Mary Poteet, Ph.D., University of Texas, Integrative Biology Art Woods, Ph.D., (Formerly) University of Texas, Integrative Biology Bryan Brooks, Ph.D., Consultant in Biology and Ecology Kent S Butler, Ph.D. (Deceased), Project Management Consultant and Advisor Under Direction of the District’s 2016-2018 Board of Directors: Mary Stone, Director Precinct 1 Blayne Stansberry, President, and Director Precinct 2 Blake Dorsett, Secretary, and Director Precinct 3 Robert D Larsen, Ph.D., Director Precinct 4 Craig Smith, Vice President, and Director Precinct 5 iii iv Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for Managed Groundwater Withdrawals from the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ x List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. xi List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms Used in This Document .............................................. xii Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................... xiv Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 Introduction and Background ........................................................................................ 5 2.0 Purpose and Need for HCP/ITP ..................................................................................... 7 2.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Need .................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Programmatic Basis of Need ............................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Statutory Basis of Need: Endangered Species Act ............................................................ 9 2.3 Correspondence between HCP Sections and Information Required by Service ............. 10 2.3.1 Information Requirements of an HCP in Support of an ITP ........................................... 11 2.3.2 Findings for Service to Issue an ITP ............................................................................... 11 2.3.3 Additional Guidance and Recommendations for Developing HCPs (“Five Point Policy”) ......................................................................................................................................... 11 3.0 Description of Areas Analyzed ..................................................................................... 13 3.1 Planning Area .................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.1 General Environmental Setting of Planning Area ........................................................... 13 3.1.1.1 Physical Environment ...................................................................................................... 13 3.1.1.2 Biological Environment................................................................................................... 15 3.1.1.3 Man-made Environment .................................................................................................. 17 3.1.2 Hydrogeologic Framework of Planning Area ................................................................. 18 3.1.2.1 Aquifers and Hydrozones ................................................................................................ 19 3.1.2.2 Groundwater Flow Conditions ........................................................................................ 21 3.1.3 Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District Jurisdictional Area .................. 24 3.2 Incidental Take Permit Area ............................................................................................ 25 v 3.2.1 Subsurface Part of District’s Exclusive Territory ........................................................... 25 3.2.2 Spring Outlets Area ......................................................................................................... 27 3.2.2.1 Physical Setting ............................................................................................................... 27 3.2.2.1.1 Physical Characteristics of Barton Springs .............................................................. 27 3.2.2.1.2 Sources and Implications of Variation in Springflow at Barton Springs ................. 27 3.2.2.2 Ecological Setting ............................................................................................................ 35 3.2.2.2.1 Overview of Habitat Characteristics and Supported Populations ............................ 35 3.2.2.2.2 Water Chemistry and Springflow Relationships ...................................................... 39 3.2.3 Antecedent Conditions in ITP Area ................................................................................ 45 3.2.4 Protected Species in ITP Area ......................................................................................... 47 4.0 Proposed Actions ........................................................................................................... 49 4.1 Proposed Covered Activities ........................................................................................... 49 4.1.1 Regulated Groundwater Community ............................................................................... 49 4.1.1.1 Exempt Wells and Users ................................................................................................. 51 4.1.1.2 Nonexempt Wells and Users ........................................................................................... 53 4.1.1.2.1 Nonexempt Domestic-Use Wells and Users ............................................................ 54 4.1.1.2.2 Other Nonexempt Wells and Users .......................................................................... 55 4.1.2 Historical Perspective of Covered Activities .................................................................. 56 4.1.2.1 Evolution of Regulatory Program ................................................................................... 56 4.1.2.2 Changes to Pre-HCP Baseline ......................................................................................... 61 4.1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Authorities for Covered Activities and Integrated Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................................... 65 4.1.4 Public Participation in Developing Covered Activities and Integral Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................................... 68 4.2 Requested Permit Duration ............................................................................................. 69 5.0 Analysis of Impacts Likely to Result from Taking ..................................................... 71 5.1 Covered Species .............................................................................................................. 71 5.1.1 Species Descriptions and Life Histories .......................................................................... 71 5.1.1.1 Barton Springs Salamander ............................................................................................. 71 5.1.1.2 Austin Blind Salamander ................................................................................................. 75 5.1.2 Species Distribution ........................................................................................................ 75 5.1.2.1 Barton Springs Salamander ............................................................................................. 75 5.1.2.2 Austin Blind Salamander ................................................................................................. 76 5.1.3 Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival .................................................................. 78 5.1.3.1 Barton Springs Salamander ............................................................................................. 79 5.1.3.2 Austin Blind Salamander ................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles & Crocodilians
    STANDARD COMMON AND CURRENT SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR NORTH AMERICAN AMPHIBIANS, TURTLES, REPTILES & CROCODILIANS Sixth Edition Joseph T. Collins TraVis W. TAGGart The Center for North American Herpetology THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY www.cnah.org Joseph T. Collins, Director The Center for North American Herpetology 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 (785) 393-4757 Single copies of this publication are available gratis from The Center for North American Herpetology, 1502 Medinah Circle, Lawrence, Kansas 66047 USA; within the United States and Canada, please send a self-addressed 7x10-inch manila envelope with sufficient U.S. first class postage affixed for four ounces. Individuals outside the United States and Canada should contact CNAH via email before requesting a copy. A list of previous editions of this title is printed on the inside back cover. THE CEN T ER FOR NOR T H AMERI ca N HERPE T OLOGY BO A RD OF DIRE ct ORS Joseph T. Collins Suzanne L. Collins Kansas Biological Survey The Center for The University of Kansas North American Herpetology 2021 Constant Avenue 1502 Medinah Circle Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Lawrence, Kansas 66047 Kelly J. Irwin James L. Knight Arkansas Game & Fish South Carolina Commission State Museum 915 East Sevier Street P. O. Box 100107 Benton, Arkansas 72015 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Walter E. Meshaka, Jr. Robert Powell Section of Zoology Department of Biology State Museum of Pennsylvania Avila University 300 North Street 11901 Wornall Road Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Kansas City, Missouri 64145 Travis W. Taggart Sternberg Museum of Natural History Fort Hays State University 3000 Sternberg Drive Hays, Kansas 67601 Front cover images of an Eastern Collared Lizard (Crotaphytus collaris) and Cajun Chorus Frog (Pseudacris fouquettei) by Suzanne L.
    [Show full text]
  • SERDP Project ER18-1653
    FINAL REPORT Approach for Assessing PFAS Risk to Threatened and Endangered Species SERDP Project ER18-1653 MARCH 2020 Craig Divine, Ph.D. Jean Zodrow, Ph.D. Meredith Frenchmeyer Katie Dally Erin Osborn, Ph.D. Paul Anderson, Ph.D. Arcadis US Inc. Distribution Statement A Page Intentionally Left Blank This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. Page Intentionally Left Blank Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Parcas Criteria and Implementation Plan Here!
    Model Criteria and Implementation Guidance for a Priority Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Area (PARCA) System in the U.S.A. V.4 October 2012 PARCA Task Team Prepared by Ron Sutherland and Phillip deMaynadier In collaboration with National PARC’s "Priority Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Areas" Task Team: Co-Leads: Ron Sutherland , Wildlands Network Phillip deMaynadier, Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife Team Members: Margaret Trani Griep, U.S. Forest Service Southern Region Audrey Hatch, formerly Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Randy Jennings, Western New Mexico University Karen Kinkead , Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources Priya Nanjappa, Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Cover Photographs: Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) – J. Mays Coastal Tailed Frog (Ascaphus truei) – B. McCreary Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi) – J.D. Willson Blue-spotted Salamander (Ambystoma laterale) – L. Kenney Reticulate Gila Monster (Heloderma s. suspectum) – K. Stohlgren Suggested citation: R. Sutherland and P. deMaynadier. 2012. Model Criteria and Implementation Guidance for a Priority Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Area (PARCA) System in the USA. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Technical Publication PARCA-1. 28 pp. 2 V.4 October 2012 PARCA Task Team Contents: Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………………….....................…...3 Introduction…………..……. ……………………………………………………………………………………3 Criteria for PARCA Selection…………………… …………………………………………………………5 Criteria Overview and PARCA Scale.............……………………………………………………….…..8
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACTS 29 Reptile Ecology I, Highland A, Sunday 15 July 2018
    THE JOINT MEETING OF ASIH SSAR HL lcHTHYOLOGISTS & HERPETOLOGISTS ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 2018 ABSTRACTS 29 Reptile Ecology I, Highland A, Sunday 15 July 2018 Curtis Abney, Glenn Tattersall and Anne Yagi Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada Thermal Preference and Habitat Selection of Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis in a Southern Ontario Peatland Gartersnakes represent the most widespread reptile in North America. Despite occupying vastly different biogeoclimatic zones across their range, evidence suggests that the thermal preferenda (Tset) of gartersnakes has not diverged significantly between populations or different Thamnophis species. The reason behind gartersnake success could lie in their flexible thermoregulatory behaviours and habitat selection. We aimed to investigate this relationship by first identifying the Tset of a common gartersnake species (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) via a thermal gradient. We then used this Tset parameter as a baseline for calculating the thermal quality of an open, mixed, and forested habitat all used by the species. We measured the thermal profiles of these habitats by installing a series of temperature-recording analogues that mimicked the reflectance and morphology of living gartersnakes and recorded environmental temperatures as living snakes experience them. Lastly, we used coverboards to survey the current habitat usage of T. s. sirtalis. Of the three habitats, we found that the open habitat offered the highest thermal quality throughout the snake’s active season. In contrast, we recorded the greatest number of snakes using the mixed habitat which had considerably lower thermal quality. Although the open habitat offered the greatest thermal quality, we regularly recorded temperatures exceeding the upper range of the animals’ thermal preference.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction •Graphs / Facts •Solution •Conclusion •Causes •Photos •Acknowledgements •About This Amazing Creatu
    •Axolotls and the Environment •by Sharel Gaskey •Introduction •Problem •Graphs / Facts •Solution •Every one organism affects our future and our environment’s •Many salamander species in Mexico and Guatemala •Make a sanctuary and maybe a man made lake in a future! When one group of organisms die off another group have suffered dramatic population declines since the better spot. Reintroduction of lab bred axolotls might also might die unless they can rely on one another for food. 1970s, driven to the brink probably by a warming not be a good idea. A pilot sanctuary is planned to When an animal becomes extinct our whole world’s future climate and other factors. Two of the most common open in Mexico City in 2009. changes because it has to adapt to the loss. There are many species of salamanders in the areas 40 years ago are types of animals that need our help to survive. They are in extinct, and several others have experienced large •The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) this situation because sometimes we as humans are causing drops in number. All around the world human (16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1531 et seq.) was enacted to protect the problem. There are many extinct and endangered animals influences have changed the environment. animal and plant species from extinction by preserving at the moment, but right now one specific animal is going to •In Ten Years the Amount Per Square foot went the ecosystems in which they survive and by providing be the focus, The Axolotl. The Axolotl is related to the Tiger from about 1000 to 25.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited for the Final Critical Habitat Rule for the Austin Blind and Jollyville Plateau Salamanders Docket No
    Literature Cited for the Final Critical Habitat Rule for the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau Salamanders Docket No. FWS–R2–ES-2013–0001 Bendik, N. 2011a. Jollyville Plateau Salamander Status Report. City of Austin Watershed Protection. SR-11-10. 43 pp. Bendik, N. 2011b. 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. 2013. Personal communiation. Pilot Study: Movement of Eurycea tonkawae near Lanier Spring, Bull Creek, Travis Co., Texas. City of Austin, public comments on FWS- R2-ES-2013-0001. March 11, 2013. 4 pp. Bendik, N. and A.G. Gluesenkamp. 2012. Body length shrinkage in an endangered amphibian is associated with drought. Journal of Zoology 290 (1): 35-41. Bowles, B.D., Sanders, M.S., 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. 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. 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, USA, 381 pp. COA (City of Austin). 2011. Unpublished data. Barton Springs water chemistry 2003-2011. November 20, 2011. 1 p. Cole, R.A. 1995. A review of status, research and management of taxon viability for three neotenic aquatic salamanders in Travis County, Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources Documentation
    Tier I Site Assessment Main CSJ: 0113-13-168 Form Prepared By: Chelsea Miller (CP&Y, Inc.) Date of Evaluation: February 24, 2020 Proposed Letting Date: November 2022 Project not assigned to TxDOT under the NEPA Assignment MOU District(s): Austin County(ies): Travis Roadway Name: State Loop 360 Limits From: Lake Austin Limits To: North of RM 2222 Project Description: TxDOT Austin District proposes to improve a portion of State Loop 360 from Lake Austin to north of RM 2222 in Austin, Travis County, Texas. The proposed project includes improvements to the intersection at SL 360 at Courtyard Drive by removing the signal on the mainlanes and replacing it with an underpass. The project would also construct a diverging diamond intersection at RM 2222. Bicycle/pedestrian accommodations will also be provided. The project is 0.86 miles in length and the project area is 67.2 acres in size. No easements are proposed for the project. No new ROW is required for the project. The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 9, 2019, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT. 1. No Is the project limited to a maintenance activity exempt from coordination? http://txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/environmental/maintenance-program.html 2. No Has the project previously completed coordination with TPWD? 3. Yes Is the project within range of a state threatened or endangered species or SGCN and suitable habitat is present? *Explain: Suitable habitat for the Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia - E), bracted twistflower (Streptanthus bracteatus - T), and Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus - T) was observed within the project area.
    [Show full text]
  • Barton Springs Salamander Recovery Plan Amended to Include the Austin Blind Salamander
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Barton Springs Salamander (Eurycea sosorum) Recovery Plan Amended to include Austin Blind Salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) September 2005 amended January 2016 BARTON SPRINGS SALAMANDER RECOVERY PLAN DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which the best available science indicates are required to recover or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act (U.S.C. 1341) or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after the plan has been signed by the Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new information, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. Please check for updates or revisions at the website below before using. Literature citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Barton Springs Salamander (Eurycea sosorum) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM.
    [Show full text]
  • Gap Analysis Project (GAP) Terrestrial Vertebrate Species Richness Maps for the Conterminous U.S
    Prepared in cooperation with North Carolina State University, New Mexico State University, and Boise State University Gap Analysis Project (GAP) Terrestrial Vertebrate Species Richness Maps for the Conterminous U.S. Scientific Investigations Report 2019–5034 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Mosaic of amphibian, bird, mammal, and reptile species richness maps derived from species’ habitat distribution models of the conterminous United States. Gap Analysis Project (GAP) Terrestrial Vertebrate Species Richness Maps for the Conterminous U.S. By Kevin J. Gergely, Kenneth G. Boykin, Alexa J. McKerrow, Matthew J. Rubino, Nathan M. Tarr, and Steven G. Williams Prepared in cooperation with North Carolina State University, New Mexico State University, and Boise State University Scientific Investigations Report 2019–5034 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2019 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Barton Springs Pool Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR A MAJOR RENEWAL AND EXTENSION OF THE BARTON SPRINGS SALAMANDER SECTION 10(A)(1)(B) PERMIT Prepared for U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 Prepared by WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC. 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78746 512-651-7100 Fax 512-651-7101 September 2013 W.O. No. 06141.043.002 Weston Solutions, Inc. – EA for the Barton Springs Salamander Permit, City of Austin TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION AND NEED FOR ACTION .............................................................. 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 PROJECT STUDY AREA AND LOCATION ......................................................... 1-2 1.3 PROJECT STUDY AREA HISTORY ...................................................................... 1-3 1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION ........................................................... 1-4 2. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION, NO NEW PERMIT .......................................... 2-1 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: PREFERRED, PERMIT FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE OF BARTON SPRINGS AND AUSTIN BLIND SALAMANDERS ............................ 2-1 2.3 ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED, BUT ELIMINATED .......................................... 2-2 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Encyclopedia of Caves
    S SALAMANDERS temperatures in their habitat, they are likely active year- Spelaˇ Gorickiˇ ,* Matthew L. Niemiller,† and round. For orientation, feeding, and mating, they rely on Dante´ B. Fenolio‡ mechano- and chemosensory cues, which corresponds to *University of Maryland, †University of Tennessee, progressive development of extraoptic sensory systems. ‡Atlanta Botanical Garden Salamanders from subterranean environments usually have lower metabolism, efficient energy (fat) storage, and Salamanders are a diverse group of vertebrates, exploit- a longer life span than their surface counterparts. They ing moist cool habitats in a variety of ways. Several have fewer, larger eggs and offspring compared to lineages have colonized subterranean habitats, particu- related surface-dwelling species. The rate of development larly in regions of climatic extremes. Salamanders associ- in amphibians strongly depends on environmental fac- ated with karst exhibit differences in the amount of time tors, most notably ambient temperature. When compared they spend in subterranean habitats, their dependence with related epigean species that reproduce at the same on these resources, and morphological and behavioral water temperature, troglobitic salamanders usually adaptations to life underground (troglomorphisms). develop more slowly. All begin their life inside a gelati- Differences are manifested within and across taxonomic nous egg capsule, deposited in water. Eggs hatch into free- groups as well as between geographical regions. North swimming aquatic larvae, with visible bushy gills and a America and Europe host the greatest number of known tailfin. Instead of metamorphosing into mature adults, cave-dwelling species. Cave-dwelling salamanders may however, most troglobitic salamanders attain sexual matu- inhabit subterranean environments for significant por- rity while retaining these and other larval characteristics— tions of their life cycle but not all of it, others migrate to a condition known as neoteny or paedomorphism.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurycea Tonkawae Chippindale, Price, Wiens & Hillis, 2000 (Caudata, Plethodontidae) from an Urbanized Watershed in Travis County, Texas, USA
    16 4 NOTES ON GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Check List 16 (4): 1017–1023 https://doi.org/10.15560/16.4.1017 New occurrence records for Eurycea tonkawae Chippindale, Price, Wiens & Hillis, 2000 (Caudata, Plethodontidae) from an urbanized watershed in Travis County, Texas, USA Zachary C. Adcock1, Andrew R. MacLaren1, Nathan F. Bendik2, Ryan M. Jones1, Alex Llewellyn1, Kenneth Sparks2, Kemble White IV1 1 Cambrian Environmental, 4422 Packsaddle Pass Suite 204, Austin, Texas 78745, USA. 2 Watershed Protection Department, City of Austin, 505 Barton Springs Rd. Suite 1100, Austin, Texas 78704, USA. Corresponding author: Zachary C. Adcock, [email protected] Abstract We report two new occurrence records for Jollyville Plateau Salamanders, Eurycea tonkawae Chippindale, Price, Wiens & Hillis, 2000, from an urbanized watershed in Travis County, Texas, USA. Eurycea tonkawae is listed as federally threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 due to threats from urbanization, including degrada- tion of water quality and quantity. These new records fill a distributional gap within its known range, highlight the importance of surveying historically neglected areas, identify unprotected populations, and encourage the discovery of new populations. Keywords Conservation, Edwards Aquifer, habitat, salamander, spring, threatened species, urbanization. Academic editor: Ross MacCulloch | Received 17 May 2020 | Accepted 27 July 2020 | Published 18 August 2020 Citation: Adcock ZC, MacLaren AR, Bendik NF, Jones RM, Llewellyn A, Sparks K, White IV
    [Show full text]