Vol. 79 Monday, No. 36 February 24, 2014

Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Species Status for the Georgetown Salamander and Salado Salamander Throughout Their Ranges; Final Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10236 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR endangered or threatened throughout all but at that time, it was already a or a significant portion of its range. candidate species whose listing was Fish and Wildlife Service Listing a species as an endangered or precluded by higher priority actions. threatened species can only be The Salado salamander was included 50 CFR Part 17 completed by issuing a rule. in nine Candidate Notices of Review: • 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035; This rule lists the Georgetown and Salado salamanders as threatened • 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 4500030113] • species under the Act. 70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; RIN 1018–AY22 • 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; The basis for our action. Under the • Act, we can determine that a species is 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife • an endangered or threatened species 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; and Plants; Determination of • 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; based on any of five factors: (A) The Threatened Species Status for the • 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; present or threatened destruction, Georgetown Salamander and Salado and modification, or curtailment of its Salamander Throughout Their Ranges • 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011. habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for The listing priority number has AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, commercial, recreational, scientific, or remained at 2 throughout the reviews, Interior. educational purposes; (C) Disease or indicating that threats to the species ACTION: Final rule. predation; (D) The inadequacy of were both imminent and high in existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) magnitude. In addition, on May 11, SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Other natural or manmade factors 2004, the Service received a petition Wildlife Service (Service), determine affecting its continued existence. We from the Center for Biological Diversity threatened status for the Georgetown have determined that the Georgetown to list 225 species we previously had salamander (Eurycea naufragia) and the and Salado salamanders are threatened identified as candidates for listing in Salado salamander (Eurycea under the Act due to threats faced by accordance with section 4 of the Act, chisholmensis) under the Endangered the species both now and in the future including the Salado salamander. Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. from Factors A, D, and E. On August 22, 2012, we published a The effect of this regulation is to Peer review and public comment. We proposed rule to list as endangered and conserve the two salamander species sought comments from independent designate critical habitat for the Austin and their habitats under the Act. This specialists to ensure that our blind salamander (Eurycea final rule implements the Federal designation is based on scientifically waterlooensis), Jollyville Plateau protections provided by the Act for sound data, assumptions, and analyses. salamander (Eurycea tonkawae), these species. We are also notifying the We invited these peer reviewers to Georgetown salamander, and Salado public that, in addition to this final comment on our listing proposal. We salamanders (77 FR 50768). That listing determination, today we publish also considered all comments and proposal had a 60-day comment period, a proposed special rule under the Act information received during the ending October 22, 2012. We held a for the Georgetown salamander. comment period (see Summary of public meeting and hearing in Round DATES: This rule becomes effective Comments and Recommendations Rock, Texas, on September 5, 2012, and March 26, 2014. section below). a second public meeting and hearing in ADDRESSES: This final rule is available Background Austin, Texas, on September 6, 2012. on the Internet at http:// On January 25, 2013, we reopened the www.regulations.gov and http:// Previous Federal Action public comment period on the August www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ The Georgetown salamander was 22, 2012, proposed listing and critical AustinTexas/. Comments and materials included in 10 Candidate Notices of habitat designation; announced the received, as well as supporting Review: availability of a draft economic analysis; documentation used in preparing this • 66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001; and an amended required final rule, are available for public • 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; determinations section of the proposal inspection, by appointment, during • 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; (78 FR 5385). On August 20, 2013, we normal business hours, at U.S. Fish and • 70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; extended the final determination for the Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological • 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; Georgetown and Salado salamanders by Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER • 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 6 months due to substantial INFORMATION CONTACT). • 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; disagreement regarding: (1) The short- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: • 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; and long-term population trends of Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. • 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; these two species; (2) the interpretation Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin and of water quality and quantity Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 • 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011. degradation information as it relates to Burnet Rd, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; In the 2008 review, the listing priority the status of these two species; and (3) by telephone 512–490–0057; or by number was lowered from 2 to 8, the effectiveness of conservation facsimile 512–490–0974. Persons who indicating that threats to the species practices and regulatory mechanisms use a telecommunications device for the were imminent, but moderate to low in (78 FR 51129). That comment period deaf (TDD) may call the Federal magnitude. This reduction in listing closed on September 19, 2013. Information Relay Service (FIRS) at priority number was primarily due to Since that time, the City of 800–877–8339. the land acquisition and conservation Georgetown, Texas, prepared and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: efforts of the Williamson County finalized ordinances for the Georgetown Conservation Foundation. In addition, salamander. All 17 of the known Executive Summary we were petitioned by the Center for Georgetown salamander locations are Why we need to publish a rule. Under Biological Diversity to list the within the City of Georgetown’s the Act, a species may warrant Georgetown salamander as an jurisdiction for residential and protection through listing if it is endangered species on May 11, 2004, commercial development. The enacted

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10237

ordinances were directed at alleviating pH, and alkalinity) maintained by Range threats to the Georgetown salamander groundwater from various sources. The The habitats of the Georgetown and from urban development by requiring Georgetown and Salado salamanders Salado salamanders occur in the geologic assessments prior to depend on high-quality water in Northern Segment of the Edwards construction, establishing occupied site sufficient quantity and quality to meet Aquifer. The recharge and contributing protections through stream buffers, their life-history requirements for zones of this segment of the Edwards maintaining water quality through best survival, growth, and reproduction. Aquifer are found in portions of Travis, management practices, developing a Much of this water is sourced from the Williamson, and Bell Counties, Texas water quality management plan for the Northern Segment of the Edwards (Jones 2003, p. 3). City of Georgetown, and monitoring Aquifer, which is a karst aquifer occupied spring sites by an adaptive characterized by open chambers such as Diet management working group. In order to caves, fractures, and other cavities that Although we are unaware of detailed consider the ordinances in our final were formed either directly or indirectly dietary studies for Georgetown and listing determination, on January 7, by dissolution of subsurface rock Salado salamanders, their diets are 2014 (79 FR 800), we reopened the formations. Water for the salamanders is presumed to be similar to other Eurycea comment period for 15 days on the provided by infiltration of surface water species, which consist of small aquatic proposed listing rule to allow the public through the soil or recharge features invertebrates such as amphipods, an opportunity to provide comment on (caves, faults, fractures, sinkholes, or copepods, isopods, and insect larvae the application of the City of other open cavities) into the Edwards (COA 2001, pp. 5–6). A stomach content Georgetown’s ordinances to our status Aquifer, which discharges from springs analysis by the City of Austin determination under section 4(a)(1) of as groundwater (Schram 1995, p. 91). demonstrated that the Jollyville Plateau the Act. The Georgetown and Salado salamander preys on varying This rule constitutes our final salamanders spend varying portions of proportions of aquatic invertebrates, determination to list the Georgetown their life within their surface habitats such as ostracods, copepods, mayfly and Salado salamanders as threatened (the wetted top layer of substrate in or larvae, fly larvae, snails, water mites, species. near spring openings and pools as well aquatic beetles, and stone fly larvae, as spring runs) and subsurface habitats depending on the location of the site Species Information (within caves or other underground (Bendik 2011b, pers. comm.). The feces Taxonomy areas of the underlying groundwater of one wild-caught Austin blind source). Although surface and salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) The Georgetown and Salado subsurface habitats are often discussed contained amphipods, ostracods, salamanders are neotenic (do not separately within this final rule, it is copepods, and plant material (Hillis et transform into a terrestrial form) important to note the al. 2001, p. 273). Gillespie (2013, pp. 5– members of the family Plethodontidae. interconnectedness of these areas. 9) also found that the diet of the closely Plethodontid salamanders comprise the Subsurface habitat does not necessarily related Barton Springs salamanders largest family of salamanders within the refer to an expansive cave underground. (Eurycea sosorum) consisted primarily Order Caudata, and are characterized by Rather, it may be described as the water- of planarians or chironomids (flatworms an absence of lungs (Petranka 1998, pp. filled rock matrix below the stream bed. or nonbiting midge flies), depending on 157–158). The Jollyville Plateau As such, subsurface habitats are which was more abundant, and (Eurycea tonkawae), Georgetown, and impacted by the same threats that amphipods (when planarians and Salado salamanders have very similar impact surface habitat, as the two exist chironomids were rare). external morphology. Because of this, as a continuum (Bendik 2012, City of they were previously believed to be the Austin (COA), pers. comm.). Predation same species; however, molecular Salamanders move an unknown depth The Georgetown and Salado evidence strongly supports that there is into interstitial spaces (empty voids salamanders share similar predators, a high level of divergence between the between rocks) within the spring or which include centrarchid fish three groups (Chippindale et al. 2000, streambed substrate that provide (carnivorous freshwater fish belonging pp. 15–16; Chippindale 2010, p. 2). foraging habitat and protection from to the sunfish family), crayfish predators and drought conditions (Cole Morphological Characteristics (Cambarus sp.), and large aquatic 1995, p. 24; Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. insects (Cole 1995, p. 26; Bowles et al. As neotenic salamanders, the 16–17). They may also use deeper 2006, p. 117; Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. Georgetown and Salado salamanders passages of the aquifer that connect to 18–20). retain external feathery gills and inhabit the spring opening (Dries 2011, COA, aquatic habitats (springs, spring-runs, pers. comm.). This behavior makes it Reproduction wet caves, and groundwater) throughout difficult to accurately estimate The detection of juveniles in all their lives (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. population sizes, as only salamanders seasons suggests that reproduction 1). In other words, these salamanders on the surface can be regularly occurs year-round (Bendik 2011a, p. 26; are aquatic and respire through gills and monitored. However, techniques have Hillis et al. 2001, p. 273). However, permeable skin (Duellman and Trueb been developed for marking individual juvenile abundance of Georgetown 1986, p. 217). Also, adult salamanders salamanders, which allows for better salamanders typically increases in of these species are about 2 inches (in) estimating population numbers using spring and summer, indicating that (5 centimeters (cm)) long (Chippindale ‘‘mark and recapture’’ data analysis there may be relatively more et al. 2000, pp. 32–42; Hillis et al. 2001, techniques. These techniques have been reproduction occurring in winter and p. 268). used by the COA on the Jollyville early spring compared to other seasons Plateau salamander (Bendik et al. 2013, (Pierce 2012, pp. 10–11, 18, 20). In Habitat pp. 2–7) and by Dr. Benjamin Pierce at addition, most gravid (egg-bearing) Both species inhabit water of high Southwestern University on the females of the Georgetown salamander quality with a narrow range of Georgetown salamander (Pierce 2011, are found from October through April conditions (for example, temperature, pp. 5–7). (Pierce 2012, p. 8; Pierce and McEntire

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10238 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

2013, p. 6). Because eggs are very rarely (Whitewater Cave to R-Bar-B Spring and Rangewide Needs found on the surface, these salamanders Hideaway Cave to R-Bar-B Spring) We used the conservation principles likely deposit their eggs underground (Hauwert and Warton 1997, pp. 12–13), of redundancy, representation, and for protection (O’Donnell et al. 2005, p. but it remains unclear if salamanders resiliency (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 18). are travelling between those sites. Also, 307, 309–310) to better inform our view Population Connectivity in Salado, a large underground conduit of what contributes to these species’ that conveys groundwater from the area probability of persistence and how best More study is needed to determine under the Stagecoach Hotel to Big the nature and extent of the dispersal to conserve them. ‘‘Resiliency’’ is the Boiling Spring is large enough to capabilities of the Georgetown and ability of a species to persist through support salamander movement (Texas Salado salamanders. It has been severe hardships or stochastic events suggested that they may be able to travel Parks and Wildlife Department [TPWD] (Tear et al. 2005, p. 841). ‘‘Redundancy’’ some distance through subsurface 2011a, pers. comm.; Mahler 2012, U.S. means a sufficient number of aquifer conduits. For example, it has Geological Survey [USGS], pers. comm.; populations to provide a margin of been thought that Austin blind Yelderman Jr. et al. 2013, p. 1). In safety to reduce the risk of losing a salamander can occur underground conclusion, some data indicate that species or certain representation throughout the entire Barton Springs some populations could be connected (variation) within a species, particularly complex (Dries 2011, COA, pers. through subterranean water-filled from catastrophic or other events. comm.). The spring habitats used by spaces. However, we are unaware of any ‘‘Representation’’ means conserving salamanders of the Barton Springs information available on the frequency ‘‘some of everything’’ with regard to complex are not connected on the of movements and the actual nature of genetic and ecological diversity to allow surface, so the Austin blind salamander connectivity among populations. for future adaptation and maintenance population could extend a horizontal of evolutionary potential. distance of at least 984 feet (ft) (300 Population Persistence Representation can be measured meters (m)) underground, as this is the through the breadth of genetic diversity A population’s persistence (ability to within and among populations and approximate distance between the survive and avoid extirpation) is farthest two outlets within the Barton ecological diversity (also called influenced by a population’s environmental variation or diversity) Springs complex known to be occupied demographic factors (such as survival by the species. However, a mark-and- occupied by populations across the and reproductive rates) as well as its recapture study failed to document the species range. environment. The population needs of movement of endangered Barton A variety of factors contribute to a the Georgetown and Salado salamanders Springs salamanders (Eurycea sosorum) species’ resiliency. These can include between any of the springs in the Barton are the factors that provide for a high how sensitive the species is to Springs complex (Dries 2012, COA, probability of population persistence disturbances or stressors in its pers. comm.). This finding could over the long term at a given site (for environment, how often they reproduce indicate that individual salamanders are example, low degree of threats and high and how many young they have, how not moving the distances between survival and reproduction rates). We are specific or narrow their habitat needs spring openings. Alternatively, this unaware of detailed studies that are. A species’ resiliency can also be finding could mean that the study describe all of the demographic factors affected by the resiliency of individual simply failed to capture the movement that could affect the population populations and the number of of salamanders. This study has only persistence of the Georgetown and populations and their distribution recently begun and is relatively small in Salado salamanders; however, we have across the landscape. Protecting scope. assessed their probability of persistence multiple populations and variation of a Due to the similar life history of the by evaluating environmental factors species across its range may contribute Austin blind salamander to the (threats to their surface habitats) and to its resiliency, especially if some Georgetown and Salado salamanders, it using the available information we populations or habitats are more is plausible that populations of these know about the number of salamanders susceptible or better adapted to certain latter two species could also extend 984 that occur at each site. threats than others (Service and NOAA ft (300 m) through subterranean habitat, 2011, p. 76994). The ability of To estimate the probability of assuming the Austin blind salamander individuals from populations to is capable of moving between springs in persistence of each population involves disperse and recolonize an area that has the Barton Springs complex. However, considering the predictable responses of been extirpated may also influence their subsurface movement is likely to be the population to various environmental resiliency. As population size and limited by the highly dissected nature of factors (such as the amount of food habitat quality increase, the the aquifer system, where spring sites available or the presence of a toxic population’s ability to persist through can be separated from other spring sites substance), as well as the stochasticity. periodic hardships also increases. by large canyons or other physical Stochasticity refers to the random, A minimal level of redundancy is barriers to movement. Surface chance, or probabilistic nature of the essential for long-term viability (Shaffer movement is similarly inhibited by demographic and environmental and Stein 2000, pp. 307, 309–310; geologic, hydrologic, physical, and processes (Van Dyke 2008, pp. 217– Groves et al. 2002, p. 506). This biological barriers (for example, 218). Generally, the larger the provides a margin of safety for a species predatory fish commonly found in population, the more likely it is to to withstand catastrophic events impoundments along urbanized survive stochastic events in both (Service and NOAA 2011, p. 76994) by tributaries (Bendik 2012, COA, pers. demographic and environmental factors decreasing the chance of any one event comm.). Dye-trace studies have (Van Dyke 2008, p. 217). Conversely, the affecting the entire species. demonstrated that some Jollyville smaller the population, the higher its Representation and the adaptive Plateau salamander sites located 2.9 chances are of extirpation when capabilities (Service and NOAA 2011, p. miles (mi) (4.7 kilometers (km)) apart experiencing this demographic and 76994) of both the Georgetown and are connected hydrologically environmental stochasticity. Salado salamanders are also important

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10239

for long-term viability. Because a subterranean locations) in Williamson and pools with gravel and cobble rock species’ genetic makeup is shaped County, Texas. A groundwater divide substrates (Pierce et al. 2010, pp. 295– through natural selection by the between the South Fork of the San 296). This species prefers larger cobble environments it has experienced Gabriel River and Brushy Creek to the and boulders to use as cover (Pierce et (Shaffer and Stein 2000, p. 308), south likely creates the division al. 2010, p. 295). Georgetown populations should be protected in the between the ranges of the Jollyville salamanders are found within 164 ft (50 array of different environments in Plateau and Georgetown salamanders m) of a spring opening (Pierce et al. which the salamanders occur (surface (Williamson County 2008, p. 3–34). 2011a, p. 4), but they are most abundant and subsurface) as a strategy to ensure The Service is currently aware of 17 within the first 16.4 ft (5 m) (Pierce et genetic representation, adaptive Georgetown salamander localities (15 in al. 2010, p. 294). However, Jollyville capability, and conservation of the or around a spring opening and 2 in Plateau salamanders, a closely related species. caves). We have recently received species, have been found farther from a To increase the probability of confirmation that Georgetown spring opening in the Bull Creek persistence of each species, populations salamanders occur at two additional drainage. A recent study using mark- of the Georgetown and Salado spring sites (Hogg Hollow II Spring and recapture methods found marked salamanders should be conserved in a Garey Ranch Spring) (Covey 2013, pers. individuals moved up to 262 ft (80 m) manner that ensures their variation and comm., Covey 2014, pers. comm.) This both upstream and downstream from representation. This result can be species has not been observed in more the Lanier Spring outlet (Bendik 2013, achieved by conserving salamander than 20 years at San Gabriel Spring and pers. comm.). This study demonstrates populations in a diversity of more than 10 years at Buford Hollow that Eurycea salamanders in central environments (throughout their ranges), Spring, despite several survey efforts to Texas can travel greater distances from including: (1) Both spring and cave find it (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 40, a discrete spring opening than locations, (2) habitats with groundwater Pierce 2011b, c, Southwestern previously thought, including upstream sources from various aquifers and University, pers. comm.). We are areas, if suitable habitat is present. geologic formations, and (3) at sites with unaware of any population surveys in The water chemistry of Georgetown different hydrogeological the last 10 years from a number of sites salamander habitat is constant year- characteristics, including sites where (such as Cedar Breaks Hiking Trail, round in terms of temperature and water flows come from artesian Shadow Canyon, and Bat Well). dissolved oxygen (Pierce et al. 2010, p. pressure, a perched aquifer, or Georgetown salamanders continue to be 294, Biagas et al. 2012, p. 163). resurgence through alluvial deposits. observed at the remaining 12 sites Although some reproduction occurs Information for each of the (Avant Spring, Swinbank Spring, Knight year-round, recent data indicate that salamander species is discussed in more Spring, Twin Springs, Cowan Creek Georgetown salamanders breed mostly detail below. Spring, Cedar Hollow Spring, Cobbs in winter and early spring (Pierce 2012, Georgetown Salamander Spring/Cobbs Well, Garey Ranch Spring, p. 8; Pierce and McEntire 2013, p. 6). Hogg Hollow Spring, Hogg Hollow II The cave sites (Bat Well and Water Tank The Georgetown salamander is Spring, Walnut Spring, and Water Tank Cave) and the subterranean portion of characterized by a broad, relatively Cave) (Pierce 2011c, pers. comm.; Cobbs Well where this species is known short head with three pairs of bright-red Gluesenkamp 2011a, TPWD, pers. to occur have been less studied than its gills on each side behind the jaws, a comm.). surface habitat; therefore, the quality rounded and short snout, and large eyes Recent mark-recapture studies suggest and extent of their subterranean habitats with a gold iris. The upper body is a population size of 100 to 200 adult are not well understood. generally grayish with varying patterns salamanders at Twin Springs, with a of melanophores (cells containing similar population estimate at Swinbank Salado Salamander brown or black pigments called Spring (Pierce 2011a, p. 18). Population The Salado salamander has reduced melanin) and iridophores (cells filled sizes at other sites are unknown, but eyes compared to other spring-dwelling with iridescent pigments called visual surface counts result in low Eurycea species in north-central Texas guanine), while the underside is pale numbers (Williamson County 2008, pp. and lacks well-defined melanophores and translucent. The tail tends to be 3–35). In fact, through a review of (pigment cells that contain melanin). It long with poorly developed dorsal and survey data available in our files and has a relatively long and flat head, and ventral fins that are golden-yellow at the provided during the peer review and a blunt and rounded snout. The upper base, cream-colored to translucent public comment period for the proposed body is generally grayish-brown with a toward the outer margin, and mottled rule, we found that the highest numbers slight cinnamon tinge and an irregular with melanophores and iridophores. observed at each of the other spring sites pattern of tiny, light flecks. The Unlike the closely related Jollyville during the last 10 years is less than 50 underside is pale and translucent. The Plateau salamander, the Georgetown (less than 5 salamanders at Avant end portion of the tail generally has a salamander has a distinct dark border Spring, Bat Well Cave, Cobbs Spring/ well-developed fin on top, but the along the lateral margins of the tail fin CobbsWell, Shadow Canyon, and bottom tail fin is weakly developed (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 38). As with Walnut Spring; 0 salamanders at Buford (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 42). the Jollyville Plateau salamander, the Hollow Spring and San Gabriel Spring). The Salado salamander is known Georgetown salamander has recently There are other springs in Williamson historically from four spring sites near discovered cave-adapted forms with County that may support Georgetown the village of Salado, Bell County, reduced eyes and pale coloration salamander populations, but access to Texas: Big Boiling Springs (also known (TPWD 2011, p. 8). the private lands where these springs as Main, Salado, or Siren Springs), Lil’ The Georgetown salamander is known are found has not been allowed, which Bubbly Springs, Lazy Days Fish Farm from springs along five tributaries has prevented surveys being done at Springs (also known as Critchfield (South, Middle, and North Forks; these sites (Williamson County 2008, Springs), and Robertson Springs Cowan Creek; and Berry Creek) to the pp. 3–35). (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 43; TPWD San Gabriel River (Pierce 2011a, p. 2) Surface-dwelling Georgetown 2011, pp. 1–2). These springs bubble up and from two caves (aquatic, salamanders inhabit spring runs, riffles, through faults in the Northern Segment

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10240 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

of the Edwards Aquifer and associated probably due to the higher quality of the from 22 knowledgeable individuals with limestone along Salado Creek (Brune habitat (Gluesenkamp 2011b, TPWD, scientific expertise concerning the 1975, p. 31). The four spring sites all pers. comm.). hydrology, taxonomy, and ecology that contribute to Salado Creek. Under is important to these salamander Summary of Comments and species. We requested expert opinions Brune’s (1975, p. 5) definition, which Recommendations identifies springs depending on flow, all from taxonomists specifically to review sites are considered small (4.5 to 45 We requested comments from the the proposed rule in light of an gallons per minute [17 to 170 liters per public on the proposed listing for unpublished report by Forstner (2012, minute]) to medium springs (45 to 449 Georgetown salamander and Salado entire) that questioned the taxonomic gallons per minute [170 to 1,1700 liters salamander during three comment validity of the four central Texas per minute]). Two other spring sites periods. The first comment period salamanders as separate species. We (Benedict and Anderson Springs) are associated with the publication of the received responses from 13 of the peer located downstream from Big Boiling proposed rule (77 FR 50768) opened on reviewers. Springs and Robertson Springs. These August 22, 2012, and closed on October During the first comment period, we springs have been surveyed by TPWD 22, 2012, during which we held public received some contradictory public periodically since June 2009, but no meetings and hearings on September 5 comments, and we also found new salamanders have been found and 6, 2012, in Round Rock and Austin, information relative to the listing (Gluesenkamp 2010, TPWD, pers. Texas, respectively. We reopened the determination. For these reasons, we comm.). In August 2009, TPWD comment period on the proposed listing conducted a second peer review on: (1) discovered a population of salamanders rule from January 25, 2013, to March 11, Salamander demographics and (2) urban at a new site (Solana Spring #1) farther 2013 (78 FR 5385). During our 6-month development and stream habitat. During upstream on Salado Creek in Bell extension on the final determination for this second peer review, we solicited County, Texas (TPWD 2011, p. 2). the Georgetown and Salado expert opinions from 20 knowledgeable Salado salamanders were recently salamanders, we reopened the comment individuals with expertise in the two confirmed at two additional spring sites period from August 20, 2013, to areas identified above. We received (Cistern and Hog Hollow Springs) on the September 19, 2013 (78 FR 51129). On responses from eight peer reviewers Salado Creek in March 2010 (TPWD January 7, 2014, we reopened the during this second review. The peer 2011, p. 2). In total, the Salado comment period and announced the reviewers generally concurred with our availability of the City of Georgetown’s salamander is currently known from methods and conclusions and provided final ordinance for water quality and seven springs. A groundwater divide additional information, clarifications, urban development (79 FR 800). We between Salado Creek and Berry Creek and suggestions to improve the final reopened the comment period to allow to the south likely creates a division listing and critical habitat rule. Peer all interested parties an opportunity to between the ranges of the Georgetown reviewer comments are addressed in the comment simultaneously on the and Salado salamander (Williamson following summary and incorporated proposed rule and the effect of the new County 2008, p. 3–34). into the final rule as appropriate. city ordinance on the threats to the Of the two salamander species, Salado species. That comment period closed on Peer Reviewer Comments salamanders have been observed the January 22, 2014. We also contacted Taxonomy least. Biologists were unable to observe appropriate Federal, state, and local this species in its type locality (location agencies; scientific organizations; and (1) Comment: Most peer reviewers from which a specimen was first other interested parties and invited stated that the best available scientific collected and identified as a species) them to comment on the proposed rule information was used to develop the despite over 20 visits to Big Boiling during these comment periods. proposed rule and the Service’s analysis Springs that occurred between 1991 and We received a total of approximately of the available information was 1998 (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 43). 483 comments during the open scientifically sound. Further, most Likewise, TPWD surveyed this site comment periods for the proposed reviewers stated that our assessment weekly from June 2009 until May 2010, listing and critical habitat rules. All that these are four distinct species and and found one salamander substantive information provided our interpretation of literature (Gluesenkamp 2010, TPWD, pers. during the comment periods has been addressing threats (including reduced comm.) at a spring outlet locally incorporated directly into the final habitat quality due to urbanization and referred to as ‘‘Lil’ Bubbly’’ located near listing rule for the salamanders and is increased impervious cover) to these Big Boiling Springs. One additional addressed below in our response to species was well researched. However, unconfirmed sighting of a Salado comments. Comments from peer some researchers suggested that further salamander in Big Boiling Springs was reviewers and state agencies are research would strengthen or refine our reported in 2008, by a citizen of Salado, grouped separately below. Comments understanding of these salamanders. For Texas. In 2009, TPWD was granted received are grouped into general issues example, one reviewer stated that the access to Robertson Springs to survey specifically relating to the proposed Jollyville Plateau salamander taxonomy for the Salado salamander. This species listing for the salamander species. was supported by weak but suggestive was reconfirmed at this location in Beyond the comments addressed below, evidence, and therefore, it needed more February 2010 (Gluesenkamp 2010, several commenters submitted study. Another reviewer thought there TPWD, pers. comm.). In the fall of 2012, additional reports and references for our was evidence of missing descendants in all of the spring outlets near the Village consideration, which were reviewed the group that included the Jollyville of Salado were thoroughly searched and incorporated into this final listing Plateau and Georgetown salamanders in over a period of two months using a rule as appropriate. the enzyme analysis presented in the variety of sampling methods, and no original species descriptions Salado salamanders were found Peer Review (Chippindale et al. 2000, entire). (Hibbitts 2013, p. 2). Salado salamander In accordance with our peer review Our Response: Peer reviewers’ populations appear to be larger at spring policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR comments indicate that we used the best sites upstream of the Village of Salado, 34270), we solicited expert opinions available science, and we correctly

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10241

interpreted that science as recognizing members are comprised of all of the over the entire recharge zone of the the central Texas salamanders as four descendants from a common ancestor) contributing aquifers on spring flows in separate species. In the final listing rule, of several of the currently recognized salamander habitat. Also, the surface we continue to recognize the Austin species; and (3) the tree is only a gene watersheds analyzed in the proposed blind, Jollyville Plateau, Georgetown, tree, presenting sequence data on a rule are irrelevant because these and Salado salamanders as four distinct single gene, which provides little or no salamanders live in cave streams and and valid species. However, we new information on species spring flows that receive groundwater. acknowledge that the understanding of relationships of populations. Without information on the the taxonomy of these salamander Our Response: See our response to groundwater recharge areas, the rule species can be strengthened by further comment 1. should be clear that the surface research. (5) Comment: Peer reviewers watersheds are only an approximation (2) Comment: Forstner (2012, pp. 3– generally stated that Forstner (2012, pp. of what is impacting the subsurface 4) used the size of geographic 13–14) incorrectly dismisses drainage basins. distributions as part of his argument for morphological data that have been used Our Response: We acknowledge that the existence of fewer species of to recognize some of the Texas Eurycea the impervious cover analysis is limited Eurycea in Texas than are currently species on the basis that it is prone to to impacts on the surface watershed. recognized. Several peer reviewers convergence (acquisition of the same Because the specific groundwater commented that they saw no reason for biological trait in unrelated lineages) recharge areas of individual springs are viewing the large number of Eurycea and, therefore, misleading. The peer unknown, we cannot accurately assess species with small distributions in reviewers commented that it is true that the current or future impacts on these Texas as problematic when compared to similarities in characters associated areas. However, we recognize the larger distributions of Eurycea with cave-dwelling salamanders can be subsurface flows as another avenue for species outside of Texas. They stated misleading when suggesting that the contaminants to reach the salamander that larger numbers and smaller species possessing those characters are sites, and we tried to make this clearer distributions of Texas Eurycea species closely related. However, this in no way in the final rule. indicates that the reverse is true; that is, are to be expected given the isolated (8) Comment: Several of the indicating differences in characters is spring environments that they inhabit watersheds analyzed for impervious not misleading in identifying separate within an arid landscape. Salamander cover in the proposed rule were species with very small ranges are species. overestimated. The sub-basins in these common in several families and are Our Response: See our response to larger watersheds need to be analyzed usually restricted to island, mountain, comment 1. for impervious cover impacts. or cave habitats. Impervious Cover Our Response: See our response to Our Response: We have refined our comment 1. (6) Comment: The 10 percent impervious cover analysis in this final (3) Comment: Forstner (2012, pp. 15– impervious cover threshold may not be listing rule to clarify the surface 16) used results from Harlan and Zigler protective of salamander habitat based watersheds of individual spring sites. (2009), indicating that levels of genetic on a study by Coles et al. (2012, pp. 4– Our final impervious cover report variation within the eastern species the 5), which found a loss of sensitive containing this refined analysis is spotted-tail salamander (E. lucifuga) are species due to urbanization and that available on the Internet at http:// similar to those among six currently there was no evidence of a resistance www.regulations.gov under Docket No. recognized species of Texas Eurycea, as threshold to invertebrates that the FWS–R2–ES–2012–0035 and at http:// part of his argument that there are fewer salamanders prey upon. A vast amount www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ species in Texas than currently of literature indicates that 1 to 2 percent AustinTexas/. recognized. Several peer reviewers said impervious cover can cause habitat Threats that these sorts of comparisons can be degradation, and, therefore, the 10 very misleading in that they fail to take percent threshold for impervious cover (9) Comment: One peer reviewer into consideration differences in the will not be protective of these species. stated that the threat to these species ages, effective population sizes, or Our Response: We recognize that low from over collection for scientific population structure of the units being levels of impervious cover in a purposes may be understated. compared. The delineation of species watershed may have impacts on aquatic Our Response: We have reevaluated should be based on patterns of genetic life, and we have incorporated results of the potential threat of overutilization for variation that influence the separation these studies into the final listing rule. scientific purposes and have (or lack thereof) of gene pools rather However, we are aware of only one incorporated a discussion of this under than solely on the magnitude of genetic peer-reviewed study that examined Factor B ‘‘Overutilization for differences, which can vary widely watershed impervious cover effects on Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or within and between species groups. salamanders in central Texas, and this Educational Purposes.’’ We recognize Our Response: See our response to study found impacts on salamander that removing individuals from small, comment 1. density in watersheds with over 10 localized populations in the wild (4) Comment: Several peer reviewers percent impervious cover (Bowles et al. without any proposed plans or stated that the taxonomic tree presented 2006, pp. 113, 117–118). Because this regulations to restrict these activities in Forstner (2012, pp. 20, 26) is difficult impervious cover study was done could increase the population’s to evaluate because of the following locally, we are using 10 percent as a vulnerability of extinction and decrease reasons: (1) No locality information is current reference point to categorize its resiliency and ability to withstand given for the specimens; (2) it disagrees watersheds that are impacted in terms of stochastic events. However, we do not with all trees in other studies (which salamander density. consider overutilization from collecting seem to be largely congruent with one (7) Comment: While the Service’s salamanders in the wild to be another), including that in Forstner and impervious cover analysis assessed substantial enough to be a threat by McHenry (2010, pp. 13–16) with regard impacts on stream flows and surface itself; however, it may cause population to monophyly (a group in which the habitat, it neglected to address impacts declines and could negatively impact

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10242 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

both salamander species in combination urbanization within the watershed by the COA on the Jollyville Plateau with other threats. increases. salamander were simple counts that (12) Comment: The SWCA report serve as indices of relative population Salamander Demographics indicates that increasing conductivity is abundance and are not a measure of (10) Comment: Several peer reviewers related to drought. (Note: Conductivity absolute abundance. This data assumes agreed that COA’s salamander survey is a measure of the ability of water to that the probability of observing data were generally collected and carry an electrical current and can be salamanders remains constant over analyzed appropriately and that the used to approximate the concentration time, season, and among different results are consistent with the literature of dissolved inorganic solids in water observers. This assumption is often on aquatic species’ responses to that can alter the internal water balance violated, which results in unknown urbanizing watersheds. Three reviewers in aquatic organisms, affecting the repercussions on the assessment of had some suggestions on how the data salamanders’ survival. Conductivity population trends. Therefore, the analysis could be improved, but they levels in the Edwards Aquifer are negative trend observed in several sites also state that COA’s analysis is the best naturally low. As ion concentrations could be due to a real decrease in scientific data available, and alternative such as chlorides, sodium, sulfates, and population absolute abundance, but methods of analysis would not likely nitrates rise, conductivity will increase. could also be related to a decrease in change the conclusions. The stability of the measured ions capture probabilities over time (or due Our Response: Because the peer makes conductivity an excellent to an interaction between these two reviewers examined COA’s salamander monitoring tool for assessing the factors). Absolute population abundance demographic data, as well as SWCA impacts of urbanization to overall water and capture probabilities should be Environmental Consultants’ analysis of quality. High conductivity has been estimated in urban sites using the same the COA’s data, and generally agreed associated with declining salamander methods implemented at rural sites by that the COA’s data was the best abundance.). While SWCA’s report COA. However, even in the absence of information available, we continue to notes lack of rainfall as the dominant clear evidence of local population rely upon this data set in the final factor in increased conductivity, the declines of Jollyville Plateau listing rule. confounding influence of decreases in salamanders, the proposed rule was infiltration and increases in sources of (11) Comment: Two peer reviewers correct in its assessment because there ions as factors associated with pointed out that water samples were is objective evidence that urbanization urbanization and changes in water collected by SWCA during a period of negatively impacts the density of quality in these areas is not addressed very low rainfall and, therefore, under Eurycea salamanders (for example, by SWCA. Higher conductivity in urban represent the contribution of water Barrett et al. 2010). streams is well documented and was a Our Response: We recognize that the influenced by urban land cover. The major finding of the U.S. Geological long-term survey data of Jollyville single sampling effort of water and Survey (USGS) urban land use studies Plateau salamanders using simple sediment at the eight sites referenced in (Coles et al. 2012). Stream conductivity counts may not give conclusive the SWCA report do not compare in increased with increasing urban land evidence on the true population status scope and magnitude to the extensive cover in every metropolitan area at each site. However, based on the studies referenced from the COA. The studied. threats and evidence from scientifically numerous studies conducted (and Our Response: While drought may peer-reviewed literature, we conclude referenced) within the known ranges of result in increased conductivity, that the declines in counts seen at urban the salamander species provide increased conductivity is also a Jollyville Plateau salamander sites scientific support at the appropriate reflection of increased urbanization. We represent the best available information scale for recent and potential habitat incorporated information from the study on the status of the Jollyville Plateau degradation due to urbanization. One by Coles et al. (2012) in the final listing salamander and are likely representative peer reviewer pointed out that if you rule, and we continue to include of real declines in the population. We sort the spring sites SWCA sampled into conductivity as a measure of water expect similar responses by Georgetown ‘‘urbanized’’ and ‘‘rural’’ categories, the quality. and Salado salamanders. urban sites generally have more (13) Comment: One peer reviewer (15) Comment: One peer reviewer had degraded water quality than the rural stated that SWCA’s criticisms of COA’s similar comments on COA salamander sites, in terms of nitrate, nitrite, linear regression analysis, general counts and relating them to populations. Escherichia coli (E. coli) counts, and additive model, and population age They stated that the conclusion of a fecal coliform bacteria counts. structure were not relevant and were difference in salamander counts Our Response: The peer reviewers unsupported. In addition, peer between sites with high and low levels made valid arguments that the SWCA reviewers agreed that COA’s mark- of impervious cover is reasonable based (2012, pp. 21–24) did not present recapture estimates are robust and on COA’s data. However, this convincing evidence that overall water highly likely to be correct. Three peer conclusion is not about salamander quality at salamander sites in reviewers agreed that SWCA populations, but instead about the Williamson County is good or that misrepresented the findings of Luo counts. The COA’s capture-mark- urbanization is not impacting the water (2010) and stated that this thesis does recapture analyses provide strong quality at these sites. Water quality not invalidate the findings of COA. evidence of both non-detection and monitoring based on one or a few Our Response: Because the peer substantial temporary emigration, samples is not necessarily reflective of reviewers examined COA’s data, as well findings consistent with other studies of conditions at the site under all as SWCA’s analysis of the COA’s data, salamanders in the same family as the circumstances that the salamanders are and generally agreed that the COA’s Jollyville Plateau salamander. This exposed to over time. Based on this data was the best information available, evidence cautions against any sort of assessment, we continued to rely upon we continue to rely upon this data set analysis that relies on raw count data to the best scientific information available in the final listing rule. draw inferences about populations. in published literature that indicate (14) Comment: One peer reviewer Our Response: See our response to the water quality will decline as stated that the long-term data collected previous comment.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10243

(16) Comment: The SWCA (2012, pp. contradiction, SWCA (2012, p. 81) later the best information available in our 70–76) argues that declines in states that, ‘‘limited dispersal ability proposed listing rule. salamander counts can be attributed to (within a spring) may increase the (21) Comment: One reviewer stated declines in rainfall during the survey species’ vulnerability as salamanders that, even though there is detectable period and not watershed urbanization. may not move from one part of the gene flow between populations, it may However, one peer reviewer stated that spring run to another when localized be representative of subsurface SWCA provided no statistical analysis habitat loss or degradation occurs.’’ It is connections in the past, rather than to validate this claim and well known that small population size current population interchange. misinterpreted the conclusions of and restricted distributions make However, dispersal through the aquifer Gillespie (2011) to support their populations more susceptible to is possible even though there is argument. A second peer reviewer selection or extinction due to stochastic currently no evidence that these species agrees that counts of salamanders are events. Small population size can also migrate. Further, they stated that there related to natural wet and dry cycles but affect population density thresholds is no indication of a metapopulation points out that COA has taken this effect required for successful mating. structure where one population could into account in their analyses. Another (19) Comment: SWCA (2012, p. v) recolonize another that had gone peer reviewer points out that this argues that the Jollyville Plateau extinct. argument contradicts SWCA’s (2012) salamander is not in immediate danger Our Response: We acknowledge that earlier claim that COA’s salamander of extinction because, ‘‘over 60 of the more study is needed to determine the counts are unreliable data. If the data 90-plus known Jollyville Plateau nature and extent of the dispersal were unreliable, they probably would salamander sites are permanently capabilities of the Georgetown and not correlate to environmental changes. protected within preserve areas, and 4 Salado salamanders. It is plausible that Our Response: Although rainfall is of the 16 known Georgetown populations of these species could undoubtedly important to these strictly salamander sites are permanently extend through subterranean habitat. aquatic salamander species, the best protected (and establishment of However, subsurface movement is likely to be limited by the highly dissected scientific information suggests that additional protected sites is being nature of the aquifer system, where rainfall is not the only factor driving considered).’’ This statement completely spring sites can be separated from other salamander population fluctuations. In ignores the entire aquifer recharge zone, spring sites by large canyons or other the final listing rule, we continue to rely which is not included in critical habitat. physical barriers to movement. Dye- upon this evidence as the best scientific Furthermore, analysis of the COA’s trace studies have demonstrated that and commercial information available, monitoring and water quality datasets some Jollyville Plateau salamander sites which suggests that urbanization is also clearly demonstrate that, even within located miles apart are connected a large factor influencing declines in protected areas, there is deterioration of salamander counts. hydrologically (Whitewater Cave and water quality and decrease in Regarding comments from SWCA on Hideaway Cave) (Hauwert and Warton population size of salamanders. the assessment of threats, peer reviewers 1997, pp. 12–13), but it remains unclear made the following comments: (20) Comment: SWCA (2012, p. 11) if salamanders are travelling between (17) Comment: SWCA’s (2012, pp. 84– criticizes the Service and the COA for those sites. We have some indication 85) summary understates what is known not providing a direct cause and effect that populations could be connected about the ecology of Eurycea species relationship between urbanization, through subterranean water-filled and makes too strong of a conclusion nutrient levels, and salamander spaces, although we are unaware of any about the apparent ‘‘coexistence with populations. There is, in fact, a large information on the frequency of long-standing human development.’’ amount of peer-reviewed literature on movements and the actual nature of Human development and urbanization the effects of pollutants and connectivity among populations. is an incredibly recent stressor in the deterioration of water quality on evolutionary history of the central Texas sensitive macroinvertebrate species as Comments From States Eurycea, and SWCA’s assertion that the well as on aquatic amphibians. In the Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the Eurycea will be ‘‘hardy and resilient’’ to proposed rule, the Service cites just a Secretary shall submit to the State these new stressors is not substantiated small sampling of the available agency a written justification for his with any evidence. In direct literature regarding the effects of failure to adopt regulations consistent contradiction to this assertion, SWCA pollutants on the physiology and with the agency’s comments or (2012, p. 83) explains how one indirect effects of urbanization on petition.’’ Comments received from all population of Georgetown salamanders aquatic macroinvertebrates and State agencies and entities in Texas was extirpated due to municipal amphibians. In almost all cases, there regarding the proposal to list the groundwater pumping drying the are synergistic and indirect negative Georgetown and Salado salamanders are spring. effects on these species that may not addressed below. (18) Comment: SWCA (2012, p. 7) have one single direct cause. There is no (22) Comment: Chippindale (2010) states that, ‘‘Small population size and ecological requirement that any stressor demonstrated that it is possible for restricted distribution are not among the (be it a predator, a pollutant, or a change Jollyville Plateau salamanders to move five listing criteria and do not of in the invertebrate community) must be between sites in underground conduits. themselves constitute a reason for a direct effect to threaten the stability or Close genetic affinities between considering a species at risk of long-term persistence of a population or populations in separate watersheds on extinction.’’ To the contrary, even species. Indirect effects can be just as either side of the RM 620 suggest that though the salamanders may naturally important, especially when many are these populations may be connected occur in small isolated populations, combined. hydrologically. Recent studies small isolated populations and the Our Response to Comments 17–20: (Chippindale 2011 and 2012, in prep) inability to disperse between springs We included SWCA’s (2012) report as indicate that gene flow among should be considered under listing part of the information we asked for salamander populations follows criteria E as a natural factor affecting the peer reviewers to consider. The peer groundwater flow routes in some cases species’ continued existence. In direct reviewers generally agreed that we used and that genetic exchange occurs both

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10244 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

horizontally and vertically within an habitats. The overall programs to protect vegetation and sufficient acreage to aquifer segment. water quality—especially in the protect water quality. Our Response: We agree that genetic watersheds of the Edwards Aquifer Our Response: Based on the best evidence suggests subsurface region—are more robust and protective available science, wastewater disposal hydrological connectivity exist between than suggested by the Service’s on the recharge zone by land sites at some point in time, but we are descriptions of deficiencies. The Service application can contribute to water unable to conclude if this connectivity overlooks the improvements in the State quality degradation in surface waters occurred in the past or if it still occurs of Texas and local regulatory and and the underground aquifer. Previous today without more hydrogeological incentive programs to protect the studies have demonstrated negative studies or direct evidence of salamander Edwards Aquifer and spring-dependent impacts to water quality (increases in migration from mark-recapture studies. species over the last 20 years. Texas has nitrate levels) at Barton Springs (Mahler Also, one of our peer reviewers stated extensive water quality management et al. 2011, pp. 29–35) and within that this genetic exchange is probably and protection programs that operate streams (Ross 2011, pp. 11–21) that representative of subsurface connection under state statutes and the Federal were likely associated with the land in the past (see comment 21 above). Clean Water Act. These programs application of wastewater. (23) Comment: There were include: Surface Water Quality (27) Comment: A summary of surface insufficient data to evaluate the long- Monitoring Program, Clean Rivers water quality data for streams in the term flow patterns of the springs and Program, Water Quality Standards, watersheds of the salamanders was creeks, and the correlation of flow, Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination provided, and a suggestion was made water quality, habitat, ecology, and System (TPDES) Stormwater Permitting, that sampling data indicated high- community response. Current research Total Maximum Daily Load Program, quality aquatic life will be maintained in Williamson County indicates that Nonpoint Source Program, Edwards despite occasional instances where water and sediment quality remain good Aquifer Rules, and Local Ordinances parameters exceeded criteria or with no degradation, no elevated levels and Rules (San Marcos Ordinance and screening levels. of toxins, and no harmful residues in COA Rules). Continuing efforts at the Our Response: In reviewing the 2010 known springs. local, regional, and state level will and 2012 Texas Water Quality Our Response: We have reviewed the provide a more focused and efficient Integrated Reports prepared by the best available scientific and commercial approach for protecting these species Texas Commission on Environmental information in making our final listing than Federal listing. Quality (TCEQ), the Service identified 3 determination. We sought comments Our Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of of 7 (43 percent) and 2 of 2 (100 percent) from independent peer reviewers to stream segments located within surface ensure that our designation is based on the Act requires us to take into account those efforts being made by a state or drainage areas occupied by the scientifically sound data, assumptions, Georgetown and Salado salamanders and analysis. And the peer reviewers foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a state or foreign nation, respectively, which contained measured stated that our proposed rule was based parameters within water samples that on the best available scientific to protect such species, and we fully recognize the contributions of the state exceeded screening level criteria. These information. Additionally, recent included ‘‘screening level concerns’’ for research on water quality in Williamson and local programs. We consider relevant Federal, state, and tribal laws parameters such as nitrate, dissolved County springs was considered in our oxygen, and impaired benthic listing rule. The peer reviewers agreed and regulations when developing our threats analysis. Regulatory mechanisms communities. Water quality data that these data did not present collected and summarized in TCEQ convincing evidence that overall water may preclude the need for listing if we determine such mechanisms address the reports supports concerns for the quality at salamander sites in potential for water quality degradation Williamson County is good or that threats to the species such that listing is no longer warranted. However, the best within the surface drainage areas urbanization is not impacting the water occupied by the salamanders. This quality at these sites (see Comment 19 available scientific and commercial data available at the time of the proposed information is discussed under above). Summary of Factors Affecting the (24) Comment: The listing will have rule supported our initial determination Species in this final listing rule. negative impacts to private development that existing regulations and local (28) Comment: The City of and public infrastructure. ordinances were not adequate to remove Our Response: In accordance with the all of the threats to the Georgetown and Georgetown ordinance reduces the Act, we cannot consider possible Salado salamanders. Since that time, the threats to surface habitat conditions and economic impacts in making a listing City of Georgetown approved a new water quality for the Georgetown determination. However, Section 4(b)(2) ordinance designed to reduce the threats salamander. Our response: The Service agrees that of the Act states that the Secretary shall to the Georgetown salamander. We have the City of Georgetown ordinance will designate and make revisions to critical added further discussion of existing reduce some of the threats to the habitat on the basis of the best available regulations and ordinances under Factor Georgetown salamander. We have scientific data after taking into D in the final listing rule, and we have provided a discussion on the consideration the economic impact, considered these new ordinances in our effectiveness of the City of Georgetown’s national security impact, and any other threats analysis below. ordinance in reducing the threats to the relevant impact of specifying any (26) Comment: The requirement in the Georgetown salamander under particular area as critical habitat. Edwards Aquifer Rules for wastewater Summary of Factors Affecting the Economic impacts are not taken into to be disposed of on the recharge zone Species below in the final listing rule. consideration as part of listing by land application is an important and determinations. protective practice for aquifer recharge Public Comments (25) Comment: It was suggested that and a sustainable supply of there are adequate regulations in Texas groundwater. Permits for irrigation of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms to protect the Georgetown and Salado wastewater are fully evaluated and (29) Comment: The Service salamanders and their respective conditioned to require suitable improperly discounts the value of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10245

TCEQ’s Optional Enhanced Measures by Georgetown salamander (Beatty 2012, protection standards are sufficient to concluding that, because they are TCEQ, pers. comm.). prevent significant habitat degradation. optional as to non-listed species, ‘‘take’’ (30) Comment: The Service’s February Our Response: In the final listing rule, prohibitions do not apply and they are 14, 2005, and September 4, 2007, letters we included a section titled not a regulatory mechanism. However, to Governor Rick Perry concurred that ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat in February 14, 2005, the Service stated non-federal landowners and other non- Destruction, Modification, or in a letter to Governor Rick Perry that federal managers using the voluntary Curtailment of Its Range’’ that describes implementation of the Enhanced measures in Appendix A to the TCEQ existing conservation measures Measures would result in ‘‘no take’’ of technical guidance manual for the including the regional permit issued to various aquatic species, including the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program the Williamson County Regional HCP. Georgetown salamander. would have the support of the Service These conservation efforts and the Our Response: With the listing of the that ‘‘no take’’ under the Act would manner in which they are helping to Georgetown and Salado salamanders, occur unless projects met specific ameliorate threats to the species were the Act and its implementing criteria listed in the letters. considered in our final listing regulations set forth a series of general Our Response: See our response to determination. The Service considered prohibitions and exceptions that apply comment (29) above. the amount and location of managed to all endangered and threatened (31) Comment: Many commenters open space when analyzing impervious wildlife. The prohibitions of section expressed concern that the Service had cover levels within each surface 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR not adequately addressed all of the watershed (Service 2012, 2013). We also 17.21 and 50 CFR 17.31, make it illegal existing regulatory mechanisms and considered preserves when projecting how impervious cover levels within the for any person subject to the jurisdiction programs that provided protection to the surface watershed of each spring site of the United States to take (includes salamanders. In addition, many of the would change in the future. These harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, same commenters believed there were analyses included the benefits from wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or adequate state, Federal, and local open space as a result of several HCPs, to attempt any of these), import, export, regulatory mechanisms to protect the including Buttercup Creek HCP, ship in interstate commerce in the salamanders and their aquatic habitats. course of commercial activity, or sell or Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Our Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of Plan, Lakeline Mall HCP, Concordia offer for sale in interstate or foreign the Act requires us to take into account HCP, Four Points HCP, and Grandview commerce any listed species. Under the those efforts being made by a state or Hills HCP. Of these, only the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. foreign nation, or any political Williamson County HCP and Lakeline 3371–3378), it is also illegal to possess, subdivision of a state or foreign nation, Mall HCP created open space within the sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship to protect such species. Under D. The range of the Georgetown salamander (no any such wildlife that has been taken Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory HCPs have established open space illegally. We may issue permits to carry Mechanisms in the final listing rule, we within the range of the Salado out otherwise prohibited activities provide an analysis of the inadequacy of salamander). While these conservation involving endangered and threatened existing regulatory mechanisms. During lands contribute to the protection of the wildlife species under certain the comment period, we sought out and surface and subsurface watersheds, circumstances, but such a permit must were provided information on several there are other factors contributing to be issued for scientific purposes, to local, state, and Federal regulatory the decline of the salamander’s habitat. enhance the propagation or survival of mechanisms that we had not considered Other factors include, but are not the species, and for incidental take in when developing the proposed rule. We limited to: (1) Other areas within the connection with otherwise lawful have reviewed these mechanisms and surface watershed that have high levels activities. The Service’s 2005 and 2007 have included them in our analysis of impervious cover, which increases letters to Governor Rick Perry were under D. The Inadequacy of Existing the overall percentage of impervious made prior to listing of the Georgetown Regulatory Mechanisms in the final cover within the watershed; (2) and Salado salamanders and do not listing rule. In addition, during the 6- potential for groundwater pollution constitute a permit that allows for take month extension the City of Georgetown from areas outside of the surface under the Act. approved a new ordinance designed to watershed; and (3) disturbance of the We have changed the wording in the reduce the threats to the Georgetown surface habitat of the spring sites final listing rule to more accurately salamander. We have included this themselves. reflect our opinion that the Optional ordinance in our discussion under (33) Comment: Multiple commenters Enhanced Measures may provide Summary of Factors Affecting the stated that the Georgetown salamander’s protection to the species, but do not Species below in the final listing rule. known distribution is entirely contained constitute a regulatory mechanism Protections within the jurisdictional boundaries of because they are voluntary. These the Williamson County Regional HCP measures were intended to be used for (32) Comment: The Service fails to (RHCP) and is thusly already protected. the purpose of avoiding harm to the consider existing local conservation The RHCP includes provisions for identified species from water quality measures and habitat conservation plans studying the Georgetown salamander impacts, not to address any of the other (HCPs) that benefit the salamanders. and numerous conservation actions threats to the Georgetown salamander. While the salamanders are not covered benefitting the species. To date, 47 TCEQ reported that only 17 Edwards in most of these HCPs, some entities have participated in the RHCP Aquifer applications have been commenters believe that measures are in and the Williamson County approved under the Optional Enhanced place to mitigate any imminent threats Conservation Fund (WCCF) has Measures between February 2005 and to the species. The Service overlooks permanently preserved 664 ac (269 ha) May 2012, and the majority of these permanent conservation actions within 8 preserves. As part of the RHCP, applications were for sites in the undertaken by both public and private a commitment was made to conduct a vicinity of Dripping Springs, Texas, entities over the last two or more 5-year study of the Georgetown which would not pertain to the decades. The HCPs and water quality salamander and drafting of a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10246 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

conservation strategy. In 2008, based on encouragement of voluntary (Section 245.001(2) & (4), Texas Local these actions, the Service reduced the conservation actions for non-listed Government Code). The Edwards Rules listing priority category for the species. The recent policy for the Contributing Zone revised in Georgetown salamander from a 2 to an pronouncements specifically state that 1999 had a very narrow grandfathering 8. voluntary conservation actions provision from the new regulations: A Our Response: We agree with the undertaken are unlikely to be sufficient project did not have to comply with the commenters that the RHCP permit area to affect the need to list the species. new rules if the project had all of the contains the entire range of the However, if the species is listed and permits necessary to begin construction Georgetown salamander, and also voluntary conservation actions are on June 1, 1999, and construction began includes a portion of the Jollyville implemented, as outlined in policy by December 1, 1999. No projects can Plateau salamander within its permit pronouncements, the Service can possibly exist that are grandfathered area. Furthermore, we agree that some of provide assurances that if the conditions from the Edwards Rules for the the land preserved by the RHCP as of a conservation agreement are met, the contributing zone of the Edwards mitigation for the impacts of covered landowner will not be asked to do more, Aquifer. activities on endangered invertebrate commit more resources, or be subject to Our Response: We have revised this species is contributing to protection of further land use restrictions than agreed discussion in this final rule, as a limited amount of salamander habitat. upon. We may also allow a prescribed appropriate. However, the RHCP does not permit level of incidental take by the Listing Process and Policy ‘‘take’’ of salamanders as covered landowner. species, accordingly the permit does not (35) Comment: Existing protective (37) Comment: Reducing the Listing require mitigation for the impacts of the measures and current land-use Priority Number of the Georgetown covered actions on any salamander conditions in the contributing zone of salamander from 2 to 8 indicates no species. The RHCP notes on page 4–19 the Northern Segment of the Edwards imminent threat to the species. that actions authorized by the RHCP for Aquifer negate the justification for the Our Response: In the 2008 candidate covered species ‘‘. . . may impact the proposed listing of the Salado notice of review, the listing priority Georgetown salamander by degrading salamander. It was the understanding of number was lowered from 2 to 8. water quality and quantity in springs Bell County that the development of However, a listing priority of 8 indicates and streams in the watersheds where comprehensive conservation strategies that there are imminent threats to the the species occurs.’’ One of the RHCP’s or plans to protect species would be species, but the magnitude of these biological goals is to help conserve the based on additional research that will be imminent threats is moderate to low. salamanders by studying the conducted in a cooperative effort (38) Comment: The Service is pushing Georgetown salamander’s status, involving state and Federal these listings because of the legal distribution, and conservation needs. In environmental agencies and local settlement and not basing its decision addition to a 5-year Georgetown stakeholders. Consistent with the on science and the reality of the existing salamander research and monitoring guidance of agency officials, Bell salamander populations. program, Williamson County committed County and their partners held public Our Response: We are required by to drafting a conservation strategy for hearings and entered into contractual court-approved settlement agreements the species, based on initial findings of agreements with experts. Fieldwork to remove the Georgetown and Salado the research, and coordinating a public related to those studies is about to salamanders from the candidate list education and outreach program. While commence. within a specified timeframe. To remove this research to date has been Our Response: The Service these salamanders from the candidate incorporated in the final listing rule, the appreciates the efforts of Bell County list means to propose them for listing as best available information supports our and their partners to conduct research endangered or threatened or to prepare conclusion that the threats to the and collect additional data to support a not-warranted finding. The Act species are not ameliorated by the the conservation of the Salado requires us to determine whether a RHCP. salamander. The Service is required to species warrants listing based on our The listing priority number was make a determination on the status of assessment of the five listing factors lowered from a 2 to an 8 for the the Salado salamander based on the best described in the Act using the best Georgetown salamander based on available science at the time we make available scientific and commercial conservation actions by WCCF in 2008 our listing decision. The Service looks information. We already determined, (73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008). A forward to continuing to work with Bell prior to the court settlement agreement, listing priority of 8 indicates that there County and all of our other partners to that the Georgetown and Salado are imminent threats to the species, but further the conservation of the Salado salamanders warranted listing under the the magnitude of these imminent threats salamander. We anticipate the Act, but were precluded by the is moderate to low. additional research and information necessity to commit limited funds and (34) Comment: The proposed rule being gathered by Bell County and staff to complete higher priority species directly contradicts the Service’s recent others will be helpful in refining actions. These salamanders have been policy titled Expanding Incentives for conservation strategies and adapting included in our annual Candidate Voluntary Conservation Actions Under management for these species, based on Notices of Review for multiple years, the Act (77 FR 15352, March 15, 2012), this new information. during which time scientific literature which concerns the encouragement of (36) Comment: The proposed rule and data have and continue to indicate voluntary conservation actions for non- cites the vested rights statute found in that these salamanders are detrimentally listed species and is available at http:// Chapter 245, Texas Local Government impacted by ongoing threats, and we www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-15/ Code as a weakness in local and state continued to find that listing each pdf/2012-6221.pdf. regulations. Chapter 245 does not apply species was warranted but precluded. Our Response: The commenter did to state regulations. Under Chapter 245, While the settlement agreement has set not specify how the proposed rule a ‘‘regulatory agency’’ is defined as a a court-ordered timeline for rendering contradicts the Service’s recent policy political subdivision of the state such as our final decision, our determination is pronouncements concerning the a county, school district or municipality still guided by the Act and its

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10247

implementing regulations considering violated a contractual agreement under published or unpublished. One element the five listing factors and using the best the Act. of the transparency and open available scientific and commercial Our Response: The RHCP is not a government directive encourages information. contract. By moving forward with a executive departments and agencies to (39) Comment: Commenters requested listing decision for the Georgetown and make information about operations and that the Service extend the comment Salado salamanders, the Service has not decisions readily available to the public. period for another 45 days after the first violated any mandatory process under Supporting documentation used to comment period. The commenters were the Act or any contractual agreement prepare the proposed and final rules is concerned about the length of the with Williamson County. The RHCP available for public inspection, by proposed listing, which is very dense was established in 2008 to provide appointment, during normal business and fills 88 pages in the Federal incidental take coverage for the hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Register, and that the public hearing federally listed golden-cheeked warbler Service, Austin Ecological Services was held only 2 weeks after the (Dendroica chrysoparia), black-capped Field Office, 10711 Burnet Rd., Suite proposed rule was published. vireo (Vireo atricapilla), Bone Cave 200, Austin, TX 78758. Commenters do not consider this harvestman (Texella reyesi), and Coffin enough time to read and digest how the Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes texanus). Peer Review Process Service is basing a listing decision that A number of conservation actions for (42) Comment: One commenter will have serious consequences for the Georgetown salamander were requested that the Service make the peer Williamson County. Furthermore, the planned in the RHCP, but the review process as transparent and 60-day comment period does not give Georgetown salamander is not a covered objective as possible. The Service the public enough time to submit species under the RHCP. One of the should make available the process and written comments to such a large conservation actions is for WCCF to criteria used to identify peer reviewers. proposed rule. conduct a 5-year research and It is not appropriate for the Service to Our Response: The initial comment monitoring study for the Georgetown choose the peer review experts. For the period for the proposed listing and salamander, which was planned with peer review to be credible, the entire critical habitat designation consisted of the intention of preparing a Candidate process including the selection of 60 days, beginning August 22, 2012, and Conservation Agreement with reviewers must be managed by an ending on October 22, 2012. We Assurances if the species was still a independent and objective party. We reopened the comment period for an candidate at the end of the study. The recommend that the peer review plan additional 45 days, beginning on RHCP does not include an agreement identify at least two peer reviewers per January 25, 2013, and ending on March between the Service and Williamson scientific discipline. Further, the peer 11, 2013. During our 6-month extension County to delay the listing of the reviewers should be identified. on the final determination for the Georgetown salamander until the study Our Response: To ensure the quality Georgetown and Salado salamanders, is completed. and credibility of the scientific we reopened the comment period from (41) Comment: One commenter information we use to make decisions, August 20, 2013, to September 19, 2013 expressed concern with the use of we have implemented a formal peer (78 FR 51129). On January 7, 2014, we ‘‘unpublished’’ data in the proposed review process. Through this peer reopened the comment period and rule. It is important that the Service review process, we followed the announced the availability of the City of takes the necessary steps to ensure all guidelines for Federal agencies spelled Georgetown’s final ordinance for water data used in the listing and critical out in the Office of Management and quality and urban development (79 FR habitat designations are reliable, Budget (OMB) ‘‘Final Information 800). We reopened the comment period verifiable, and peer reviewed, as Quality Bulletin for Peer Review’’ to allow all interested parties an required by President Obama’s 2009 released December 16, 2004, and the opportunity to comment simultaneously directive for transparency and open Service’s ‘‘Information Quality on the proposed rule and the effect of government. In December of 2009, the Guidelines and Peer Review’’ revised the new city ordinances on threats to Office of Management and Budget June 2012. Part of the peer review the Georgetown salamander. That (OMB) issued clarification on the process is to provide information online comment period closed on January 22, presentation and substance of data used about how each peer review is to be 2014. We consider the comment periods by Federal agencies and required in its conducted. Prior to publishing the described above an adequate Information Quality Guidelines. proposed listing and critical habitat rule opportunity for public comment. Additionally under the OMB guidelines, for these salamanders, we posted a peer (40) Comment: The Service has all information disseminated by Federal review plan on our Web site, which openly disregarded a contractual agencies must meet the standard of included information about the process agreement (RHCP) with Williamson ‘‘objectivity.’’ Additionally, relying on and criteria used for selecting peer County that provided for additional older studies instead of newer ones reviewers, and we posted the peer study, violating mandatory process conflicts with the Information Quality reviews on http://www.regulations.gov. under the Act. It was our understanding Guidelines. In regard to transparency, the OMB that the development of comprehensive Our Response: Our use of and Service’s peer review guidelines conservation strategies or plans to unpublished information and data does mandate that we not conduct protect the species would be based on not contravene the transparency and anonymous peer reviews. The additional research, which would be open government directive. Under the guidelines state that we advise conducted in a cooperative effort Act, we are obligated to use the best reviewers that their reviews, including involving state and Federal available scientific and commercial their names and affiliations, and how environmental agencies and local information, including results from we respond to their comments will be stakeholders. Williamson County has surveys, reports by scientists and included in the official record for committed funds and entered into biological consultants, various models, review, and once all the reviews are contractual agreements with respected and expert opinion from biologists with completed, their reviews will be experts to perform these additional extensive experience studying the available to the public. We followed the baseline studies. The Service has salamanders and their habitat, whether policies and standards for conducting

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10248 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

peer reviews as part of this rulemaking strengths and limitations of the peer review was intended. Was it a process. scientific data used in the document. panel review or individual review? Did (43) Comment: The results of the peer (45) Comment: One commenter peer reviewers operate in isolation to review process should be available to requested a peer review of the four generate individual reports or did they the public for review and comment well central Texas salamanders’ taxonomy work collaboratively to generate a single before the end of the public comment and recommended that, to avoid any peer review document. period on the listing decision. Will the potential bias, peer reviewers not be Our Response: Peer reviews were public have an opportunity to from Texas or be authors or contributors requested individually. Each peer participate in the peer review process? of any works that the Service has or is reviewer who responded generated Response: As noted above, OMB and relying upon to diagnose the four independent comments. the Service’s guidelines state that we central Texas salamanders as four (48) Comment: It does not seem make available to the public the peer distinct species. This commenter also appropriate to ask peer reviewers, who reviewers’ information, reviews, and provided a list of four recommended apparently do not have direct expertise how we respond to their comments once scientists for the peer review on on Eurycea or central Texas ecological all reviews are completed. The peer taxonomy. systems, to provide advice on reviews are completed at the time the Our Response: We requested peer reasonableness of judgments made from last public comment period closes, and reviews of the central Texas salamander generic statements or hyper- our responses to their comments are taxonomy from 11 scientific experts in extrapolations from studies on other completed at the time the final listing this field. Because we considered the 4 species. The peer review plan states that decision is published in the Federal recommended scientists to be qualified reviewers will have expertise in Register. All peer review process as independent experts, we included the invertebrate ecology, conservation information is available upon request at 4 experts recommended by the biology, or desert spring ecology. The this time and is available from the U.S. commenter among the 11. Eight disciplines of invertebrate ecology and Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin scientists responded to our request, and desert spring ecology do not have any Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 all eight scientists agreed with our apparent relevance to the salamanders Burnet Rd, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758. recognition of four separate and distinct in question. The Eurycea are vertebrate In addition, the peer reviews have been salamander species, as described in the species that spend nearly all of their life posted at http://www.regulations.gov. Species Information section of the cycle underground. Central Texas is not (44) Comment: New information has proposed and final listing rules. The a desert. The peer reviewers should been provided during the comment commenter also provided an have expertise in amphibian ecology period. The generalized opinions of the unpublished paper offering an and familiarity with how karst initial peer reviewers regarding the alternative interpretation of the hydrogeology operates. proposed rule having the best available taxonomy of central Texas salamanders Our Response: The peer review plan science is largely negated by the (Forstner 2012, entire), and that stated that we sought out peer reviewers significant quantity of materials information was also provided to peer with expertise in invertebrate ecology or submitted by the public during the first reviewers. We included two authors of desert spring ecology, but this was an two comment periods. In other words, the original species descriptions of the error which was corrected in our the large quantity of additional four central Texas salamander species to correspondence with the peer reviewers. information submitted into the record give them an opportunity to respond to In the first comment period, we asked clearly demonstrates that the proposed criticisms of their work and so that we and received peer reviews from rule did not reflect the best available could fully understand the taxonomic independent scientists with local and scientific and commercial data. The questions about these species. non-local expertise in amphibian final listing decision should be peer (46) Comment: One commenter ecology, amphibian taxonomy, and karst reviewed. requested a revision to the peer review hydrology. In the second comment Response: During the second public plan to clarify whether it is a review of period, we sought out peer reviewers comment period, we asked peer non-influential information or with local and non-local expertise in reviewers to comment on new and influential information. population ecology and watershed substantial information that we received Our Response: We see no benefit from urbanization. during the first comment period. We did revising the peer review plan to clarify (49) Comment: The peer review plan not receive any new information during whether the review was of non- appears to ask peer reviewers to the second comment period that we felt influential or influential information. consider only the scientific information rose to the level of needing peer review. The Service’s ‘‘Information Quality reviewed by the Service. The plan Furthermore, as part of our peer review Guidelines and Peer Review,’’ revised should include the question of whether process, we asked peer reviewers not to June 2012, defines influential the scientific information reviewed provide comments or recommendations information as information that we can constitutes the best available scientific on the listing decision. Peer reviewers reasonably determine the dissemination and commercial data. The plan should were asked to comment specifically on of which will have or does have a clear be revised to clarify that the peer the quality of information and analyses and substantial impact on important reviewers are not limited to the used or relied on in the reviewed policy or private sector decisions. Also, scientific information in the Service’s documents. In addition, they were asked we are authorized to define influential administrative record. to identify oversights, omissions, and in ways appropriate for us, given the Our Response: The peer review plan inconsistencies; provide advice on nature and multiplicity of issues for states that we may ask peer reviewers to reasonableness of judgments made from which we are responsible. As a general identify oversights and omissions of the scientific evidence; ensure that rule, we consider an impact clear and information as well as to consider the scientific uncertainties are clearly substantial when a specific piece of information reviewed by the Service. identified and characterized and that information is a principal basis for our When we sent out letters to peer potential implications of uncertainties position. reviewers asking for their review, we for the technical conclusions drawn are (47) Comment: One commenter specifically asked them to identify any clear; and provide advice on the overall requested clarification on what type of oversights, omissions, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10249

inconsistencies with the information we considered this data in the final listing and Salado salamanders: (1) There are a presented in the proposed rule. rule. However, water quality testing by sufficient number of these salamanders (50) Comment: The proposed peer WCCF at salamander sites has only that have surface water available to review plan falls far short of the OMB recently been initiated, and no them for sufficient periods of times so Guidelines (2004 Office of Management conclusions regarding long-term trends that the group could be called a and Budget promulgated its Final in water quality at Georgetown ‘‘population’’; and (2) there are surface- Information Quality Bulletin for Peer salamander sites can be made. dwelling Jollyville Plateau salamander Review). Furthermore, this salamander count populations that are distinct from Our Response: This commenter failed dataset has not been conducted over a subsurface dwelling Jollyville Plateau to tell us how the plan falls short of the long enough time period to conclude salamander populations. Neither OMB Guidelines. We adhered to the that the salamander populations are assumption can be correct unless the guidelines set forth for Federal agencies stable and healthy at the two monitored surface area is within a spring-fed and in OMB’s ‘‘Final Information sites. impoundment that maintains water for Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,’’ (54) Comment: Specifically related to a significant portion of a year. released December 16, 2004, and the the Salado salamander, we note an Our Response: In the proposed rule, Service’s ‘‘Information Quality apparent inconsistency in the proposed we did not mean to imply or assume Guidelines and Peer Review,’’ revised rule related to the locations of specific that ‘‘surface-dwelling populations’’ are June 2012. While the draft peer review springs where the animal has been restricted to surface habitat only. In fact, plan had some errors, we believe we found. The section on impervious cover we made clear in the proposed rule that satisfied the intent of the guidelines and states, ‘‘The Salado salamander occurs these populations need access to that the errors did not affect the rigor of within two watersheds (Buttermilk subsurface habitat. In addition, we also the actual peer review that occurred. Creek and Mustang Creek).’’ In fact, to considered the morphology of these (51) Comment: One commenter stated our knowledge the animal has been species in our description of their that an additional peer review plan was found in neither. The section discussing habitat use. The morphology of the not made available to the public for the the specific springs identifies Georgetown salamander and Salado second peer review. occurrences in springs in the Rumsey salamanders serve as indicators of Our Response: We followed our peer Creek and Salado Creek watersheds. The surface and subsurface habitat use. The review policy to prepare a peer review latter section appears to be correct. Georgetown salamander surface plan for our proposed rules, and we Our Response: Buttermilk Creek and populations have large, well-developed made the plan available for public Mustang Creek are the names of the 12- eyes. In addition, the Georgetown review on our Web site. Both of our peer digit Hydrologic Unit Codes we used in salamander has yellowish-orange tails, review processes followed this plan. our initial impervious cover analysis. bright-red gills, and varying patterns of They are larger watersheds that contain melanophores. The subterranean Salamander Populations the smaller watersheds of Rumsey Creek populations of the Georgetown (52) Comment: A recent study by and Salado Creek, which contain the salamander have reduced eyes and SWCA proposes that the COA’s data are springs occupied by the Salado dullness of color, indicating adaptation inadequate to assess salamander salamander. to subsurface habitat. The Salado population trends and is not (55) Comment: The Service has no salamander has reduced eyes and lacks representative of environmental and evidence that shows what the well-defined melanophores in population control factors (such as Georgetown salamander population is, comparison to other surface-dwelling seasonal rainfall and drought). The or what a healthy average population Eurycea. However, they do possess study also states that there is very little would look like. developed eyes and some pigmentation, evidence linking increased development Our Response: Although population indicating some use of surface habitat. to declining water quality. data are lacking for most Georgetown (57) Comment: There may be Our Response: We have reviewed the salamander sites, population estimates uncertainty as to the number of Salado report by SWCA and COA’s data and of Georgetown salamanders have salamander populations, and how determined that it is reasonable to recently been completed at Twin prolific the subsurface populations are. conclude that a link between increased Springs (118–216 adults) and Swinbank However, it is apparent that the species urban development, declining water Spring (102–137 adults) (Pierce 2011a, has historically been and currently is quality, and declining salamander p. 12). Part of what constitutes a healthy extremely difficult to observe and populations exists for these species. population is that threats have been collect during low to average spring Peer reviewers have also generally removed or minimized. In terms of flows at the Salado Springs complex agreed with this assessment. population size, it is unknown how and more abundant and readily (53) Comment: The WCCF has been many individuals are needed within a observable during above-average spring conducting research on salamanders of population to ensure its persistence over flows at the Salado Springs complex. the Northern Edwards Aquifer since the long term. The exception has been the spring 2008. This included population (56) Comment: Given the central outlets located in the Edwards outcrop monitoring at two Georgetown Texas climate and the general geology upstream of the Salado Springs salamander sites and recently expanded and hydrology of the Edwards complex, where the salamander has to include water quality testing in both Limestone formation north of the been observed regularly during below- Georgetown salamander and Jollyville Colorado River, the description average spring flow. The consistency in Plateau salamander ranges. Data ‘‘surface-dwelling’’ or ‘‘surface residing’’ observations from species surveys over indicate that populations are stable and overstates the extent and frequency that the past 60 or more years is important: healthy and water quality at Williamson the Georgetown and Salado salamanders they do not reflect a trend downward in County springs is excellent. utilize surface water. The phrase species population. Our Response: We acknowledge that ‘‘surface dwelling population’’ in the Our Response: We agree that the two Georgetown salamander sites in proposed rule appears to be based on available data on Salado salamander Williamson County have been regularly two undisclosed and questionable observations do not reflect a declining monitored since 2008, and we have assumptions pertaining to Georgetown trend over time. However, these data are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10250 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

also neither quantitative nor consistent in a weakened state, or that they were the county level. We maintain our enough to conclude that any Salado unable to reproduce. conclusion that the Georgetown and salamander population has been stable Our Response: No studies have Salado salamanders warrant listing over time. The fact that Salado examined the biological effects of partly due to projected human growth salamanders are rarely found at sites drought on Salado salamanders. throughout their range. near the Village of Salado during However, a study on the closely related (62) Comment: The average annual periods of low flow suggests that this Jollyville Plateau salamander has low flow of the Salado Springs complex species is sensitive to threats such as documented decreases in body length was approximately 4.6 cubic feet per drought and urbanization, as has been following periods of drought (Bendik second (cfs), which occurred during the demonstrated for several closely related and Gluesenkamp 2013, pp. 3–4). In the extreme drought in the mid-1950s. The salamander species. absence of species-specific information, low-end annual average range of spring we conclude that the Salado salamander flows from late 2011 to date exceeds and Threats responds to drought in a similar way. is nearly double that of the 4.6 cfs (58) Comment: The Service appears (60) Comment: In the proposed rule, benchmark, even though the south reluctant to distinguish between what the Service states that ‘‘Central Texas central Texas region has been are normal, baseline physical conditions salamanders are particularly vulnerable experiencing one of the worst droughts (climate, geology, and hydrology) found to contaminants, because they have in recorded history. Clearwater in central Texas and those factors evolved under very stable Underground Water Conservation outside of the norm that might actually environmental conditions.’’ The cycle of District’s (CUWCD) records reflect that threaten the survival of the salamander droughts and pulse rain events is pumping from the Edwards aquifer species. Cyclical droughts and regular certainly not a stable environmental within Bell County during the summer flood events are part of the normal condition. Drought is a stressor on all months actually decreased from 2011 to central Texas climate and have been for life forms in central Texas and 2012 to 2013, which we believe is thousands of years. The Service appears necessitates species adaptability to attributable to implementation of the very tentative about accepting the survive. drought management program. Thus, it Our Response: This statement in the obvious adaptive behaviors of the is apparent that drought conditions, proposed rule refers to the presence of salamanders to survive floods and rather than some human agency, are contaminants in the salamanders’ droughts. responsible for low spring flows and habitat, not the occurrence of drought. that, possibly, groundwater district Our Response: The final listing rule Contaminants are a relatively new regulation of pumping could be having acknowledges that drought conditions stressor for these species that has been a positive effect on flows during the are common to the region, and the introduced by human activity. 2011 to 2013 drought conditions. ability to retreat underground may be an (61) Comment: The watershed Our Response: We acknowledge that evolutionary adaptation to such natural recharging the Salado salamander drought has likely influenced spring conditions (Bendik 2011a, pp. 31–32). occupied springs is largely undeveloped flow for Salado salamander habitat more However, it is important to note that and little urbanization is occurring. than groundwater pumping. Under although salamanders may survive a There is no evidence that rapid Factor D of the final listing rule, we also drought by retreating underground, this urbanization is likely to occur in the acknowledge the water quantity does not necessarily mean they are foreseeable future in these watersheds protections afforded to Salado resilient to future worsening drought due to lack of infrastructure. The salamander habitat by the CUWCD. conditions in combination with other population estimates in the proposed However, even under these protections, environmental stressors. For example, rule are based on countywide figures for springs occupied by Salado salamanders climate change, groundwater pumping, Bell and Williamson Counties. are known to go dry for periods of time. decreased water infiltration to the Countywide figures grossly overstate the The Service recognizes the desired aquifer, potential increases in saline amount of population growth occurring future condition adopted by the water encroachments in the aquifer, and in these specific watersheds. This can CUWCD as a valuable tool for protecting increased competition for spaces and be confirmed by a review of census groundwater; however, it is not resources underground all may tracts data. Likewise, a significant adequate to ensure spring flow at all negatively affect their habitat (COA portion of northwestern Williamson sites occupied by the Salado 2006, pp. 46–47; TPWD 2011, pp. 4–5; County outside of the jurisdiction of the salamander. Bendik 2011a, p. 31; Miller et al. 2007; main cities is undeveloped and lacking (63) Comment: In regards to the p. 74; Schueler 1991, p. 114). These in available utilities to support dense Salado salamander, threats under Factor factors may exacerbate drought development. A are excessively vague and rest on conditions to the point where Our Response: The proposed rule certain assumptions which are clearly salamanders cannot survive. In cites projected population growth and false. The Salado salamander has been addition, we recognize threats to surface expected increases in demand for found in springs in several locations habitat at a given site may not extirpate residential development, groundwater and likely exists at others and the populations of these salamander species pumping, infrastructure, and other proposed designation of critical habitat in the short term, but this type of habitat municipal services as a threat to the treats every location where Eurycea has degradation may severely limit species throughout the Edwards been identified the same. In fact, while population growth and increase a Aquifer, including areas of Williamson the hydrogeologic context is generally population’s overall risk of extirpation and Bell Counties in the Northern consistent across the region, specific from cumulative impacts of other Segment of the Aquifer. The estimates of structural features may vary widely stressors occurring in the surface growth came from multiple sources, from one location to the next, so watershed of a spring. including the Texas Water Development protective measures appropriate for one (59) Comment: There is no proof that Board, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the location may not be appropriate Salado salamanders surfacing from the Texas State Data Center. We are not elsewhere. We can divide the springs aquifer after spending lengthy periods aware of census tract data that project into two basic types: (1) The Village of subsurface are emaciated, or otherwise future populations at a scale lower than Salado springs, which represent the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10251

ultimate outflow from the system as a have relatively little impact on the described under Factor A in the final whole, and (2) numerous lesser springs entire aquifer, this type of development listing rule. occurring at various locations up in the may likely have large impacts on the (66) Comment: Studies carried out by recharge (outcrop) zone. In either case, surface habitat of the spring. The the Williamson County Conservation the springs are found in areas where springs within the Village of Salado Foundation (WCCF) do not support the extensive, structural disturbance is have had heavy modification of the Service’s assertions that habitat for the unlikely and where no identifiable surface habitat, as described under salamanders is threatened by declining threats related to possible changes in Factor A of the proposed rule. Despite water quality and quantity. New land use are anticipated at this time. numerous field surveys over the last information from water quality studies Because the major spring flows are decade, Salado salamanders in many performed at nine Georgetown and moving through confined segments, springs near well-developed areas, such Jollyville Plateau salamander sites bounded on their upper limit by an as Big Boiling Spring, are rarely found. indicate that aquifer water is remarkably impervious unit, they are effectively We consider habitat modification a clean and that water quality protection insulated and protected from infiltration significant threat, both now and in the standards already in place throughout in the near vicinity of the springs. This future, due to projected growth, current the county are working. is supported by the discussion of water land use practices, threats to water Our Response: The listing process temperature presented in the recently quality and quantity, as well as requires the Service to consider both released TPWD report, A Biological and historical and ongoing physical ongoing and future threats to the Hydrological Assessment of the Salado disturbance to spring habitat. species. Williamson County has yet to Springs Complex, Bell County, Texas, (64) Comment: Through measuring experience the same level of population August 2012. Normal human activities, water-borne stress hormones, growth as Travis County, but is including typical construction, in near researchers found that salamanders from projected to have continued rapid proximity to the springs, present little urban sites had significantly higher growth in the future. Therefore, it is not threat to the aquifer or the outflow from corticosterone stress hormone levels surprising that some areas of it. Further, the surrounding area has than salamanders from rural sites. This Williamson County may exhibit good been fully developed for over 150 years. finding serves as evidence that chronic water quality, because threats to the The lesser springs up in the recharge stress can occur as development Georgetown salamander or its habitat zone enjoy certain protections as well. encroaches upon these spring habitats. are primarily from future development. Without exception, these are located in Our Response: We are aware that However, our peer reviewers concluded undeveloped settings that may be researchers are pursuing this relatively that the water quality data referenced by described as pristine. Specifically, the new approach to evaluate salamander the commenter is not enough evidence springs where the Salado salamander health based on differences in stress to conclude that water quality at has been found are on a single, award- hormones between salamanders from salamander sites in Williamson County winning ranch, which constitutes one of urban and non-urban sites. Stress levels is sufficient (see Comment 19 above). To the largest single land holdings in Bell that are elevated due to natural or fully assess the status of salamander County. The owners of this property unnatural (that is, anthropogenic) populations and water quality requires have been widely recognized for their environmental stressors can affect an long-term monitoring data. The water committed stewardship of the land. The organism’s ability to meet its life-history samples collected by the WCCF were ranch is operated under a management requirements, including adequate comprised of a single sample event model that emphasizes low-impact foraging, predator avoidance, and consisting of grab samples, so they offer grazing and recreational hunting. reproductive success. We encourage limited insight into long-term trends in Habitat preservation and improvement continued development of this and water quality (see Comment 19 above). are central components in this other non-lethal scientific methods to The best available science indicates that management model. improve our understanding of water quality and species diversity Our Response: While it is possible salamander health and habitat quality. consistently declines with increasing that Salado salamanders exist at other (65) Comment: Information in the levels of urban development. unknown spring locations, our proposed rule does not discern whether Hydrology evaluation of the status of the species is water quality degradation is due to limited to sites known to be occupied by development or natural variation in (67) Comment: The Service the species at the time of the proposed flood and rainfall events. Fundamental homogenizes ecosystem characteristics listing. We agree that many site-specific differences in surface counts of across the Austin blind, Georgetown, variables affect both the degree of threat salamanders between sites are due to a Jollyville Plateau, and Salado and potential for habitat modification at natural dynamic of an extended period salamanders. The proposed rule often springs occupied by Salado of above-average rainfall followed by assumes that the ‘‘surface habitat’’ salamanders, including land ownership, recent drought. characteristics of the Barton Springs land uses in the immediate watershed, Our Response: We recognize that salamander and Austin blind land uses in recharge areas, spring flow, aquatic-dependent organisms such as salamander (year-round surface water in level of recreation and physical the Georgetown and Salado salamanders manmade impoundments) apply to the disturbance, water quality, and other will respond to local weather Salado, Jollyville Plateau, and factors. Although we recognize the level conditions; however, the best available Georgetown salamanders, which live in of threat will vary across the range of science indicates that rainfall alone does very different geologic and hydrologic the species, and recognize the strong not explain lower salamander densities habitat. The Georgetown and Salado stewardship of many landowners, we at urban sites monitored by the COA. salamanders live in water contained conclude that Factor A is neither vague Furthermore, there is scientific within a ‘‘perched’’ zone of the Edwards nor based on false assumptions due to consensus among numerous studies on Limestone formation that is relatively documented modifications to habitat the impacts of urbanization that thin and does not retain or recharge within the very restricted range of the conclude species diversity and much water when compared to the Salado salamander. Although abundance consistently declines with Barton Springs segment of the Edwards construction near spring outlets may increasing levels of development, as Aquifer. Many of the springs where the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10252 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Georgetown and Salado salamanders are Our Response: See our response to applicable state or Federal water quality found are more ephemeral due to the previous comment above. standard. For these reasons, we relatively small drainage basins and (69) Comment: Several commenters maintain that commercial and relatively quick discharge of surplus stated that there is insufficient data on residential pesticide use contributes to groundwater after a rainfall event. long-term flow patterns of the springs habitat degradation and poses a threat to Surface water at several of the proposed and creek and on the correlation of flow, the Georgetown and Salado creek headwater critical habitat units is water quality, habitat, ecology, and salamanders, as well as the aquatic generally short lived following a rain community response to make a listing organisms that comprise their diet. event. The persistence of Jollyville determination. Commenters propose (71) Comment: The Service cites Rohr Plateau, Georgetown, and Salado that additional studies be conducted to et al. (2003, p. 2,391) indicating that salamanders at these headwater evaluate hydrology and surface recharge carbaryl causes mortalities and locations demonstrates that the species area, and water quality. deformities in streamside salamanders are not as dependent on surface water Our Response: We agree that there is (Ambystoma barbouri). However, Rohr as occupied impoundments suggest. a need for more study on the hydrology et al. (2003, p. 2,391) actually found that Our Response: The Service recognizes of salamander sites, but there are larval survival was reduced by the that the Austin blind salamander is sufficient available data on the threats to highest concentrations of carbaryl tested more subterranean than the other three these species to make a listing (50 mg/L) over a 37-day exposure period. species of salamander. However, the determination. We make our listing Rohr et al. (2003, p. 2,391) also found Georgetown, Jollyville Plateau, and determinations based on the five listing that embryo survival and growth was Salado salamanders all spend large factors, singly or in combination, as not affected, and hatching was not portions of their lives in subterranean described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. delayed in the 37 days of carbaryl habitat. Further, the Jollyville Plateau In making our listing determination, we exposure. In the same study, exposure and Georgetown salamanders have cave- considered and evaluated the best to 400 mg/L of atrazine over 37 days (the associated forms. There are numerous available scientific and commercial highest dose tested) had no effect on similarities among all four of these information. larval or embryo survival, hatching, or species. On page 50770 of the proposed Pesticides growth. A Scientific Advisory Panel rule, the similarities of these four (SAP) of the Environmental Protection salamander species are specified. They (70) Comment: Claims of pesticides Agency (EPA) reviewed available are all within the same genus, entirely posing a significant threat are information regarding atrazine effects on aquatic throughout each portion of their unsubstantiated. The references cited in amphibians, including the Hayes (2002) life cycles, respire through gills, inhabit the proposed rule are in some cases study cited by the Service, and water of high quality with a narrow misquoted and others are refuted by concluded that atrazine appeared to range of conditions, depend on water more robust analysis. The water quality have no effect on clawed frog (Xenopus from the Edwards Aquifer, and have monitoring reports, as noted in the laevis) development at atrazine similar predators. The Barton Springs proposed rule, indicate that pesticides concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 100 salamander shares these same were found at levels below criteria set mg/L. These studies do not support the similarities. Based on this information, in the aquatic life protection section of Service’s conclusions. the Service has determined that these the Texas Surface Water Quality Our Response: We do not believe that species are suitable surrogates for each Standards, and they were most often at our characterization of Rohr et al. (2003) other. sites with urban or partly urban misrepresented the results of the study. Exactly how much these species watersheds. This information conflicts In their conclusions, Rohr et al. (2003, depend on surface water is unclear, but with the statement that the frequency p. 2,391) state, ‘‘Carbaryl caused the best available information suggests and duration of exposure to harmful significant larval mortality at the highest that the productivity of surface habitat levels of pesticides have been largely concentration, and produced the is important for individual growth. For unknown or undocumented. greatest percent of malformed larvae, example, a recent study showed that Our Response: We recognize there are but did not significantly affect behavior Jollyville Plateau salamanders had uncertainties about the degree to which relative to controls. Although atrazine negative growth in body length and tail different pesticides may be impacting did not induce significant mortality, it width while using subsurface habitat water quality and salamander health did seem to affect motor function.’’ This during a drought and that growth did across the range of these salamander study clearly demonstrates that these not become positive until surface flow species, but the very nature of pesticides two pesticides can have an impact on returned (Bendik and Gluesenkamp being designed to control unwanted amphibian biology and behavior. In 2012, pp. 3–4). In addition, the organisms through toxicological addition, the EPA (2007, p. 9) also morphological variation found in these mechanisms and their persistence in the found that carbaryl is likely to adversely salamander populations may provide environment makes them pose an affect the Barton Springs salamander insight into how much time is spent in inherent risk to non-target species. both directly and indirectly through subsurface habitat compared to surface Numerous studies have documented the reduction of prey. habitat. presence of pesticides in water, Regarding the Hayes (2002) study, we (68) Comment: Another commenter particularly areas impacted by acknowledge that an SAP of the EPA stated that salamander use of surface urbanization and agriculture, and there reviewed this information and habitat is entirely dependent on rainfall is ample evidence that full life cycle and concluded that atrazine concentrations events large enough to generate multigenerational exposures to dozens less than 100 mg/L had no effects on sufficient spring and stream flow. Even of chemicals, even at low clawed frogs in 2007. However, the 2012 after large rainfall events, stream flow concentrations, contribute to declines in SAP did re-examine the conclusions of decreases quickly and dissipates within the abundance and diversity of aquatic the 2007 SAP using a meta-analysis of days. As a result, the salamanders are species. Few pesticides or their published studies along with additional predominately underground species breakdown products have been tested studies on more species (EPA 2012, p. because groundwater is far more for multigenerational effects to 35). The 2012 SAP expressed concern abundant and sustainable. amphibians and many do not have an that some studies were discounted in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10253

the 2007 SAP analysis, including water quality degradation in watersheds lacking long-term monitoring data that studies like Hayes (2002) that indicated with no water quality controls. are necessary to make conclusions on that atrazine is linked to endocrine Our Response: Our analysis within the status of the site’s water quality. The disruption in amphibians (EPA 2012, p. this final rule does not ignore the impervious cover analysis allows us to 35). In addition, the 2007 SAP noted effectiveness of water quality control quantify this specific threat for sites that their results on clawed frogs are measures. In fact, we specifically where information is lacking. insufficient to make global conclusions address how these control measures Disease about the effects of atrazine on all factor into our analysis under Factor D. amphibian species (EPA 2012, p. 33). We recognize that control measures can (76) Comment: The Service concludes Accordingly, the 2012 SAP has reduce pollution entering bodies of in the proposed rule that chytrid fungus recommended further testing on at least water. However, as presented in our is not a threat to any of the salamanders. three amphibian species before a final impervious cover analysis, data The Service’s justification for this conclusion can be reached that atrazine from around the country indicate that conclusion is that they have no data to has no effect on amphibians at urbanization within the watershed indicate whether impacts from this concentrations less than 100 mg/L (EPA degrades water quality despite the disease may increase or decrease in the 2012, p. 33). Due to potential differences presence of water quality control future. There appears to be in species sensitivity, exposure measures that have been in place for inconsistency in how the information scenarios that may include dozens of decades (Schueler et al. 2009, p. 313). regarding threats is used. chemical stressors simultaneously, and Since 1997, water quality and Our Response: Threats are assessed by multigenerational effects that are not salamander counts have declined at their imminence and magnitude. fully understood, we continue to view several salamander sites within the City Currently, we have no data to indicate pesticides in general, including of Austin, as described under Factor A that chytrid fungus is a threat to the carbaryl, atrazine, and many others to in this final listing rule. This is in spite species. The few studies that have which aquatic organisms may be of water quality control measures looked for chytrid fungus in central exposed, as a potential threat to water implemented in the Edwards Aquifer Texas Eurycea found the fungus, but no quality, salamander health, and the area. Further discussion of these associated pathology was found within health of aquatic organisms that measures can be found under Factor D several populations and among different comprise the diet of salamanders. of this final listing rule. salamander species. (74) Comment: The springshed, as Climate Change Impervious Cover defined in the draft impervious cover (72) Comment: One commenter stated analysis, is a misnomer because the so (77) Comment: Climate change has that in the draft impervious cover called springsheds delineated in the already increased the intensity and analysis the Service has provided no study are not the contributing or frequency of extreme rainfall events data to prove a cause and effect recharge area for the studied springs. globally (numerous references) and in relationship between impervious cover Calling a surface area that drains to a central Texas. This increase in rainfall and the status of surface salamander specific stretch of a creek a springshed extremes means more runoff possibly sites or the status of underground is disingenuous and probably overwhelming the capacity of recharge habitat. misleading to less informed readers. features. This has implications for water Our Response: Peer reviewers agreed Our Response: We acknowledge that storage. Implications are that the that we used the best available scientific the term springshed may be confusing to number of runoff events recharging the information in regards to the link readers, and we have thus replaced this aquifer with a higher concentration of between urbanization, impervious term with the descriptors ‘‘surface toxic pollutants than past events will be cover, water quality, and salamander drainage area of a spring’’ or ‘‘surface occurring more frequently, likely in an populations. watershed of a spring’’ throughout this aquifer with a lower overall volume of (73) Comment: On page 18 of the draft final listing rule and impervious cover water to dilute pollutants. impervious cover analysis, the Service analysis document. Understanding high concentration dismisses the role and effectiveness of (75) Comment: During the first public toxicity needs to be evaluated in light of water quality controls to mitigate the comment period, many entities this. effects of impervious cover: ‘‘. . . the submitted comments and information Our Response: We agree that climate effectiveness of stormwater runoff directing the Service’s attention to the change will likely result in less frequent measures, such as passive filtering actual data on water quality in the recharge, affecting both water quantity systems, is largely unknown in terms of affected creeks and springs. Given the and quality of springs throughout the mitigating the effects of watershed-scale amount of water quality data available aquifer. We have added language in the urbanization.’’ It appears that the to the Service and the public, the Texas final listing rule to further describe the Service assumed that existing water Salamander Coalition is concerned that threat of climate change and impacts to controls have no effect in reducing or the Service continues to ignore local water quality. removing pollutants from stormwater data and instead focuses on impervious (78) Comment: The section of the runoff. The Service recognized the cover and impervious cover studies proposed rule addressing climate effectiveness of such stormwater runoff conducted in other parts of the country change fails to include any measures in the final rule listing the without regard to existing water quality consideration or description of a Barton Springs salamander as regulations. Commenters questioned baseline central Texas climate. The endangered in 1997. Since 1997, the why the Service sued models, generic proposed rule describes flooding and Service has separately concurred on two data, and concepts when actual data on drought as threats, but fails to provide occasions that the water quality controls the area of concern is readily available. any serious contextual analysis of the imposed in the Edwards Aquifer area Our Response: The Service has role of droughts and floods in the life protect the Barton Springs salamander examined and incorporated all water history of the central Texas and the Georgetown salamander. It is quality data submitted during the public salamanders. not appropriate to rely upon generalized comment periods. However, the vast Our Response: The proposed and final findings regarding the detectability of majority of salamander sites are still listing rules discuss the threats of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10254 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

drought conditions and flooding, both impervious cover over the initial 5 ac (2 evidence that any of these salamanders in the context of naturally occurring ha). The Unified Development Code also are unique species. weather patterns and as a result of allows the area above the initial 5 ac (2 Our Response: The genetic anthropogenic activities. ha) to be upgraded to 70 percent relatedness of the three northern species (79) Comment: The flooding analysis impervious with advanced water (Georgetown salamander, Jollyville is one of several examples in the quality. The required advanced water- Plateau salamander, and Salado proposed rule in which the Service cites quality systems are retention irrigation, salamanders) is not disputed. The three events measured on micro-scales of time removing 100 percent of the suspended species are included together on a main and area, and fails to comprehend the solids; wet ponds, removing 93 percent branch of the tree diagrams of mtDNA larger ecosystem at work. For example, suspended solids; or bioretention data (Chippindale et al. 2000, Figs. 4 the proposed rule describes one flood facilities, removing 89 percent and 6). The tree portraying relationships event causing ‘‘erosion, scouring the suspended solids. For residential based on allozymes (genetic markers streambed channel, the loss of large projects, the City of Georgetown’s based on differences in proteins coded rocks, and creation of several deep Unified Development Code allows a by genes) is concordant with the mtDNA pools.’’ Later, the Service describes maximum of 45 percent impervious trees (Chippindale et al. 2000, Fig. 5). other flooding events as depositing cover. These trees support the evolutionary sediment and other materials on spring Our Response: We recognize and relatedness of the three species, but not openings at Salado Spring (page 50788). agree that best management practices, their identity as a single species. The Scouring and depositing sediment are such as the development codes lack of sharing of mtDNA haplotype both normal results of the intense mentioned by the commenter, provide markers, existence of unique allozyme rainfall events in central Texas. some protection to water quality. alleles in each of the three species, and Our Response: While we agree that However the protections are not multiple morphological characters scouring and sediment deposition are effective in alleviating all the threat of diagnostic of each of the three species normal hydrologic processes, when the degraded water quality for any of the are inconsistent with the assertion that frequency and intensity of these events salamanders. On-site retention of storm they are exchanging genetic material on is altered by climate change, flows and other regulatory mechanisms a regular basis. The Austin blind urbanization, or other anthropogenic to protect water quality are beneficial salamander is on an entirely different forces, the resulting impacts to and work well to remove certain types branch of the tree portraying genetic ecosystems can be more detrimental of pollutants such as total dissolved relationships among these species based than what would occur naturally. solids, but in most cases, habitat quality on mtDNA, and has diagnostic, in urban environments still degrades morphological characters that Other Threats over time due to persistent pollutants distinguish it from other Texas (80) Comment: The risk of extinction like trace metals and pesticides that can salamanders (Hillis et al. 2001, p. 267). is negatively or inversely correlated accumulate in sediments and biological Based on our review of these with population size. Also, small tissues. differences, and taking into account the population size, in and of itself, can (82) Comment: The Service should view expressed in peer reviews by increase the risk of extinction due to have consulted with those federal and taxonomists, we conclude that the demographic stochasticity, mutation state agencies that are charged with currently available evidence is sufficient accumulation, and genetic drift. The protecting water quality and that have for recognizing these salamanders as correlation between extinction risk and the expertise to address water quality four separate species. population size is not necessarily issues. The EPA, TCEQ, and the USGS (84) Comment: A genetics professor indirect (that is, due to an additional are experts on the reliability of the water commented that Forstner’s report (2012) extrinsic factor such as environmental quality studies cited by the Service in disputing the taxonomy of the four perturbation). its determination that water quality in central Texas salamanders represents a Our Response: Although we do not central Texas continues to decline. highly flawed analysis that has not consider small population sizes to be a Our Response: We notified and undergone peer review. It is not a true threat in and of itself to either the invited the EPA, TCEQ, and USGS to taxonomic analysis of the Eurycea Georgetown or Salado salamander, we comment on our proposed rule and complex and does not present any do conclude that small population sizes provide any data on water quality evidence that call into question the make them more vulnerable to within the range of the salamander current taxonomy of the salamanders. extinction from other existing or species. Two USGS biologists provided Forstner’s (2012) report is lacking key potential threats, such as major peer reviews on our proposed rule, and information regarding exact stochastic events. we cited numerous studies from the methodology and analysis. It is not EPA, TCEQ, and USGS in our final entirely clear what resulting length of Water Quality analysis. base pairs was used in the phylogenetic (81) Comment: The City of analysis and the extent to which the Georgetown’s Unified Development Taxonomy data set was supplemented with missing Code requires that all development in (83) Comment: The level of genetic or ambiguous data. The amount of this territory, including projects less divergence among the Jollyville Plateau, sequence data versus missing data is than 1 ac (0.4 ha), must meet all Georgetown, and Salado salamanders is important for understanding and requirements of the TCEQ for water not sufficiently large to justify interpreting the subsequent analysis. It quality. For commercial sites, the City of recognition of three species. The DNA also appears as though Forstner Georgetown’s Unified Development papers indicate a strong genetic included all individuals with available, Code allows a maximum of 70 percent relationship between individual unique sequence when, in fact, impervious cover for tracts less than 5 salamanders found across the area. Such taxonomic sampling—that is, the ac (2 ha). For tracts greater than 5 ac (2 a strong relationship necessarily means number of individuals sampled within a ha), the Unified Development Code that on an ecosystem wide basis, the particular taxon compared with other allows 70 percent impervious cover for salamanders are exchanging genetic taxa—can also affect the accuracy of the the first 5 ac (2 ha), and then 55 percent material on a regular basis. There is no resulting topology. The Forstner (2012)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10255

report only relies on mitochondrial simplistic. The failure of all sequences Technical Information DNA whereas the original taxonomic of Eurycea tonkawae to cluster closely (87) Comment: The Service made the descriptions of these species relied on a with each other is due to the amount of following statement in the proposed combination of nuclear DNA, missing data in some sequences. It is rule: ‘‘Therefore, the status of subsurface mitochondrial DNA as well as well known in the phylogenetics populations is largely unknown, making morphology (Chippindale et al. 2000, literature that analyzing sequences with it difficult to assess the effects of threats Hillis et al. 2001). Forstner’s (2012) very different data (in other words, large on the subsurface populations and their report does not consider non-genetic amounts of missing data) will produce habitat.’’ In fact, the difficulty of factors such as ecology and morphology incorrect results because of this artifact. assessing threats for subsurface when evaluating taxonomic differences. As an aside, why is there missing data? populations depends upon the threats. Despite the limitations of a The reason is that these data were One can more easily assess threats of mitochondrial DNA-only analysis, produced roughly 5 years apart. The chemical pollutants, for example, Forstner’s (2012) report actually shorter sequences were made at a time because subterranean populations will contradicts an earlier report by the same when lengths of 350 bases for be affected similarly to surface ones author that also relied only on mtDNA. cytochrome b were standard because of Our Response: This comment because they inhabit the same or similar the limitations of the technology. As water. supports the Service’s and our peer improved and cheaper methods were reviewers’ interpretation of the best Our Response: The statement above available (about 5 to 6 years later), it was meant to demonstrate the problems available data (see responses to became possible to collect sequences comments 1 through 6 above). associated with not knowing how many that were typically 1,000 to 1,100 bases salamanders exist in subsurface habitat (85) Comment: Forstner (2012) argues long. It is important to remember that that the level of genetic divergence rather than how threats are identified. the data used to support the original We have removed the statement in the among the three species of Texas description of the three northern species Eurycea is not sufficiently large to final listing rule to eliminate this by Chippindale et al. (2000) were not confusion. justify recognition of three species. A only cytochrome b sequences, but also genetics professor commented that this data from a different, but effective, City of Georgetown’s Water Quality conclusion is overly simplistic. It is not analysis of other genes, as well as Ordinance clear that the populations currently analysis of external characteristics. called Eurycea lucifuga in reality (88) Comment: Several comments Forstner’s (2012) assessment of the supported the City of Georgetown’s represent a single species, as Forstner taxonomic status (species or not) of the (2012) assumes. Almost all cases of new Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Water three species of the northern group is Quality Ordinance that was adopted by species in the United States for the last not supported by the purported 20 years (E. waterlooensis is a rare the Georgetown City Council on evidence that he presents (much of it exception) have resulted from DNA December 20, 2013. These commenters unpublished). techniques used to identify new species stated that regulations to protect the that are cryptic, meaning their similarity Our Response: This comment Georgetown salamander are better obscured the genetic distinctiveness of supports the Service’s and our peer implemented at the local level the species. One could view the data on reviewers’ interpretation of the best compared to Federal regulations. Eurycea lucifuga as supporting that available data (see Responses to Our response: The Service appreciates cryptic species are also present. Comments 1 through 5 above) the effort put forth by the City of Moreover, Forstner’s (2012) comparison (86) Comment: Until the scientific Georgetown and Williamson County to was made to only one species, rather community determines the appropriate help reduce threats to the Georgetown than to salamanders generally. systematic approach to identify the salamander through the implementation Moreover, there is perhaps a problem number of species, it seems imprudent of their Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone with the Harlan and Zigler (2009) data. to elevate the salamanders to Water Quality Ordinance. Section They sequenced 10 specimens of E. endangered. 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to take lucifuga, all from Franklin County, Our Response: The Service must base into account those efforts being made by Tennessee; 9 of these show genetic its listing determinations on the best a state or foreign nation, or any political distances between each other from 0.1 available scientific and commercial subdivision of a state or foreign nation, to 0.3 percent, which is very low. One information, and such information to protect such species. We also specimen shows genetic distance to all includes considerations of correct consider relevant Federal and tribal other nine individuals from 1.7 to 1.9 taxonomy. To ensure the laws and regulations in our threats percent, an order of magnitude higher. appropriateness of our own analysis of analysis. In our analysis, we consider This single specimen is what causes the the relevant taxonomic literature, we whether or not existing regulatory high level of genetic divergence to sought peer reviews from highly mechanisms are adequate enough to which Forstner compares the Eurycea. qualified taxonomists, particularly with address the threats to the species such This discrepancy is extremely obvious specialization on salamander taxonomy, that listing is no longer warranted. For in the Harlan and Zigler (2009) paper, of our interpretation of the available further discussion of existing but was not mentioned by Forstner taxonomic literature and unpublished regulations and ordinances, please see (2012). A difference of an order of reports. We find that careful analysis Factors A and D below in this final magnitude in 1 specimen of 10 is highly and peer review is the best way to listing rule. suspect, and, therefore, these data determine whether any particular (89) Comment: The combination of should not be used as a benchmark in taxonomic arrangement is likely to be plans and promises put forward by the comparing Eurycea. generally accepted by experts in the City of Georgetown lack any true staying The second argument in Forstner field. The peer reviews that we received power and their effectiveness seems (2012) is that the phylogenetic tree does provide overall support, based on the largely up to the willingness of all not group all individuals of a given available information, for the species interested parties to cooperate on a species into the same cluster or lineage. that we accept as valid in the final voluntary basis. Importantly, the rules Forstner’s (2012) conclusions are overly listing rule. and suggested development practices

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

laid out in the Edwards Aquifer known threats to the Georgetown Georgetown salamander sites are Recharge Zone Water Quality Ordinance salamander and will not significantly exempt from the requirements of the and Georgetown Water Quality reduce its danger of extinction. They Georgetown ordinance (Cowan Spring, Management Plan make little mention of acknowledged that the ordinance could Bat Well Cave, Water Tank Cave, Knight the business of granting exceptions. The provide minor protections to certain Spring, and Shadow Canyon Spring). WCCF is a non-profit corporation with aspects of water quality in the The development near Shadow Canyon strong allies in for-profit corporations. It immediate vicinity of occupied spring Spring is currently under consultation is entirely within the realm of sites, such as to decrease the probability with the Service, while the four other reasonable possibility that trusting the of wholesale destruction by physical sites are all compliant with the Red front of the WCCF to guide city policy disturbance of occupied springs. But, Zone as described in the ordinance. instead would mask a for-profit pro- the commenters stated that the Because current TCEQ development development agenda. In fact, the City ordinance would not protect the regulations require removal of 80 Ordinance 2013–59 makes explicit the quantity of spring flows or threats to percent TSS for every project within the City Council’s priority ‘‘[. . .] to ensure water quality from more distant points recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer as that future growth and development is in the spring watersheds. Further, they opposed to the 85 percent TSS removal unbridled by potential Federal oversight noted that the ordinance does not required in the new ordinance, the nor Federal permitting requirements address the threats from small overall effect on the water quality of the that would delay development projects population size, drought, or climate Edwards Aquifer from these four small detrimentally to the sustained viability change. sites is minimal. of the city’s economy [. . .].’’ In this (92) Comment: The buffer zones (96) Comment: The Georgetown area, I am most concerned such that the described in the ordinance lessen the ordinance does not include impervious real ‘‘teeth’’ of the plans rests in the potential for further water quality cover limitations in the upstream ability of the City of Georgetown to degradation, but they do not remove the surface water or groundwater obtain and keep what is almost entirely threat posed by existing development. contributing areas to salamander voluntary compliance. Four Georgetown salamander sites are habitat. The effectiveness and Our response: The City of located in areas where the impervious protectiveness of the flood and water Georgetown’s Edwards Aquifer cover estimates exceed thresholds quality controls included in the Recharge Zone Water Quality Ordinance where harm to water quality is expected Georgetown ordinance decrease with was adopted by the Georgetown City to occur. The threat of chemical spills increasing impervious cover. Council on December 20, 2013, and from existing highways, sewer lines, (97) Comment: The City of became effective immediately. All and septic systems still exists. Existing Georgetown and Williamson County regulated activities within the City of development has already affected have continually demonstrated their Georgetown and its extraterritorial salamander habitat and degradation will ongoing commitment to establishing jurisdiction (ETJ) located over the continue with new development. and implementing programs to preserve recharge zone are required to implement (93) Comment: The City of Austin open space, protect species habitat and the protective measures established by Save Our Springs Ordinance is a non- reduce dependence on groundwater the ordinance. Compliance with the degradation ordinance that requires 100 water supplies. The success of these ordinance is not voluntary. The percent removal of total suspended programs to protect endangered karst ordinance also established an Adaptive solids (TSS). Despite this, the City of dwelling invertebrates and songbirds Management Working Group to review Austin rules were not sufficient to highlights the willingness and intention Georgetown salamander monitoring data preclude the 2013 listing of the Austin to implement and enforce the recently and new research over time and Blind Salamander. Because it requires approved Georgetown salamander recommending improvements to the only 85 percent removal of TSS, the City ordinances. The successful working ordinance that may be necessary to of Georgetown’s water quality ordinance relationship established between ensure that it achieves its stated is substantially less protection than the Williamson County and the Service also purposes. This Adaptive Management City of Austin’s. Thus, it would be speaks to the likelihood of Working Group, which includes inconsistent for the Service to preclude implementation. In addition, the City of representatives of the Service and listing of the Georgetown Salamander Georgetown staffs a code enforcement TPWD, will also review and make on this basis. division responsible for monitoring both recommendations on the approval of (94) Comment: The City of public and private property, commercial any variances to the ordinance. Georgetown ordinance does not specify and residential, to ensure compliance (90) Comment: Once the Federal a prohibition on sediment discharge with all city codes and ordinances. The government passes control to a local during the critical ground-disturbing City of Georgetown has successfully government entity, any protection construction phase of new development, implemented water quality regulations provided to the salamander will and no performance criteria for within its jurisdiction in the past. eventually disappear. sediment removal are specified. Thus, (98) Comment: The certainty of Our response: The Service supports the ordinance is insufficient to effectiveness of the ordinance is local involvement and interest in the eliminate sedimentation of salamander increased by the formation of an conservation of salamanders. Section habitat as a result of new development Adaptive Management Working Group 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to take construction. and an Adaptive Management Plan into account those efforts being made by (95) Comment: In addition to the charged specifically with reviewing a state or foreign nation, or any political impacts from existing development that salamander monitoring data and new subdivision of a state or foreign nation, would continue under the Georgetown research over time and recommending to protect such species, and we fully ordinance, projects that were platted or improvements to the ordinance that may recognize the contributions of local planned prior to the Georgetown be necessary to ensure that it achieves programs. ordinance would not be subject to the its stated purposes. This Adaptive (91) Comment: Several commenters new ordinance as exempted under Management Working Group, which stated that the City of Georgetown Chapter 245 ‘‘grandfathering’’ includes representatives of the Service ordinance does not fully alleviate provisions of Texas State law. Five and TPWD, will also review and make

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10257

recommendations on the approval of information that may have become Finally, in addition to minor any variances to the ordinance. available since the publication of the clarifications and incorporation of Our response to Comments 91–98: proposal, we reevaluated our proposed additional information on the species’ The Service has analyzed the effect of rule and made changes as appropriate. biology and related to the new the ordinance on the threats identified The Service has incorporated Georgetown water quality ordinance, below under Summary of Factors information related to the Edwards this determination differs from the Affecting the Species and have made a Aquifer Recharge Zone Water Quality proposal because, based on our determination as to whether or not the Ordinance approved by the Georgetown analyses, the Service has determined regulatory mechanism (City of City Council on December 20, 2013 that the Georgetown and Salado Georgetown ordinance) has reduced the (Ordinance No. 2013–59). The purpose salamanders should be listed as threats to the point that listing the of this ordinance is to reduce some of threatened species instead of species as threatened or endangered the threats to the Georgetown endangered species. under the Act is no longer warranted. salamander within the City of Summary of Factors Affecting the (99) Comment: The Red Zone buffer Georgetown and its ETJ through the Species should extend past culverts and protection of water quality near roadways because these are not occupied sites known at the time the Section 4 of the Act and its documented impediments to ordinance was approved, enhancement implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) salamander migration. of water quality protection throughout set forth the procedures for adding Our response: The ordinance the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, and species to the Federal Lists of specifically states that the Red Zone establishment of protective buffers Endangered and Threatened Wildlife ‘‘. . . shall not extend beyond any around all springs and streams. and Plants. A species may be existing physical obstructions that Additionally, an Adaptive Management determined to be an endangered or prevent the surface movement of Working Group has been established threatened species due to one or more Georgetown salamanders . . .’’ that is charged specifically with of the five factors described in section Therefore, the Service believes that any reviewing Georgetown salamander 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or physical obstructions that do not monitoring data and new research over threatened destruction, modification, or prevent the surface movement of time and recommending improvements curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) salamanders would not be included as to the ordinance that may be necessary overutilization for commercial, limiting the size of the Red Zone. to ensure that it achieves its stated recreational, scientific, or educational (100) Comment: Development purposes. This Adaptive Management purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) activities within the contributing area of Working Group, which includes the inadequacy of existing regulatory the spring outside of the 984-ft (300-m) representatives of the Service and mechanisms; or (E) other natural or buffer of the Orange Zone would still TPWD, will also review and make manmade factors affecting its continued affect the quality and quantity of spring recommendations on the approval of existence. Listing actions may be discharge. any variances to the ordinance. warranted based on any of the above Our response: The Service agrees that threat factors, singly or in combination. some activities occurring further than During the two comment periods that Each of these factors is discussed below. 984 ft (300 m) from a spring site could were opened during the 6-month have the potential to impact the quality extension, the Service did not receive In considering what factors might and quantity of spring discharge. any additional information to assist us constitute threats, we must look beyond However, overall, we believe that the in making a conclusion regarding the the mere exposure of the species to the ordinance has minimized and reduced population trends of either of these two factor to determine whether the species some of the threats to the Georgetown species. However, a report submitted by responds to the factor in a way that salamander. See the discussion below the Williamson County Conservation causes actual impacts to the species. If under Summary of Factors Affecting the Foundation noted that since April 2012 there is exposure to a factor, but no Species. biologists have observed Georgetown response, or only a positive response, (101) Comment: While the City of salamanders at Swinbank Spring and that factor is not a threat. If there is Georgetown has expressed its intention Twin Springs (Pierce and McEntire exposure and the species responds to rely upon surface water or wells 2013, p. 8). These two sites and one negatively, the factor may be a threat outside the Edwards Aquifer for additional site (Cowan Spring) are the and we then attempt to determine how additional future water supplies, these only Georgetown salamander locations significant a threat it is. If the threat is intentions are purely voluntary and for which population surveys have been significant, it may drive or contribute to cannot be considered sufficient to conducted over multiple years. We are the risk of extinction of the species such remove the threat of inadequate spring not aware of any population trend that the species warrants listing as flows. analysis that has been conducted for the endangered or threatened as those terms Our response: The Service does not Georgetown salamander. Dr. Toby are defined by the Act. This does not consider the City of Georgetown’s Hibbits conducted surveys for the necessarily require empirical proof of a intention to rely upon surface water or Salado salamander at nine different threat. The combination of exposure and wells outside the Edwards Aquifer locations during the fall of 2013 and some corroborating evidence of how the sufficient to entirely remove the threat was unable to locate any salamanders. species is likely impacted could suffice. of inadequate spring flows. He concluded ‘‘. . . even in the best The mere identification of factors that conditions that Salado Salamanders are could impact a species negatively is not Summary of Changes From the difficult to find and likely occupy the sufficient to compel a finding that Proposed Rule surface habitat in low numbers’’ listing is appropriate; we require Based upon our review of the public (Hibbits 2013, p. 3). Therefore, we are evidence that these factors are operative comments, comments from other not making any conclusions related to threats that act on the species to the Federal and State agencies, peer review the short- and long-term population point that the species meets the comments, issues addressed at the trends of the Georgetown or Salado definition of an endangered or public hearing, and any new relevant salamanders in this final rule. threatened species under the Act.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

A. The Present or Threatened feed into the spring and cave locations. predict how related species will Destruction, Modification, or An exception to this would be threats respond to stressors (for example, see Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range posed by chemical pollutants to water Caro et al. 2005 pp. 1,821–1,826; Habitat modification, in the form of quality, which would negatively impact Wenger 2008, p. 1,565). In instances degraded water quality and quantity and both surface and subsurface habitats. where information was not available for disturbance of spring sites, is the These recharge areas are additional the Georgetown and Salado salamander primary threat to the Georgetown and pathways for impacts to the Georgetown specifically, we have provided Salado salamanders. Water quality and Salado salamanders to happen that references for studies conducted on degradation in salamander habitat has we are not able to precisely assess at similarly related species, such as the been cited in several studies as the top each known salamander site. However, Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea concern for closely related salamander we can consider urbanization and tonkawae) and Barton Springs species in the central Texas region various other sources of impacts to salamander (Eurycea sosorum), which (Chippindale et al. 2000, pp. 36, 40, 43; water quality and quantity over the occur within the central Texas area, and Hillis et al. 2001, p. 267; Bowles et al. larger recharge zone to the aquifer (as other salamander species that occur in 2006, pp. 118–119; O’Donnell et al. opposed to individual springs) to assess other parts of the United States. The 2006, pp. 45–50). The Georgetown and the potential for impacts at salamander similarities among these species may Salado salamanders spend their entire sites. include: (1) A clear systematic The threats under Factor A will be life cycle in water. They have evolved (evolutionary) relationship (for example, presented in reference to stressors and under natural aquifer conditions both members of the Family Plethodontidae); sources. We consider a stressor to be a underground and as the water (2) shared life-history attributes (for physical, chemical, or biological example, the lack of metamorphosis into discharges from natural spring outlets. alteration that can induce an adverse Deviations from high water quality and a terrestrial form); (3) similar response from an individual morphology and physiology (for quantity have detrimental effects on salamander. These alterations can act salamander ecology because the aquatic example, the lack of lungs for directly on an individual or act respiration and sensitivity to habitat can be rendered unsuitable for indirectly on an individual through salamanders by changes in water environmental conditions); (4) similar impacts to resources the species prey (for example, small invertebrate chemistry and flow patterns. Substrate requires for feeding, breeding, or modification is also a major concern for species); and (5) similar habitat and sheltering. A source is the origin from ecological requirements (for example, aquatic salamander species (City of which the stressor (or alteration) arises. Austin (COA) 2001, pp. 101, 126; dependence on aquatic habitat in or The majority of the discussion below near springs with a rocky or gravel Geismar 2005, p. 2; O’Donnell et al. under Factor A focuses on evaluating 2006, p. 34). Unobstructed interstitial substrate). Depending on the amount the nature and extent of stressors and and variety of characteristics in which space is a critical component to the their sources related to urbanization, the surface habitat for both the Georgetown one salamander species can be primary source of water quality analogous to another, we used these and Salado salamander species, because degradation, within the ranges of the it provides cover from predators and similarities as a basis to infer further Georgetown and Salado salamander parallels in how a species or population habitat for their macroinvertebrate prey species. Additionally, other stressors items within surface sites. When the may respond or be affected by a causing habitat destruction and particular source or stressor. interstitial spaces become compacted or modification, including water quantity filled with fine sediment, the amount of degradation and physical disturbance to Water Quality Degradation available foraging habitat and protective surface habitat, will be addressed. Urbanization cover for salamanders with these Throughout the threats discussion behaviors is reduced, resulting in below, we have provided references to Urbanization is one of the most population declines (Welsh and Ollivier studies or other information available in significant sources of water quality 1998, p. 1,128; Geismar 2005, p. 2; our files that evaluate threats to the degradation that can reduce the survival O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34). Georgetown and Salado salamanders of aquatic organisms, such as the Threats to the habitat of the that are occurring or are likely to occur Georgetown and Salado salamanders Georgetown and Salado salamanders in the future given the considerable (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 119; Chippindale (including those that affect water human population growth that is and Price 2005, pp. 196–197). Urban quality, water quantity, or the physical projected for the areas known to be development leads to various stressors habitat) may affect only the surface occupied by these species. Establishing on spring systems, including increased habitat, only the subsurface habitat, or causal relationships between frequency and magnitude of high flows both habitat types. For example, environmental stressors and observed in streams, increased sedimentation, substrate modification degrades the effects in organisms is difficult because increased contamination and toxicity, surface springs and spring-runs but does there are no widely accepted and and changes in stream morphology and not impact the subsurface environment proven approaches for determining such water chemistry (Coles et al. 2012, pp. within the aquifer, while water quality relationships and because experimental 1–3, 24, 38, 50–51). Urbanization can degradation can impact both the surface studies (either in the laboratory or the also impact aquatic species by and subsurface habitats, depending on field) on the effects of each stressor on negatively affecting their invertebrate whether the degrading elements are a particular organism are rare. prey base (Coles et al. 2012, p. 4). moving through groundwater or are In the field of aquatic ecotoxicology, Urbanization also increases the sources running off the ground surface into a it is common practice to apply the and risks of an acute or catastrophic spring area (surface watershed). Our results of experiments on common contamination event, such as a leak assessment of water quality threats from species to other species that are of direct from an underground storage tank or a urbanization is largely focused on interest (Caro et al. 2005, p. 1,823). In hazardous materials spill on a highway. surface watersheds because of the addition, the field of conservation Rapid human population growth is limited information available on biology is increasingly relying on occurring within the ranges of the subsurface flows and drainage areas that information about substitute species to Georgetown and Salado salamanders.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10259

The Georgetown salamander’s range is City of Georgetown population will projections from the Texas State Data located within an increasingly increase to 135,005 by 2030, a 96 Center (2012, p. 353) estimate that Bell urbanized area of Williamson County, percent increase over the 20-year County, where the Salado salamander Texas (Figure 1). In 2010, the human period. The Texas State Data Center occurs, will increase in population from population within the City of (2012, pp. 166–167) estimates an 310,235 in 2010 to 707,840 in 2050, a Georgetown’s extraterritorial increase in human population in 128 percent increase over the 40-year jurisdiction was 68,821 (City of Williamson County from 422,679 in period. By comparison, the national Georgetown 2013, p. 3). By one 2010, to 2,015,294 in 2050, exceeding United States’ population is expected to estimate, this population is expected to the human population size of adjacent increase from 310,233,000 in 2010 to exceed 225,000 by 2033 (City of Travis County where the City of Austin 439,010,000 in 2050, which is about a Georgetown 2008, p. 3.5), which would metropolitan area is located. This would 42 percent increase over the 40-year be a 227 percent increase over a 23-year represent a 377 percent increase over a period (U.S. Census Bureau 2008, p. 1). period. Another model projects that the 40-year timeframe. Population BILLING CODE: 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE: 4310–55–C hydrologic regimes and decreasing the salamander habitat without further Growing human population sizes quantity and quality of water resources conservation measures. A increase demand for residential and (Coles et al. 2012, pp. 9–10). As comprehensive study by the USGS commercial development, drinking development increases within the found that across the United States water supply, flood control, and other watersheds where the Georgetown and contaminants, habitat destruction, and municipal foods and services that alter Salado salamanders occur, more increasing stream flow flashiness (rapid the environment, often degrading opportunities exist for the detrimental response of large increases of stream salamander habitat by changing effects of urbanization to impact flow to storm events) resulting from

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER24FE14.000 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10261

urban development have been pers. comm.). Chronic stress can 14). The Adaptive Management Working associated with the disruption of decrease survival of individuals and Group will monitor data and new biological communities, particularly the may lead to a decrease in reproduction. research over time and recommend loss of sensitive aquatic species (Coles Both of these factors may partially improvements to the Ordinance that et al. 2012, p. 1). account for the decrease in abundance may be necessary to ensure that it Several researchers have examined of salamanders in streams within achieves its stated purposes to maintain the negative impact of urbanization on disturbed environments (Gabor 2012, the Georgetown salamander at its stream salamander habitat by making Texas State University, pers. comm.). current or improved status. connections between salamander Because of the similarities in Both nationally and locally, abundances and levels of development morphology, physiology, habitat consistent relationships between within the watershed. In a 1972 study requirements, and life history traits impervious cover and water quality on the dusky salamander shared with the Jollyville Plateau degradation through contaminant (Desmognathus fuscus) in Georgia, salamander, we expect chronic stress in loading have been documented. Orser and Shure (p. 1,150) were among disturbed environments to decrease Stormwater runoff loads were found to the first biologists to show a decrease in survival, reproduction, and abundance increase with increasing impervious stream salamander density with of Georgetown and Salado salamanders. cover in a study of contaminant input increasing urban development. A Urbanization occurring within the from various land use areas in Austin, similar relationship between watersheds of the Georgetown and Texas (COA 1990, pp. 12–14). This salamander populations and Salado salamanders has the potential to study also found that contaminant input urbanization was found in another cause irreversible declines or rates of the more urbanized watersheds study on the dusky salamander, two- extirpation of salamander populations were higher than those of the small lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), with continuous exposure to its effects suburban watersheds (COA 1990, pp. southern two-lined salamander (Eurycea (such as, contaminants, changes in 12–14). Stormwater contaminant cirrigera), and other species in North water chemistry, and changes in stream loading is positively correlated with Carolina (Price et al. 2006, pp. 437–439; flow) over a relatively short time span. development intensity in Austin (Soeur Price et al. 2012a, p. 198), Maryland, Although surface watersheds for the et al. 1995, p. 565). Several different and Virginia (Grant et al. 2009, pp. Georgetown and Salado salamander are contaminant measurements were found 1,372–1,375). Willson and Dorcas (2003, not as developed as that of the Jollyville to be positively correlated with pp. 768–770) demonstrated the Plateau salamander at the present time, impervious cover (5-day biochemical importance of examining disturbance it is likely that impacts from this threat oxygen demand, chemical oxygen within the entire watershed as opposed will increase in the future as demand, ammonia, dissolved to areas just adjacent to the stream by urbanization expands within the surface phosphorus, copper, lead, and zinc) in showing that salamander abundance in watersheds for these species as well. a study of 38 small watersheds in the the dusky and two-lined salamanders is Impervious cover is another source of Austin area (COA 2006, p. 35). Using most closely related to the amount and water quality degradation and is directly stream data from 1958 to 2007 at 24 type of habitat within the entire correlated with urbanization (Coles et Austin-area sites, the COA’s water watershed. In central Texas, Bowles et al. 2012, p. 38). For this reason, quality index demonstrated a strong al. (2006, p. 117) found lower Jollyville impervious cover is often used as a negative correlation with impervious Plateau salamander densities in surrogate (substitute) measure for tributaries with developed watersheds urbanization (Schueler et al. 2009, p. cover (Glick et al. 2009, p. 9). Mean as compared to tributaries with 309). Impervious cover is any surface concentrations of most water quality undeveloped watersheds. Developed material that prevents water from constituents, such as total suspended tributaries also had higher filtering into the soil, such as roads, solids and other pollutants, are lower in concentrations of chloride, magnesium, rooftops, sidewalks, patios, paved undeveloped watersheds than those for nitrate-nitrogen, potassium, sodium, surfaces, or compacted soil (Arnold and urban watersheds (Veenhuis and Slade and sulfate (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). Gibbons 1996, p. 244). Once vegetation 1990, pp. 18–61). Because of the similarities in size, in a watershed is replaced with Impervious cover has demonstrable morphology, habitat requirements, and impervious cover, rainfall is converted impacts on biological communities life history traits shared with the dusky to surface runoff instead of filtering within streams. Sites receiving runoff salamander, two-lined salamander, through the ground (Schueler 1991, p. from high impervious cover drainage southern two-lined salamander, and 114). Impervious cover in a watershed areas lose sensitive aquatic Jollyville Plateau salamander, we expect has the following effects: (1) It alters the macroinvertebrate species, which are development occurring within the hydrology or movement of water replaced by species more tolerant of Georgetown and Salado salamanders’ through a watershed, (2) it increases the pollution and hydrologic stress (high watersheds to affect these species in a inputs of contaminants to levels that rate of changes in discharges over short similar manner. greatly exceed those found naturally in periods of time) (Schueler 1994, p. 104). The impacts that result from streams, and (3) it alters habitats in and Considerable losses of algal, urbanization can affect the physiology near streams that provide living spaces invertebrate, and fish species in of individual salamanders. An for aquatic species (Coles et al. 2012, p. response to stressors brought about by unpublished study has demonstrated 38), such as the Georgetown and Salado urban development were documented in that Jollyville Plateau salamanders in salamanders and their prey. During an analysis of nine regions across the disturbed habitats have greater stress periods of high precipitation levels in United States (Coles et al. 2012, p. 58). levels than those in undisturbed highly urbanized areas, stormwater Additionally, a strong negative habitats, as determined by runoff enters recharge areas of the relationship between impervious cover measurements of water-borne stress Edwards Aquifer and rapidly transports and the abundance of larval southern hormones in urbanized (approximately sediment, fertilizer nutrients, and toxic two-lined salamander (Eurycea 25 percent impervious cover within the contaminants (such as pesticides, cirrigera) was found in an analysis of 43 watershed) and undisturbed streams metals, and petroleum hydrocarbons) to North Carolina streams (Miller et al. (Gabor 2012, Texas State University, salamander habitat (COA 1990, pp. 12– 2007, pp. 78–79).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Like the Georgetown and Salado pp. 18–19). Bendik (2011a, pp. 26–27) 313). Please see the Service’s refined salamanders, larval (juveniles that are reported statistically significant declines impervious cover analysis (Service strictly aquatic) southern two-lined in Jollyville Plateau salamander 2013, pp. 2–7) for a description of the salamanders are entirely aquatic populations over a 13-year period at six methods used to conduct this analysis. salamanders within the family monitored sites with high impervious This analysis may not represent the Plethodontidae. They are also similar to cover (18 to 46 percent) compared to current impervious cover because small the Georgetown and Salado salamanders two sites with low impervious cover areas may have gone undetected at the in morphology, physiology, size, and (less than 1 percent). These results are resolution of our analysis and additional habitat requirements. Given these consistent with Bowles et al. (2006, p. areas of impervious cover may have similarities, we expect a negative 111), who found lower densities of been added since 2006, which is the relationship between the abundance of Jollyville Plateau salamanders at year the impervious cover data for our Georgetown and Salado salamanders urbanized sites compared to non- analysis were generated. We compared and impervious cover within the surface urbanized sites. our results with the results of similar watersheds of these species as human We recognize that the long-term analyses completed by SWCA, and population growth and development survey data of Jollyville Plateau impervious cover percentages at increase. salamanders using simple counts may individual sites from these analyses To reduce the stressors associated not give conclusive evidence on the were generally higher than our own with impervious cover, the City of long-term trend of the population at (Service 2013, Appendix C). Georgetown recently adopted a water each site. However, based on the threats quality ordinance that requires that and evidence from the literature and Impervious Cover Categories permanent structural water quality other information available in our files We examined studies that report controls for regulated activities over the (provided by peer reviewers of the ecological responses to watershed Edwards Aquifer recharge zone must Jollyville Plateau salamander listing impervious cover levels based on a remove 85 percent of total suspended determination), the declines in counts variety of degradation measurements solids for the entire project. This seen at urban Jollyville Plateau (Service 2013, Table 1, p. 4). Most increases the amount of total suspended salamander sites are likely studies examined biological responses solids that must be removed from representative of real declines in the to impervious cover (for example, projects within the City of Georgetown population. Because of the similarities aquatic invertebrate and fish diversity), and its ETJ by 5 percent over the in morphology, physiology, habitat but several studies measured chemical existing requirements (i.e., removal of requirements, and life history traits and physical responses as well (for 80 percent total suspended solids) shared with the Jollyville Plateau example, water quality parameters and found in the Edwards Aquifer Rules. In salamander, we expect downward stream channel modification). In light of addition, the ordinance requires that all trends in Georgetown and Salado these studies, we created the following regulated activities implement salamander populations in the future as impervious cover categories: temporary best management practices human population growth increases • None: 0 percent impervious cover in (BMPs) to minimize sediment runoff within the range of these species. This the watershed during construction. Finally, the human population growth is projected • Low: Greater than 0 percent to 10 Adaptive Management Working Group to increase by 377 percent in the range percent impervious cover in the is charged specifically with reviewing of the Georgetown salamander and by watershed Georgetown salamander monitoring data 128 percent in the range of the Salado • and new research over time and salamander by 2050. As indicated by the Medium: Greater than 10 percent to recommending improvements to the analogies presented above, subsequent 20 percent impervious cover in the watershed City of Georgetown’s water quality urbanization within the watersheds • ordinance that may be necessary to occupied by the Georgetown and Salado High: Greater than 20 percent ensure that it achieves its stated salamanders will likely cause declines impervious cover in the watershed purposes. This Adaptive Management in habitat quality and numbers of Sites in the Low category may still be Working Group, which includes individuals. experiencing impacts from urbanization, representatives of the Service and as cited in studies such as Coles et al. Impervious Cover Analysis TPWD, will also review and make (2012, p. 64), King et al. (2011, p. 1,664), recommendations on the approval of For this final rule, we calculated and King and Baker (2010, p. 1,002). In any variances to the ordinance. impervious cover within the watersheds accordance with the findings of Bowles In another example from a more occupied by the Georgetown and Salado et al. (2006, pp. 113, 117–118), sites in closely related species, the COA cited salamanders. In this analysis, we the Medium category are likely five declining Jollyville Plateau delineated the surface areas that drain experiencing impacts from urbanization salamander populations from 1997 to into spring sites and which of these sites that are negatively impacting 2006: Balcones District Park Spring, may be experiencing habitat quality salamander densities. Sites in the High Tributary 3, Tributary 5, Tributary 6, degradation as a result of impervious category are so degraded that habitat and Spicewood Tributary (O’Donnell et cover in the surface drainage area. recovery will either be impossible or al. 2006, p. 4). All of these populations However, we only examined surface very difficult (Schueler et al. 2009, pp. occur within surface watersheds drainage areas for each spring site for 310, 313). containing more than 10 percent the Georgetown and Salado salamanders Results of Our Impervious Cover impervious cover (Service 2013, pp. 9– because we did not know the recharge 11). Springs with relatively low area for specific spring or cave sites. Analysis amounts of impervious cover in their Also, we did not account for riparian We estimated impervious cover surface drainage areas (6.77 and 0 (stream edge) buffers or stormwater percentages for each surface drainage percent for Franklin and Wheless runoff control measures, both of which area of a spring known to have at least Springs, respectively) tend to have have the potential to mitigate some of one population of either a Georgetown generally stable or increasing the effects of impervious cover on or Salado salamander (cave locations salamander populations (Bendik 2011a, streams (Schueler et al. 2009, pp. 312– were omitted). These estimates and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10263

maps of the surface drainage area of are helpful in determining the general points out, ‘‘. . . little is known of how spring locations are provided in our level of impervious cover within water recharges and flows through the refined impervious cover analysis watersheds, it does not tell the complete subsurface in the Northern Segment of (Service 2013, pp. 1–25). Our analysis story of how urbanization may be the Edwards Aquifer. Groundwater flow did not include the watersheds for Hogg affecting salamanders or their habitat. in karst is often not controlled by Hollow Spring, Hogg Hollow II Spring, Understanding how a salamander might surface topography and crosses beneath or Garey Ranch Spring because be affected by water quality degradation surface water drainage boundaries, so confirmation of the Georgetown within its habitat requires an the sources and movements of salamander at these sites was not examination of where the impervious groundwater to springs and caves are received until after the analysis was cover occurs and what other threat poorly understood. Such information is completed. sources for water quality degradation critical to evaluating the degree to For the Georgetown salamander, a are present within the watershed (for which salamander sites can be protected total of 12 watersheds were delineated, example, non-point source runoff, from urbanization.’’ So a recharge area representing 12 spring sites. The highways and other sources of for a spring may occur within the watersheds varied greatly in size, hazardous materials, livestock and feral surface watershed, or it could occur ranging from the 1-ac (0.4-ha) watershed hogs, and gravel and limestone mining many miles away in a completely of Walnut Spring to the 258,017-ac (quarries); see discussions of these different watershed. A site completely (104,416-ha) watershed of San Gabriel sources in their respective sections in surrounded by development may still Spring. Most watersheds (10 out of 12) Factor A below). For example, San contain unexpectedly high water quality were categorized as Low impervious Gabriel Spring’s watershed (a because that spring’s base flow is cover. Two watersheds had no Georgetown salamander site) has an coming from a distant recharge area that impervious cover (Knight Spring and impervious cover of only 1.2 percent, is free from impervious cover. While Walnut Spring) and Swinbank Spring but the salamander site is in the middle some dye tracer work has been done in had the highest amount of impervious of a highly urbanized area: the City of the Northern Segment (Shade et al. cover at 6.9 percent. The largest Georgetown. The habitat is in poor 2008, p. 4), clearly delineated recharge watershed, San Gabriel Spring, had a condition, and Georgetown salamanders areas that flow to specific springs in the low proportion of impervious cover have not been observed here since 1991 Northern Segment have not been overall. However, most of the (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 40; Pierce identified for any of these spring sites; impervious cover in this watershed is in 2011b, pers. comm.). therefore, we could not examine the area immediately surrounding the In addition, the spatial arrangement of impervious cover levels on recharge spring site. impervious cover is influential to the areas to better understand how The Salado salamander had a total of impacts that occur to aquatic development in those areas may impact six watersheds delineated, representing ecosystems. Certain urban pattern salamander habitat. seven different spring sites. The variables, such as land use intensity, watersheds ranged in size from the 67- land cover composition, landscape Impervious cover within the ac (27-ha) watershed of Solana Spring to configuration, and connectivity of the watersheds of the Georgetown and 86,681-ac (35,079-ha) watershed of Big impervious area are important in Salado salamanders alone (that is, Boiling and Lil’ Bubbly Springs. Five of predicting effects to aquatic ecosystems without the consideration of additional the six watersheds were categorized as (Alberti et al. 2007, pp. 355–359). King threat sources that may be present at Low, and the watershed of Hog Hollow et al. (2005, pp. 146–147) found that the specific sites) could cause irreversible had no impervious cover. Although the closer developed land was to a stream declines or extirpation of populations largest watershed (Big Boiling and Lil’ in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the with continuous exposure to water Bubbly Springs) has a low amount of larger the effect it had on stream quality degradation over a relatively impervious cover (0.41 percent), almost macroinvertebrates. On a national scale, short time span without measures in all of that impervious cover is located watersheds with development clustered place to reduce these threats. Although within the Village of Salado in one large area (versus being the impervious cover levels for the surrounding the spring site. interspersed throughout the watershed) Georgetown and Salado salamanders Although most of the watersheds in and development located closer to remain relatively low at the present our analysis were classified as low, it is streams had higher frequency of high- time, we expect impacts from this threat important to note that low levels of flow events (Steuer et al. 2010, pp. 47– to increase in the future as urbanization impervious cover (that is, less than 10 48, 52). Based on these studies, it is expands within the surface watersheds percent) may degrade salamander likely that the way development is for these species as well. This has habitat. Recent studies in the eastern situated in the landscape of a surface already been observed in the closely United States have reported large drainage area of a salamander spring site related Jollyville Plateau salamander. declines in aquatic macroinvertebrates plays a large role in how that Bowles et al. (2006, pp. 113, 117–118) (the prey base of salamanders) at development impacts salamander found lower Jollyville Plateau impervious cover levels as low as 0.5 habitat. salamander densities in watersheds percent (King and Baker 2010, p. 1,002; One major limitation of this analysis with more than 10 percent impervious King et al. 2011, p. 1,664). Several is that we only examined surface cover. Given the similar morphology, authors have argued that negative effects drainage areas (watersheds) for each physiology, habitat requirements, and to stream ecosystems are seen at low spring site for the Georgetown and life-history traits between the Jollyville levels of impervious cover and Salado salamanders. In addition to the Plateau, Georgetown, and Salado gradually increase as impervious cover surface habitat, these salamanders use salamanders, we expect that downward increases (Booth et al. 2002, p. 838; the subsurface habitat. Moreover, the trends in Georgetown and Salado Groffman et al. 2006, pp. 5–6; Schueler base flow of water discharging from the salamander populations will occur as et al. 2009, p. 313; Coles et al. 2012, pp. springs on the surface comes from human population growth increases. As 4, 64). groundwater sources, which are in turn previously noted, the human population Although general percentages of replenished by recharge features on the is projected to increase by 377 percent impervious cover within a watershed surface. As Shade et al. (2008, p. 3–4) in the range of the Georgetown

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10264 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

salamander and by 128 percent in the within the ranges of the Georgetown and storage tanks to be protected against range of the Salado salamander by 2050. Salado salamanders. corrosion, installed properly, and Subsequent urbanization will likely Hazardous material spills pose a equipped with spill protection and leak cause declines in habitat quality and significant threat to the Georgetown and detection mechanisms, leaks can still numbers of individuals at sites occupied Salado salamanders, and impacts from occur in urbanized areas despite the by these species. The recently adopted spills could increase substantially under precautions put in place to prevent ordinances in the City of Georgetown drought conditions due to lower them (Manning 1994, p. 5). As human may reduce these threats. The Adaptive dilution and buffering capability of population growth increases within the Management Working Group will impacted water bodies. Spills under ranges of the Georgetown and Salado provide the monitoring and research to low-flow conditions are predicted to salamanders, such leaks could be threat track whether the ordinance is helping have an impact at much smaller to these species. to reduce this threat. volumes (Turner and O’Donnell 2004, p. Several groundwater contamination 26). A significant hazardous materials incidents have occurred within Salado Hazardous Material Spills spill within stream drainages of the salamander habitat (Price et al. 1999, p. The Edwards Aquifer is at risk from Georgetown or Salado salamander could 10). Big Boiling Springs is located on a variety of sources of contaminants and have the potential to threaten its long- the south bank of Salado Creek, near pollutants (Ross 2011, p. 4), including term survival and sustainability of locations of past contamination events hazardous materials that have the multiple populations or possibly the (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 43). potential to be spilled or leaked, entire species. For example, a single Between 1989 and 1993, at least four resulting in contamination of both hazardous materials spill on Interstate incidents occurred within 0.25 mi (0.4 surface and groundwater resources Highway 35 in the Village of Salado km) from the spring site, including a (Service 2005, pp. 1.6–14–1.6–15). could cause three (Big Boiling Springs, 700-gallon (2,650-liter) and 400-gallon Utility structures such as storage tanks Lil’ Bubbly Springs, and Lazy Days Fish (1,514-liter) gasoline spill and or pipelines (particularly gas and sewer Farm Springs) of the seven known petroleum leaks from two underground lines) can accidentally discharge. Any Salado salamander populations to go storage tanks associated with a gas activity that involves the extraction, extinct. The City of Georgetown station and a gas distributor business, storage, manufacture, or transport of ordinances have a requirement that new respectively (Price et al. 1999, p. 10). potentially hazardous substances, such roadways providing a capacity of 25,000 Because no follow-up studies were as fuels or chemicals, can contaminate vehicles per day must provide for conducted, we have no information to water resources and cause harm to hazardous spill containment. This indicate what effect these spills had on aquatic life. Spill events can involve a measure reduces the threat of spills on the species or its habitat. However, short release with immediate impacts, larger roadways in the future. In between 1991 and 1998, only a single such as a collision that involves a tanker combination with the other threats salamander was observed at Big Boiling identified in this final rule, a Springs despite multiple surveys truck carrying gasoline. Alternatively, catastrophic hazardous materials spill (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 43; TPWD the release can be long-term, involving could contribute to the species’ risk of 2011, p. 2). Between 2008 and 2010, one the slow release of chemicals over time, extinction by reducing its overall salamander was confirmed by biologists such as a leaking underground storage probability of persistence. Furthermore, (Gluesenkamp 2010, TPWD, pers. tank. we consider hazardous material spills to comm.) at Lil’ Bubbly Spring, and one A peer reviewer for the proposed rule be an ongoing significant threat to the additional unconfirmed sighting of a provided information from the National Georgetown and Salado salamanders Salado salamander in Big Boiling Response Center’s database of incidents due to their limited distributions, the Springs was reported by a citizen of of chemical and hazardous materials abundance of potential sources, and the Salado, Texas. spills (http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/ number of salamanders that could be The threat of water quality foia.html) from anthropogenic activities killed during a single spill event. degradation from an underground including, but not limited to, storage tank alone (that is, without the automobile or freight traffic accidents, Underground Storage Tanks consideration of additional threat intentional dumping, storage tanks, and The risk of hazardous material spills sources that may be present at specific industrial facilities. The number of from underground storage tanks is sites) could cause irreversible declines incidents is likely to be an widespread in Texas and is expected to or extirpation in local populations or underestimate of the total number of increase as urbanization continues to significant declines in habitat quality of incidents because not all incidents are occur. As of 1996, more than 6,000 the Georgetown or Salado salamander discovered or reported. The database leaking underground storage tanks in with only one exposure event. This is produced 189 records of spill events (33 Texas had resulted in contaminated considered to be an ongoing threat of that directly affected a body of water) in groundwater (Mace et al. 1997, p. 2), high impact to the Georgetown and Williamson County between 1990 and including a large leak in the range of the Salado salamanders. We expect this to 2012. Our search of the database Georgetown salamander (Mace et al. become a more significant threat in the produced 49 records of spill events that 1997, p. 32). In 1993, approximately future for these salamander species as all directly affected water in Bell County 6,000 gallons (22,712 liters) of gasoline urbanization continues to expand between 1990 and 2013. Spills that did leaked from an underground storage within their surface watersheds. not directly affect aquatic environments tank located near Krienke Springs in may have indirectly done so by southern Williamson County, Texas, Highways contaminating soils within watersheds which is known to be occupied by the The transport of hazardous materials that recharge springs where salamanders Jollyville Plateau salamander (Manning is common on many highways, which are known to occur (Gillespie 2012, 1994, p. 1). The leak originated from an are major transportation routes University of Texas, pers. comm.). The underground storage tank from a gas (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 1). Every year, risk of this type of contamination is station near the salamander site. This thousands of tons of hazardous currently ongoing and expected to incident illustrates that despite laws or materials are transported over Texas increase as urbanization continues ordinances that require all underground highways (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 1).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10265

Transporters of hazardous materials aquifer (Service 2005, p. 1.6–14). Salado ammonia levels and reduced dissolved (such as gasoline, cyclic hydrocarbons, salamander sites located downstream of oxygen are the most likely impacts of a fuel oils, and pesticides) carry volumes Interstate Highway 35 may be sewage spill that could cause rapid ranging from a few gallons up to 10,000 particularly vulnerable due to their mortality of large numbers of gallons (37,854 liters) or more of proximity to this major transportation salamanders (Turner and O’Donnell hazardous material (Thompson et al. corridor. Interstate Highway 35 crosses 2004, p. 27). Fecal coliform bacteria 2011, p. 1). An accident involving Salado Creek just 760 to 1,100 ft (231 to from sewage spills cause diseases in hazardous materials can cause the 335 m) upstream from three spring sites salamanders and their prey base (Turner release of a substantial volume of (Big Boiling Springs, Lil’ Bubbly and O’Donnell 2004, p. 27). Municipal material over a very short period of Springs, and Lazy Days Fish Farm water lines that convey treated drinking time. As such, the capability of standard Springs) where the Salado salamander is water throughout the surrounding areas stormwater management structures (or known to occur. The highway also of Georgetown and Salado salamander best management practices) to trap and crosses the surface watershed of an habitat could break and potentially flow treat such releases might be additional Salado salamander site, into surface or subsurface habitat, overwhelmed (Thompson et al. 2011, p. Robertson Spring. Should a hazardous exposing salamanders to chlorine 2). materials spill occur at the Interstate concentrations that are potentially toxic. Interstate Highway 35 crosses the Highway 35 bridge that crosses at A typical chlorine concentration in a watersheds that contribute groundwater Salado Creek or over the watershed of water line is 1.5 mg/L, and a lethal to spring sites known to be occupied by Robertson Spring, the Salado concentration of chloride for the related the Georgetown and Salado salamander could be at risk from San Marcos salamander is 0.088 mg/L salamanders. A catastrophic spill could contaminants entering the water flowing (Herrington and Turner 2009, p. 1). occur if a transport truck overturned into its surface habitat downstream. The Georgetown salamander is and its contents entered the recharge In addition, the Texas Department of particularly exposed to the threat of zone of the Northern Segment of the Transportation is reconstructing a water and sewage lines. As of the date Edwards Aquifer. Researchers at Texas section of Interstate Highway 35 within of this rule, there are eight water Tech University reviewed spill records the Village of Salado (Najvar 2009, treatment plants within the Georgetown to identify locations or segments of Service, pers. comm.). This work city limits, with wastewater and highway where spill incidents on Texas includes the replacement of four bridges chlorinated drinking water lines roadways are more numerous and, that cross Salado Creek (two main lane running throughout Georgetown therefore, more likely to occur than bridges and two frontage road bridges) salamander stream drainages (City of other areas of Texas. These researchers in an effort to widen the highway at this Georgetown 2008, p. 3.37). A massive found that one such area is a 10-mi (16- location. This project could affect the wastewater line is being constructed in km) radius along Interstate Highway 35 risk of hazardous materials spills and the South San Gabriel River drainage within Williamson County (Thompson runoff into Salado Creek upstream of (City of Georgetown 2008, p. 3.22), et al. 2011, pp. 25, 44). Three of the five known Salado salamander locations. In which is within the watershed of one spills reported in this area between 2000 August 2009, the Texas Department of known Georgetown salamander site. and 2006 occurred on this highway Transportation began working with the Almost 700 septic systems were within the City of Georgetown, and one Service to identify measures, such as the permitted or inspected in Georgetown in occurred on the same highway within installation of permanent water quality 2006 (City of Georgetown 2008, p. 3.36). the City of Round Rock (Thompson et control mechanisms to contain runoff, Service staff also noted a sewage line al. 2011, pp. 25–26, 44). As recently as to protect the Salado salamander and its that runs nearby Bat Well Cave. Data 2011, a fuel tanker overturned in habitat from the effects of this project submitted to the Service during our Georgetown and spilled 3,500 gallons (Najvar 2009, Service, pers. comm.). comment period (SWCA 2012, p. 20) (13,249 liters) of gasoline (McHenry et The threat of water quality indicated that one Georgetown al. 2011, p. 1). A large plume of degradation from highways alone (that salamander site (Cedar Breaks Spring) hydrocarbons was detected within the is, without the consideration of had a concentration of fecal coliform Edwards Aquifer underneath additional threat sources that may be bacteria [83,600 colony-forming units Georgetown in 1997 (Mace et al. 1997, present at specific sites) could cause per 100 milliliters (cfu/100mL)] 418 p. 32), possibly the result of a leaking irreversible declines or extirpation in times the concentration that the Service fuel storage tank. Thus, spills from local populations or significant declines recommended to be protective of Interstate Highway 35 are an ongoing in habitat quality of any of the four federally listed salamanders (200 cfu/ threat source. The City of Georgetown’s central Texas salamander species with 100mL) (White et al. 2006, p. 51). It is water quality ordinance now requires only one exposure event. We consider unknown if this elevated concentration that new roadways or expansions to this to be an ongoing threat of high of fecal coliform bacteria was the result existing roadways that provide a impact to the Georgetown and Salado of a sewage or septic spill, or what capacity of 25,000 vehicles per day and salamanders. Given the amount of impact this poor water quality had on are located on the Edwards Aquifer urbanization predicted for Williamson the Cedar Breaks Spring population. recharge zone must provide for spill and Bell Counties, Texas, the risk of Spills from sewage and water lines containment as described in TCEQ’s exposure from this threat is expected to have been documented in the past in the Optional Enhanced Measures. This increase in the future as well. central Texas area within the ranges of measure will reduce the threat of closely related salamander species. hazardous spills on new roadways or Water and Sewage Lines There are 9,470 known septic facilities expansions but does not address the Sewage spills often include in the Barton Springs Segment of the threat from existing roadways. contaminants such as nutrients, Edwards Aquifer as of 2010 (Herrington Transportation accidents involving polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons et al. 2010, p. 5), up from 4,806 septic hazardous materials spills at bridge (PAHs), metals, pesticides, systems in 1995 (COA 1995, p. 3–13). In crossings are of particular concern pharmaceuticals, and high levels of one COA survey of these septic systems, because recharge areas in creek beds can fecal coliform bacteria (Turner and over 7 percent were identified as failing transport contaminants directly into the O’Donnell 2004, p. 27). Increased (no longer functioning properly, causing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10266 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

water from the septic tank to leak out (Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat) projects within the City of Georgetown and accumulate on the ground surface) showed an increase in nickel, calcium, and its ETJ by 5 percent over the (COA 1995, p. 3–18). Sewage spills from and nitrates/nitrites after nearby road existing requirements (i.e., removal of pipelines also have been documented in construction (Richter 2009, pp. 6–7). 80 percent total suspended solids) watersheds supporting Jollyville Plateau Barton Springs (Austin blind found in the Edwards Aquifer Rules. salamander populations (COA 2001, pp. salamander habitat) is also under the Lastly, the ordinance requires that all 16, 21, 74). For example, in 2007, a threat of pollutant loading due to its developments implement temporary sewage line overflowed an estimated proximity to construction activities and BMPs to minimize sediment runoff 50,000 gallons (190,000 liters) of raw the spring’s location at the downstream during construction. Construction is sewage into the Stillhouse Hollow side of the watershed (COA 1997, p. intermittent and temporary, but it drainage area of Bull Creek below the 237). The COA (1995, pp. 3–11) affects both surface and subsurface area where salamanders are known to estimated that construction-related habitats and is occurring throughout the occur (COA 2007b, pp. 1–3). The human sediment and in-channel erosion ranges of these salamanders. Therefore, population is projected to increase by accounted for approximately 80 percent we have determined that this threat is 377 percent in the range of the of the average annual sediment load in ongoing and will continue to affect the Georgetown salamander and by 128 the Barton Springs watershed. In Georgetown and Salado salamanders percent in the range of the Salado addition, the COA (1995, pp. 3–10) and their habitats in the future. salamander by 2050. We expect that estimated that total suspended sediment subsequent urbanization will increase loads have increased 270 percent over Also, the physical construction of the prevalence of water and sewage pre-development loadings within the pipelines, shafts, wells, and similar systems within the areas where Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards structures that penetrate the subsurface Georgetown and Salado salamander Aquifer. Because the Jollyville Plateau has the potential to negatively affect populations are known to occur, and and Barton Springs salamanders are subsurface habitat for salamander thereby increase the exposure of similar to the Georgetown and Salado species. It is known that the Georgetown salamanders to this threat source. salamander with regard to size, and Salado salamanders inhabit the The threat of water quality morphology, physiology, life history subsurface environment and that water degradation from water and sewage traits and habitat requirements, we flows through the subsurface to the lines alone (that is, without the expect similar declines to occur for the surface habitat. Tunneling for consideration of additional threat Georgetown and Salado salamanders underground pipelines can destroy sources that may be present at specific from construction activities as the potential habitat by removing sites) could cause irreversible declines human population growth increases and subsurface material, thereby destroying or extirpation in local populations or subsequent development follows within subsurface spaces/conduits in which significant declines in habitat quality surface watersheds of these species. salamanders can live, grow, forage, and with only one exposure event. We At this time, we are not aware of any reproduce. Additional material can consider this to be an ongoing threat of studies that have examined sediment become dislodged and result in high impact to the Georgetown loading due to construction activities increased sediment loading into the salamander that is likely to increase in within the watersheds of Georgetown or aquifer and associated spring systems. the future as urbanization expands Salado salamander habitats. However, In addition, disruption of water flow to within the ranges of these species. because construction occurs and is springs inhabited by salamanders can Although we are unaware of any expected to continue in many of these occur through the construction of information that indicates water and watersheds occupied by the Georgetown tunnels and vertical shafts to access sewage lines are located in areas that and Salado salamanders as the human them. Because of the complexity of the could impact Salado salamanders if population is projected to increase by aquifer and subsurface structure and spills occurred, we expect this to 377 percent in the range of the because detailed maps of the become a significant threat in the future Georgetown salamander and by 128 underground conduits that feed springs for this species as urbanization percent in the range of the Salado in the Edwards Aquifer are not continues to expand within its surface salamander by 2050, we have available, tunnels and shafts have the watersheds. determined that the threat of possibility of intercepting and severing construction in areas of new Construction Activities development applies to these species as those conduits (COA 2010a, p. 28). Short-term increases in pollutants, well. The City of Georgetown’s water Affected springs could rapidly become particularly sediments, can occur during quality ordinance now requires stream dry and would not support salamander construction in areas of new buffers for all streams in the Edwards populations. The closer a shaft or tunnel development. When vegetation is Aquifer recharge zone within the City of location is to a spring, the more likely removed and rain falls on unprotected Georgetown and its ETJ that drain more that the construction will impact a soils, large discharges of suspended than 64 acres (26 ha). These buffers are spring (COA 2010a, p. 28). Even small sediments can erode from newly similar to those required under similar shafts pose a threat to nearby spring exposed areas, resulting in increased water quality regulations in central systems. As the human population is sedimentation in downstream drainage Texas and will help reduce the amount projected to increase by 377 percent in channels (Schueler 1987, pp. 1–4; of sediment and other pollutants that the range of the Georgetown salamander Turner 2003, p. 24; O’Donnell et al. enter waterways. and by 128 percent in the range of the 2005, p. 15). This increased The ordinance also requires that Salado salamander by 2050, we expect sedimentation from construction permanent structural water quality subsurface construction of pipelines, activities has been linked to declines in controls for regulated activities over the shafts, wells, and similar structures to Jollyville Plateau salamander counts at Edwards Aquifer recharge zone must be a threat to their surface and multiple sites (Turner 2003, p. 24; remove 85 percent of total suspended subsurface habitats. However, under the O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34). solids for the entire project. This City of Georgetown’s water quality Cave sites are also impacted by increases the amount of total suspended ordinance, these types of activities will construction, as Testudo Tube Cave solids that must be removed from no longer be permitted within 262 ft (80

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10267

m) of occupied Georgetown salamander materials from mining operations (such salamander surface sites and 5 of the 7 sites. as petroleum products) (Humphreys Salado salamander sites. Therefore, we The threat of water quality 2011, p. 295). For example, a spill of consider this to be an ongoing threat of degradation from construction activities almost 3,000 gallons (11,356 liters) of high impact given the exposure risk of alone (that is, without the consideration diesel from an above-ground storage this threat to the Georgetown and of additional threat sources that may be tank occurred on a limestone quarry in Salado salamanders that could worsen present at specific sites) could cause New Braunfels, Texas (about 4.5 mi (7.2 as quarries expand in the future. irreversible declines or extirpation in km) from Comal Springs in the Southern Contaminants and Pollutants local populations or significant declines Segment of the Edwards Aquifer) in in habitat quality of the salamander 2000 (Ross et al. 2005, p. 14). Also, Contaminants and pollutants are species with only one exposure event (if perchlorate (a chemical used in stressors that can affect individual subsurface flows were interrupted or producing explosives used in quarries) salamanders or their habitats or their severed) or with repeated exposure over contamination was detected in the City prey. They find their way into aquatic a relatively short time span. From of Georgetown public water supply habitat through a variety of ways, information available in our files and wells in November 2003. A total of 46 including stormwater runoff, point (a provided to us during the peer review private and public water wells were single identifiable source) and non- and public comment period for the sampled in December 2004 in point (coming from many diffuse proposed rule, we found that 3 of the 17 Williamson County (Berehe 2005, p. 44). sources) discharges, and hazardous Georgetown salamander sites have been Out of these, five private wells had material spills (Coles et al. 2012, p. 21). known to have had construction detections of perchlorate above the For example, sediments eroded from activities around their perimeters, and 1 TCEQ interim action levels of 4.0 parts soil surfaces as a result of stormwater has been modified within the spring site per billion (ppb). Four surface water runoff can concentrate and transport itself. Construction activities have led to (spring) samples had detection ranging contaminants (Mahler and Lynch 1999, physical habitat modification in at least from 6.3 to 9.2 ppb (Berehe 2005, p. 44). p. 165). The Georgetown and Salado three of the seven known Salado Perchlorate is known to affect thyroid salamanders and their prey species are salamander spring sites. Even though functions, which are responsible for directly exposed to sediment-borne the impacts of water quality degradation helping to regulate embryonic growth contaminants present within the aquifer from construction activities is reduced and development in vertebrate species and discharging through the spring by the City of Georgetown’s water (Smith et al. 2001, p. 306). Aquatic outlets. For example, in addition to quality ordinance, we consider future organisms inhabiting perchlorate- sediment, trace metals such as arsenic, construction activities to be an ongoing contaminated surface water bodies cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc threat of high impact to both the contain detectable concentrations of were found in Barton Springs in the Georgetown and Salado salamanders perchlorate (Smith et al. 2001, pp. 311– early 1990s (COA 1997, pp. 229, 231– that are likely to increase as 312). Perchlorate has been shown to 232). Such contaminants associated urbanization expands within their cause malformations in embryos, delay with sediments are known to negatively respective surface watersheds. larval growth and development, and affect survival and growth of an Quarries decrease reproductive success in amphipod species, which are part of the Construction activities within rock laboratory studies in the African clawed prey base of the Georgetown and Salado quarries can permanently alter the frog (Xenopus laevis) (Dumont 2008, pp. salamanders (Ingersoll et al. 1996, pp. geology and groundwater hydrology of 5, 8, 12, 19). Because the thyroid has the 607–608; Coles et al. 2012, p. 50). In the immediate area, and adversely affect same function in salamander physiology addition, various industrial and springs that are hydrologically as it does for the African clawed frog, municipal activities result in the connected to impacted sites (Ekmekci we expect perchlorate to affect the discharge of treated wastewater or 1990, p. 4; van Beynan and Townsend Georgetown and Salado salamanders in unintentional release of industrial 2005, p. 104; Humphreys 2011, p. 295). a similar manner. contaminants as point source pollution. Limestone rock is an important raw Limestone is a common geologic Urban environments are host to a material that is mined in quarries all feature of the Edwards Aquifer, and variety of human activities that generate over the world due to its popularity as active quarries exist throughout the many types of sources for contaminants a building material and its use in the region. For example, at least 3 of the 17 and pollutants. These substances, manufacture of cement (Vermeulen and Georgetown salamander sites (Avant especially when combined, often Whitten 1999, p. 1). The potential Spring, Knight [Crockett Gardens] degrade nearby waterways and aquatic environmental impacts of quarries Spring, and Cedar Breaks Hiking Trail resources within the watershed (Coles et include destruction of springs or Spring) occur adjacent to a limestone al. 2012, pp. 44–53). collapse of karst caverns, as well as quarry that has been active since at least As a karst aquifer system, the impacts to water quality through 1995. Avant Spring is within 328 ft (100 Edwards Aquifer is more vulnerable to siltation and sedimentation, and m) and Knight and Cedar Breaks Hiking the effects of contamination due to: (1) impacts to water quantity through water Trail Springs are each between 1,640 A large number of conduits that offer no diversion, dewatering, and reduced and 2,624 ft (500 and 800 m) from the filtering capacity, (2) high groundwater flows (Ekmekci 1990, p. 4; van Beynan quarry. The population status of the flow velocities, and (3) the relatively and Townsend 2005, p. 104). The Georgetown salamander is unknown at short amount of time that water is inside mobilization of fine materials from Knight Spring and Cedar Breaks Hiking the aquifer system (Ford and Williams quarries can lead to the occlusion of Trail Spring, but salamanders are seen 1989, pp. 518–519). These voids and the smothering of surface infrequently and in low abundance at characteristics of the aquifer allow habitats for aquatic species downstream the closest spring to the quarry (Avant contaminants in the watershed to enter (Humphreys 2011, p. 295). Spring; Pierce 2011c, Southwestern and move through the aquifer more Quarry activities can also generate University, pers. comm.). In total, there easily, thus reaching salamander habitat pollution in the aquatic ecosystem are currently quarries located in the within spring sites more quickly than through leaks or spills of waste watersheds of 5 of the 12 Georgetown other types of aquifer systems.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10268 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Amphibians, especially their eggs and Petroleum and petroleum byproducts average of 12 individuals per visit in larvae (which are usually restricted to a can adversely affect living organisms by 1997 to an average of 2 individuals in small area within an aquatic causing direct toxic action, altering 2005) during the COA’s long-term environment), are sensitive to many water chemistry, reducing light, and monitoring studies (O’Donnell et al. different aquatic pollutants (Harfenist et decreasing food availability (Albers 2006, p. 47). Another study found al. 1989, pp. 4–57). Contaminants found 2003, p. 349). Exposure to PAHs at several PAH compounds in seven in aquatic environments, even at certain levels can cause impaired Austin-area streams, including Barton, sublethal concentrations, may interfere reproduction, reduced growth and Bull, and Walnut Creeks, downstream of with a salamander’s ability to develop, development, and tumors or cancer in coal tar sealant parking lots (Scoggins et grow, or reproduce (Burton and species of amphibians, reptiles, and al. 2007, p. 697). Sites with high Ingersoll 1994, pp. 120, 125). other organisms (Albers 2003, p. 354). concentrations of PAHs (located in Salamanders in the central Texas region Coal tar pavement sealant slowed Barton and Walnut Creeks) had fewer are particularly vulnerable to hatching, growth, and development of a macroinvertebrate species and lower contaminants, because they have frog (Xenopus laevis) in a laboratory macroinvertebrate density (Scoggins et evolved under very stable setting (Bryer et al. 2006, pp. 244–245). al. 2007, p. 700). This form of environmental conditions, remain High concentrations of PAHs from coal contamination has also been detected at aquatic throughout their entire life tar sealant negatively affected the Barton Springs, which is the Austin cycle, have highly permeable skin, have righting ability (amount of time needed blind salamander’s habitat (COA 1997, severely restricted ranges, and cannot to flip over after being placed on back) p. 10). escape contaminants in their of adult eastern newts (Notophthalmus The threat of water quality environment (Turner and O’Donnell viridescens) and may have also damaged degradation from PAH exposure alone 2004, p. 5). In addition, the newt’s liver (Sparling et al. 2009, pp. (that is, without the consideration of macroinvertebrates, such as small 18–20). For juvenile spotted additional threat sources that may be freshwater crustaceans (amphipods and salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum), present at specific sites) could cause copepods), that aquatic salamanders PAHs reduced growth in the lab irreversible declines or extirpation in feed on are especially sensitive to water (Sparling et al. 2009, p. 28). Bommarito local populations or significant declines pollution (Phipps et al. 1995, p. 282; et al. (2010, pp. 1,151–1,152) found that in habitat quality of any of the Miller et al. 2007, p. 74; Coles et al. spotted salamanders displayed slower Georgetown and Salado salamander 2012, pp. 64–65). For example, studies growth rates and diminished swimming sites with continuous or repeated in the Bull Creek watershed in Austin, ability when exposed to PAHs. These exposure. In some instances, exposure Texas, found a loss of some sensitive contaminants are also known to cause to PAH contamination could negatively macroinvertebrate species, potentially death, reduced survival, altered impact a salamander population in due to contaminants of nutrient physiological function, inhibited combination with exposure to other enrichment and sediment accumulation reproduction, and changes in sources of water quality degradation, (COA 2001, p. 15; COA 2010b, p. 16). community composition of freshwater resulting in significant habitat declines Below, we discuss specific invertebrates (Albers 2003, p. 352). or other significant negative impacts contaminants and pollutants that may From the information available above, (such as loss of invertebrate prey be impacting the Georgetown and we conclude that PAHs are known to species). We consider water quality degradation from PAH contamination to Salado salamanders. cause disruptions to the survival, be a threat of high impact to Georgetown growth, development, and reproduction Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Salado salamanders now and in the in a variety of amphibian species and Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons future as urbanization increases within alterations to their prey base of aquatic (PAHs) are a common form of aquatic these species’ surface watersheds. contaminants in urbanized areas that invertebrates. Therefore, the same could affect salamanders, their habitat, effects are expected to occur to the Pesticides or their prey. This form of pollution can Georgetown and Salado salamanders Pesticides (including herbicides and originate from petroleum products, such when exposed to PAHs. insecticides) are also associated with as oil or grease, or from atmospheric This form of aquatic contaminant has urban areas. Sources of pesticides deposition as a byproduct of already been documented in the central include lawns, road rights-of-way, and combustion (for example, vehicular Texas area within the urbanized ranges managed turf areas, such as golf courses, combustion). These pollutants of closely related salamander species. parks, and ball fields. Pesticide accumulate over time on impervious Limited sampling by the COA has application is also common in cover, contaminating water supplies detected PAHs at concentrations of residential, recreational, and through urban and highway runoff (Van concern at multiple sites within the agricultural areas. Pesticides have the Metre et al. 2000, p. 4,067; Albers 2003, range of the Jollyville Plateau potential to leach into groundwater pp. 345–346). Although information is salamander. Most notable were the through the soil or be washed into lacking on PAH loading in Williamson levels of nine different PAH compounds streams by stormwater runoff. Pesticides and Bell Counties, research shows that at the Spicewood Springs site in the are known to impact amphibian species the main source of PAH loading in Shoal Creek drainage area, which were in a number of ways. For example, Austin-area streams is parking lots with above concentrations known to Reylea (2009, p. 370) demonstrated that coal tar emulsion sealant, even though adversely affect aquatic organisms diazinon reduces growth and this type of lot only covers 1 to 2 (O’Donnell et al. 2005, pp. 16–17). The development in larval amphibians. percent of the watersheds (Mahler et al. Spicewood Springs site is located Another pesticide, carbaryl, causes 2005, p. 5,565). A recent analysis of the within an area with greater than 30 mortality and deformities in larval rate of wear on coal tar lots revealed that percent impervious cover and down streamside salamanders (Ambystoma the sealcoat wears off relatively quickly gradient from a commercial business barbouri) (Rohr et al. 2003, p. 2,391). and contributes more to PAH loading that changes vehicle oil. This is also one The Environmental Protection Agency than previously thought (Scoggins et al. of the sites where salamanders have (EPA) (2007, p. 9) also found that 2009, p. 4,914). shown declines in abundance (from an carbaryl is likely to adversely affect the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10269

Barton Springs salamander both directly Salado salamanders. In some instances, golf course and residential tributaries and indirectly through reduction of exposure to pesticide contamination had substantially higher concentrations prey. Additionally, atrazine has been could negatively impact a salamander for these five water quality attributes shown to impair sexual development in population in combination with than rural tributaries (COA 1997, pp. 8– male amphibians (African clawed frogs) exposure to other sources of water 9). at concentrations as low as 0.1 parts per quality degradation, resulting in Residential irrigation of wastewater billion (Hayes 2002, p. 5,477). Atrazine significant habitat declines or other effluent is another source that leads to levels were found to be greater than 0.44 significant negative impacts (such as excessive nutrient input aquatic parts per billion after rainfall in Barton loss of invertebrate prey species). systems, as has been identified in the Springs Pool (Mahler and Van Mere Although the best available information recharge and contributing zones of the 2000, pp. 4, 12). From the information does not indicate that pesticides have Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards available above, we conclude that been detected in the aquatic Aquifer (Ross 2011, pp. 11–18; Mahler pesticides are known to cause environments within the ranges of the et al. 2011, pp. 16–23). Wastewater disruptions to the survival, growth, Georgetown and Salado salamanders to effluent permits do not require development, and reproduction in a date (SWCA 2012, pp. 17–18), we treatment to remove metals, variety of amphibian species. Therefore, expect this to become a significant pharmaceutical chemicals, or the wide we conclude such effects may occur to threat in the future for these species as range of chemicals found in body care the Georgetown and Salado salamanders the human population expands within products, soaps, detergents, pesticides, when exposed to pesticides as well. their surface watersheds. or other cleaning products (Ross 2011, We acknowledge that in 2007 a p. 6). These chemicals remaining in Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) of the Nutrients treated wastewater effluent can enter EPA reviewed the available information Nutrient input (such as phosphorus streams and the aquifer and alter water on atrazine effects on amphibians and and nitrogen) to watershed drainages, quality within salamander habitat. A concluded that atrazine concentrations which often results in abnormally high USGS study found nitrate less than 100 mg/L had no effects on organic growth in aquatic ecosystems, concentrations in Barton Springs and clawed frogs. However, the 2012 SAP is can originate from multiple sources, the five streams that provide most of its currently re-examining the conclusions such as human and animal wastes, recharge much higher during 2008 to of the 2007 SAP using a meta-analysis industrial pollutants, and fertilizers 2010 than before 2008 (USGS 2011, pp. of published studies along with (from lawns, golf courses, or croplands) 1–4). Additionally, nitrate levels in additional studies on more species (EPA (Garner and Mahler 2007, p. 29). As the water samples collected between 2003 2012, p. 35). The 2012 SAP expressed human population grows and and 2010 from Barton Creek tributaries concern that some studies were subsequent urbanization occurs within exceeded TCEQ screening levels and discounted in the 2007 SAP analysis, the ranges of the Georgetown and were identified as screening level including studies like Hayes (2002, p. Salado salamanders, they will likely concerns (TCEQ 2012a, p. 344). The 5,477) that indicated that atrazine is become more susceptible to the effects rapid development over the Barton linked to endocrine (hormone) of excessive nutrients within their Springs contributing zone since 2000 disruption in amphibians (EPA 2012, p. habitats because their exposure was associated with an increase in the 35). In addition, the 2007 SAP noted increases. To illustrate, an estimated generation of wastewater (Mahler et al. that their results on clawed frogs are 102,262 domestic dogs and cats (pet 2011, p. 29). Septic systems and land- insufficient to make global conclusions waste is a potential source of excessive applied treated wastewater effluent are about the effects of atrazine on all nutrients) were known to occur within likely sources contributing nitrate to the amphibian species (EPA 2012, p. 33). the Barton Springs Segment of the recharging streams (Mahler et al. 2011, Accordingly, the 2012 SAP has Edwards Aquifer in 2010 (Herrington et p. 29). recommended further testing on at least al. 2010, p. 15). Their distributions were As of November 2010, the permitted three amphibian species before a correlated with human population volume of irrigated flow in the conclusion can be reached that atrazine density (Herrington et al. 2010, p. 15). contributing zone of the Barton Springs has no effect on amphibians at Human population growth will bring Segment of the Edwards Aquifer was concentrations less than 100 mg/L (EPA about an increase in the use of nutrients 3,300,000 gallons (12,491 kiloliters) per 2012, p. 33). Due to potential differences that are harmful to aquatic species, such day. About 95 percent of that volume in species sensitivity, exposure as the Georgetown and Salado was permitted during 2005 to 2010 scenarios that may include dozens of salamanders. This was the case as urban (Mahler et al. 2011, p. 30). As the chemical stressors simultaneously, and development increased within the human population is projected to multigenerational effects that are not Jollyville Plateau salamander’s range. increase by 377 percent in the range of fully understood, we continue to view Various residential properties and golf the Georgetown salamander and by 128 pesticides, including carbaryl, atrazine, courses use fertilizers to maintain turf percent in the range of the Salado and many others to which aquatic grass within watersheds where Jollyville salamander by 2050, we expect the organisms may be exposed, as a Plateau salamander populations are permitted volume of irrigated flow of potential threat to water quality, known to occur (COA 2003, pp. 1–7). wastewater effluent in the contributing salamander health, and the health of Analysis of water quality attributes zone of the Northern Segment of the aquatic organisms that comprise the diet conducted by the COA (1997, pp. 8–9) Edwards Aquifer to increase of salamanders. showed significant differences in considerably. The threat of water quality nitrate, ammonia, total dissolved solids, Excessive nutrient input into aquatic degradation from pesticide exposure total suspended solids, and turbidity systems can increase plant growth alone (that is, without the consideration concentrations between watersheds (including algae blooms), which pulls of additional threat sources that may be dominated by golf courses, residential more oxygen out of the water when the present at specific sites) could cause land, and rural land. Golf course dead plant matter decomposes, resulting irreversible declines or extirpation in tributaries were found to have higher in less oxygen being available in the local populations or significant declines concentrations of these constituents water for salamanders to breathe in habitat quality of the Georgetown and than residential tributaries, and both (Schueler 1987, pp. 1.5–1.6; Ross 2011,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10270 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

p. 7). A reduction in dissolved oxygen them from these areas. In addition, we salamanders’ survival. Conductivity concentrations could not only affect found that surface watersheds for six of levels in the Edwards Aquifer are respiration in salamander species, but the seven known Salado salamander naturally low, ranging from also lead to decreased metabolic sites have livestock access. We also approximately 550 to 700 microsiemens functioning and growth in juveniles assumed these six surface watersheds per centimeter (mS cm¥1) (derived from (Woods et al. 2010, p. 544), or death contain feral hogs. several conductivity measurements in (Ross 2011, p. 6). Excessive plant The threat of water quality two references: Turner 2005, pp. 8–9; material can also reduce stream degradation from excessive nutrient O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 29). As ion velocities and increase sediment exposure alone (that is, without the concentrations, such as chlorides, deposition (Ross 2011, p. 7). When the consideration of additional threat sodium, sulfates, and nitrates rise, interstitial spaces become compacted or sources that may be present at specific conductivity will increase. These filled with fine sediment, the amount of sites) could cause irreversible declines compounds are the chemical products available foraging habitat and protective or extirpation in local populations or or byproducts of many common cover is reduced (Welsh and Ollivier significant declines in habitat quality of pollutants that originate from urban 1998, p. 1,128). any of the Georgetown and Salado environments (Menzer and Nelson 1980, Increased nitrate levels have been salamanders with continuous or p. 633), which are often transported to known to affect amphibians by altering repeated exposure. In some instances, streams via stormwater runoff from feeding activity and causing exposure to excessive nutrient exposure impervious cover. This combined with disequilibrium and physical could negatively impact a salamander the stability of the measured ions makes abnormalities (Marco et al. 1999, p. population in combination with conductivity an excellent monitoring 2,837). Nitrate toxicity studies have exposure to other sources of water tool for assessing the impacts of indicated that salamanders and other quality degradation, resulting in urbanization to overall water quality. amphibians are sensitive to these significant habitat declines. The City of Conductivity can be influenced by pollutants (Marco et al. 1999, p. 2,837). Georgetown’s water quality ordinance weather. Rainfall serves to dilute ions Some studies have indicated that nitrate requires that permanent structural water and lower conductivity while drought concentrations between 1.0 and 3.6 mg/ quality controls for regulated activities has the opposite effect. The trends of L can be toxic to aquatic organisms over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone increasing conductivity in urban (Rouse 1999, p. 802; Camargo et al. must remove 85 percent of total watersheds were evident under 2005, p. 1,264; Hickey et al. 2009, pp. suspended solids for the entire project. baseflow conditions and during a period ii, 17–18). Nitrate concentrations have This increases the amount of total when precipitation was above average been documented within this range suspended solids that must be removed in all but 3 years, so drought was not a (1.85 mg/L) at one Salado salamander from projects within the City of factor (NOAA 2013, pp. 1–7). The COA site (Lazy Days Fish Farm, which is Georgetown and its ETJ by 5 percent also monitored water quality as reported as Critchfield Springs in Norris over the existing requirements (i.e. impervious cover increased in several et al. 2012, p. 14) and higher than this removal of 80 percent total suspended subdivisions with known Jollyville range (4.05 mg/L, 4.28 mg/L, and 4.21 solids) found in the Edwards Aquifer Plateau salamander sites between 1996 mg/L) at three Salado salamander sites Rules. Although structural water quality and 2007. They found increasing ions (Big Boiling, Lil’ Bubbly, and Robertson controls are generally less efficient at (calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate) Springs, respectively) (Norris et al. removing nutrients from stormwater, by and nitrates with increasing impervious 2012, pp. 23–25). Likewise, nitrate increasing the required removal of total cover at four Jollyville Plateau samples taken at a Georgetown suspended solids, the implementation salamander sites and as a general trend salamander site (Swinbank Springs) of the ordinance will result in an during the course of the study from were found to be as high as 3.32 mg/L increase in the amount of nutrients 1997 to 2006 (Herrington et al. 2007, pp. (SWCA 2012, pp. 15, 20). For removed from stormwater. In addition, 13–14). These results indicate that comparison, nitrate levels in the ordinance now requires stream developed watersheds can alter the undeveloped Edwards Aquifer springs buffers for all streams in the Edwards water chemistry within salamander (watersheds without high levels of Aquifer recharge zone within the City of habitats. urbanization) are typically close to 1 High conductivity has been associated Georgetown and its ETJ that drain more mg/L (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 26). with declining salamander abundance than 64 ac (26 ha). These buffers are From the information available on the in a species that is closely related to the similar to those required under similar effects of elevated nitrate levels on Georgetown and Salado salamanders. water quality regulations in central amphibian species, we conclude that For example, three of the four sites with Texas and will help reduce the amount the salamanders at these sites may be statistically significant declining of nutrients and other pollutants that experiencing impairments to their Jollyville Plateau salamander counts enter waterways. However, we still respiratory, metabolic, and feeding from 1997 to 2006 are cited as having consider excessive nutrient exposure to capabilities. high conductivity readings (O’Donnell We also assessed the risk of exposure be an ongoing threat of high impact for et al. 2006, p. 37). Similar correlations to sources of excessive nutrient input the Georgetown and Salado salamanders were shown in studies comparing for the Georgetown and Salado that is likely to continue in the future. developed and undeveloped sites from salamanders by examining 2012 Google Changes in Water Chemistry 1996 to 1998 (Bowles et al. 2006, pp. Earth aerial imagery. For the 12 known 117–118). This analysis found surface sites of the Georgetown Conductivity significantly lower numbers of salamander, we found 3 have golf Conductivity is a measure of the salamanders and significantly higher courses; 3 have livestock; and we ability of water to carry an electrical measures of specific conductance at assumed that 10 of the surface current and can be used to approximate developed sites as compared to watersheds are accessible to feral hogs the concentration of dissolved inorganic undeveloped sites (Bowles et al. 2006, given that they are common across the solids in water that can alter the internal pp. 117–118). Tributary 5 of Bull Creek landscape and because we could not water balance in aquatic organisms, has had an increase in conductivity, identify any fencing that would exclude affecting the four central Texas chloride, and sodium and a decrease in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10271

invertebrate diversity from 1996 to 2008 104; Coles et al. 2012, pp. 4, 58). This refuge (Bendik 2011b, COA, pers. (COA 2010b, p. 16). Only one Jollyville shift in community can have negative, comm.; Bendik and Gluesenkamp 2012, Plateau salamander has been observed indirect effects on Georgetown and pp. 3–4). Below, we evaluate the sources here from 2009 to 2010 in quarterly Salado salamander populations. Studies of water quantity alterations in surveys (Bendik 2011a, p. 16). A on closely related species of Georgetown and Salado salamander separate analysis found that ions such salamanders have shown these habitat. as chloride and sulfate increased in predators to be sensitive to changes in Urbanization Barton Creek despite the enactment of the species composition of their prey city-wide water quality control base. For example, Johnson and Wallace Increased urbanization in the ordinances (Turner 2007, p. 7). Poor (2005, pp. 305–306) found that when watershed has been cited as one factor, water quality, as measured by high the Blue Ridge two-lined salamander particularly in combination with specific conductance and elevated (Eurycea wilderae) fed on an altered drought that causes alterations in spring levels of ion concentrations, is cited as composition of prey species, salamander flows (COA 2006, pp. 46–47; TPWD one of the likely factors leading to densities were lower compared to 2011, pp. 4–5; Coles et al. 2012. p. 10). statistically significant declines in salamanders feeding on an unaltered This is partly due to increases in salamander counts at the COA’s long- prey community. The researchers partly groundwater pumping and reductions in term monitoring sites (O’Donnell et al. attributed this difference in density to baseflow due to impervious cover. 2006, p. 46). Because the Jollyville reduced larval growth caused by the Urbanization removes the ability of a Plateau salamander is similar to the lack of nutrition in the diet (Johnson watershed to allow slow filtration of Georgetown and Salado salamanders and Wallace 2005, p. 309). Another water through soils following rain with regard to morphology, physiology, study on the Tennessee cave salamander events. Instead rainfall runs off habitat requirements, and life history (Gyrinophilus palleucus) found the prey impervious surfaces and into stream traits, we expect similar declines of composition of salamanders within one channels at higher rates, increasing Georgetown and Salado salamanders as cave differed from another cave, and downstream ‘‘flash’’ flows and impervious cover increases within this difference resulted in significant decreasing groundwater recharge and Williamson and Bell Counties, Texas. differences in salamander densities and subsequent baseflows from springs The human population is projected to biomass (Huntsman et al. 2011, pp. (Miller et al. 2007, p. 74; Coles et al. increase by 377 percent in the range of 1750–1753). Based on this literature, we 2012, pp. 2, 19). Urbanization can also the Georgetown salamander and by 128 conclude that the species composition impact water quantity by increasing percent in the range of the Salado of invertebrates is an important factor in groundwater pumping and altering the salamander by 2050, so we expect that determining the health of Georgetown natural flow regime of streams. These conductivity levels within the areas and Salado salamander populations. stressors are discussed in more detail where Georgetown and Salado Although the best available information below. salamander populations are known to does not indicate shifting invertebrate Urbanization can also result in occur will increase the exposure of communities within the ranges of the increased groundwater pumping, which salamanders to this stressor. Georgetown and Salado salamanders, has a direct impact on spring flows, The threat of water quality we expect this to become a significant particularly under drought conditions. degradation from high conductivity threat in the future for these species as From 1980 to 2000, groundwater alone (that is, without the consideration urbanization continues to expand pumping in the Northern Segment of the of additional threat sources that may be within their surface watersheds. Edwards Aquifer nearly doubled (TWDB present at specific sites) could cause 2003, pp. 32–33). Municipal wells irreversible declines or extirpation in Water Quantity Degradation within 500 ft (152 m) of San Gabriel local populations or significant declines Water quantity decreases and spring Springs (Georgetown salamander in habitat quality of the Georgetown and flow declines are considered threats to habitat) now flow in the summer only Salado salamanders with continuous or Eurycea salamanders (Corn et al. 2003, intermittently due to pumping from repeated exposure. In some instances, p. 36; Bowles et al. 2006, p. 111) nearby water wells (Booker 2011, exposure to high conductivity could because drying spring habitats can cause Service, pers. comm.). Georgetown negatively impact a salamander salamanders to be stranded, resulting in salamanders have not been found there population in combination with death of individuals (O’Donnell et al. since 1991 despite searches for them exposure to other sources of water 2006, p. 16). It is also known that prey (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 40; Pierce quality degradation, resulting in availability is low underground due to 2011b, Southwestern University, pers. significant habitat declines. Although the lack of primary production (Hobbs comm.). the best available information does not and Culver 2009, p. 392). Therefore, Furthermore, water levels in indicate that increased conductivity is relying entirely on subsurface habitat Williamson County wells were lower in occurring within the ranges of the during dry conditions on the surface 2005 than in 1995 (Boghici 2011, pp. Georgetown and Salado salamanders to may negatively impact the salamanders’ 28–29). The declining water levels are date (SWCA 2012, p. 19), we expect this feeding abilities and slow individual attributed in part to groundwater to become a significant threat in the and population growth. Ultimately, dry pumping by industrial and public future for these species as urbanization surface conditions can exacerbate the supply users (Berehe 2005, p. 18). continues to expand within their surface risk of extirpation in combination with Pumpage from the Edwards Aquifer has watersheds. other threats occurring at the site. In consistently exceeded the estimate addition, water quantity increases in the available supply between 1985 and 1997 Changes in Prey Base Community form of large spring discharge events in Williamson County (Ridgeway and As noted above, stressors from and flooding may impact salamander Petrini 1999, p. 35). Over a 50-year urbanization such as contaminants can populations by flushing individuals horizon (2001 to 2050), models predict alter the invertebrate community of a downstream into unsuitable habitat a gradual long-term water-level decline water body by replacing sensitive (Petranka and Sih 1986, p. 732; Barrett will occur in the Pflugerville-Round species with species that are more et al. 2010, p. 2,003) or forcing Rock-Georgetown area of Williamson tolerant of pollution (Schueler 1994, p. individuals into subsurface habitat County (Berehe 2005, p. 2). There are 34

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10272 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

active public water supply systems in 2060 (Berehe 2005, p. 38; Hassan 2011, Creek watershed (Jollyville Plateau Williamson County (Berehe 2005, pp. 3, p. 7). The Georgetown City Manager has salamander habitat) have likely caused 63). Through water conservation recently indicated that the City of a shift to more rapid rises and falls of programs and other efforts to meet new Georgetown will not use water from the that stream flow (Herrington 2010, p. demands, TCEQ believes that water Edwards Aquifer in plans for future and 11). purveyors in Williamson County can additional municipal water supplies With increasing stormwater runoff, generally maintain their present (Brandenburg 2013, pers. comm). the amount of baseflow available to groundwater systems (Berehe 2005, pp. Instead, the City of Georgetown intends sustain water supplies during drought 3, 63). In addition, all wholesale and to use surface water or non-Edwards cycles is diminished and the frequency retail water suppliers are required to wells for future sources of water. and severity of flooding increases (Poff prepare and adopt drought contingency The COA found a negative correlation et al. 1997, p. 773). The increased plans on TCEQ rules (Title 30, Texas between urbanization and spring flows quantity and velocity of runoff increases Administrative Code, Chapter 288) at Jollyville Plateau salamander sites erosion and streambank destabilization, (Berehe 2005, p. 64). However, there is (Turner 2003, p. 11). Field studies have which in turn, leads to increased no groundwater conservation district in also shown that a number of springs that sediment loadings, channel widening, place with authority to control large- support Jollyville Plateau salamanders and detrimental changes in the scale groundwater pumping for private have already gone dry periodically, and morphology and aquatic ecology of the purposes (Berehe 2005, pp. 3, 63). Thus, that spring waters resurface following affected stream system (Hammer 1972, groundwater levels may continue to rain events (O’Donnell et al. 2006, pp. pp. 1,535–1,536, 1,540; Booth 1990, pp. decline due to private pumping. 46–47). Through a site-by-site 407–409, 412–414; Booth and Reinelt The City of Georgetown predicts the assessment from information available 1993, pp. 548–550; Schueler 1994, pp. average water demand to increase from in our files and provided during the 106–108; Pizzuto et al. 2000, p. 82; 8.21 million gallons (30,000 kiloliters) peer review and public comment period Center for Watershed Protection 2003, per day in 2003, to 10.9 million gallons for the proposed rule, we found that at pp. 41–48; Coles et al. 2012, pp. 37–38). (37,000 kiloliters) per day by 2030 (City least 2 out of the 15 known Georgetown The City of Georgetown’s water quality of Georgetown 2008, p. 3.36). Under salamander surface sites and 3 out of the ordinance requires that regulated peak flow demands (18 million gallons 7 known Salado salamander surface activities occurring on the Edwards [68,000 kiloliters] per day in 2003), the sites have gone dry for some period of Aquifer recharge zone shall not cause City of Georgetown uses seven time. Because we lack flow data for any increase in the developed flow rate groundwater wells in the Edwards some of the spring sites, it is possible of stormwater for the 2-year, 3-hour Aquifer (City of Georgetown 2008, p. that even more sites have gone dry for storm. Most municipalities currently 3.36). Total water use for Williamson a period of time as well. enforce this or a similar standard for County was 82,382 acre feet (ac ft) in Flow is a major determining factor of new developments, and it is unclear the 2010, and is projected to increase to physical habitat in streams, which in effect this requirement will have on the 109,368 ac ft by 2020, and to 234,936 ac turn, is a major determining factor of quantity and velocity of runoff from ft by 2060, representing a 185 percent aquatic species composition within developments in Georgetown or its ETJ. increase over the 50-year period (TWDB streams (Bunn and Arthington 2002, p. Changes in flow regime can directly 2011, p. 78). Similarly, Bell County 492). Various land-use practices, such as affect salamander populations. For predicts a 59 percent and 91 percent urbanization, conversion of forested or example, the density of aquatic southern increase in total water use over the same prairie habitat to agricultural lands, two-lined salamanders (Eurycea 50-year period, respectively (TWDB excessive wetland draining, and cirrigera) declined more drastically in 2011, pp. 5, 72). overgrazing can reduce water retention streams with urbanized watersheds While the demand for water is within watersheds by routing rainfall compared to streams with forested or expected to increase with human quickly downstream, increasing the size pastured watersheds in Georgia (Barrett population growth, future groundwater and frequency of flood events and et al. 2010, pp. 2,002–2,003). A use in this area is predicted to drop as reducing baseflow levels during dry statistical analysis indicated that this municipalities convert from periods (Poff et al. 1997, pp. 772–773). decline in urban streams was due to an groundwater to surface water supplies Over time, these practices can degrade increase in flooding frequency from (TWDB 2003, p. 65). To meet the in-channel habitat for aquatic species stormwater runoff. In artificial stream increasing water demand, the 2012 State (Poff et al. 1997, p. 773). experiments, salamander larvae were Water Plan recommends more reliance Baseflow is defined as that portion of flushed from sand-based sediments at on surface water, including existing and stream flow that originates from significantly lower velocities, as new reservoirs, rather than groundwater shallow, subsurface groundwater compared to gravel, pebble, or cobble- (TWDB 2012, p. 190). For example, one sources, which provide flow to streams based sediments (Barrett et al. 2010, p. recommended project conveys water in periods of little rainfall (Poff et al. 2,003). This has also been observed in from Lake Travis to Williamson County 1997, p. 771). The land-use practices the wild in small-mounted salamanders (TWDB 2012, pp. 192–193). There is mentioned above can cause stream flow (Ambystoma texanum) whereby large also a recommendation to augment the to shift from predominately base flow, numbers of individuals were swept surface water of Lake Granger in which is derived from natural filtration downstream during high stream Williamson County with groundwater processes, to predominately stormwater discharge events resulting in death by from Burleson County and the Carrizo- runoff. For example, an examination of predation or physical trauma (Petranka Wilcox Aquifer (TWDB 2012, pp. 164, 24 stream sites in the urbanized Austin and Sih 1986, p. 732). We expect 192–193). However, it is unknown if area revealed that increasing impervious increased flow velocities from this reduction in groundwater use will cover in the watersheds resulted in impervious cover will cause the occur, and if it does, how that will affect decreased base flow, increased high- flushing of Georgetown and Salado spring flows for salamanders. Water flow events of shorter duration, and salamanders from their habitats. supply from the Edwards Aquifer in more rapid rises and falls of the stream The threat of water quantity Williamson and Bell Counties is flow (Glick et al. 2009, p. 9). Increases degradation from urbanization could projected to remain the same through in impervious cover within the Walnut cause irreversible declines in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10273

population sizes or habitat quality for number of Barton Springs salamander retreating to the subsurface from 2008 to the Georgetown and Salado observed during surveys decreased 2009 (Bendik 2011b, COA, pers. comm.; salamanders. Also, it could cause during a prolonged drought from June Bendik and Gluesenkamp 2012, pp. 3– irreversible declines or the extirpation 2008 through September 2009 (COA 4). The authors of this study of a salamander population at a site 2011, pp. 19, 24, 27). The drought in hypothesized that the negative growth with continuous exposure. Although we 2011 also resulted in dissolved oxygen could be the result of soft tissue do not consider water quantity concentrations so low that COA used an contraction and/or bone loss, but more degradation from urbanization to be a aeration system to maintain oxygenated research is needed to determine the significant threat to Georgetown and water in Eliza and Sunken Gardens physical mechanism with which the Salado salamanders at the present time, Springs (Dries 2011, COA, pers. comm.). shrinkage occurs (Bendik and we expect this threat to become The Georgetown and Salado Gluesenkamp 2012, p. 5). Although this significant in the future as urbanization salamanders may be able to persist shrinkage in body length was followed expands within these species’ surface through temporary surface habitat by positive growth when normal spring watersheds. degradation because of their ability to flow returned, the long-term retreat to subsurface habitat. Drought consequences of catch-up growth are Drought conditions are common to the region, unknown for these salamanders (Bendik Drought conditions cause lowered and the ability to retreat underground and Gluesenkamp 2012, pp. 4–5). groundwater tables and reduced spring may be an evolutionary adaptation of Therefore, threats to surface habitat at flows. The Northern Segment of the Eurycea salamanders to such natural a given site may not extirpate Edwards Aquifer, which supplies water conditions (Bendik 2011a, pp. 31–32). populations of these salamander species to Georgetown and Salado salamander However, it is important to note that in the short term, but this type of habitat habitat, is vulnerable to drought although salamanders may survive a degradation may severely limit (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 36). A drought by retreating underground, this population growth and increase a drought lasting from 2008 to 2009 was does not necessarily mean they are population’s overall risk of extirpation considered one of the worst droughts in resilient to long-term drought from other stressors occurring in the central Texas history and caused conditions (particularly because sites surface watershed. numerous salamander sites to go dry in may already be affected by other, The threat of water quantity the central Texas region (Bendik 2011a, significant stressors, such as water degradation from drought alone (that is, p. 31). An even more pronounced quality declines). Studies on other without the consideration of additional drought throughout Texas began in aquatic salamander species have threat sources that may be present at 2010, with the period from October reported decreased occupancy, loss of specific sites) could cause irreversible 2010 through September 2011 being the eggs, decreased egg-laying, and declines in population sizes or habitat driest 12-month period in Texas since extirpation from sites during periods of quality for the Georgetown and Salado rainfall records began (Hunt et al. 2012, drought (Camp et al. 2000, p. 166; Miller salamanders. Also, it could negatively p. 195). Rainfall in early 2012 lessened et al. 2007, pp. 82–83; Price et al. 2012b, impact salamander populations in the intensity of drought conditions, but pp. 317–319). combination with other threats and 2012 monthly summer temperatures Dry surface conditions can affect contribute to significant declines in the continued to be higher than average salamanders by reducing their access to size of the populations or habitat (NOAA 2013, p. 6). Moderate to extreme food. Surface habitats are important for quality. For example, changes in water drought conditions continued into 2013 prey availability as well as individual quantity will have direct impacts on the in the central Texas region (LCRA 2013, and population growth. Therefore, sites quality of that water in terms of p. 1). Weather forecasts called for near with suitable surface flow and adequate concentrations of contaminants and to slightly less than normal rainfall prey availability are likely able to pollutants. Therefore, we consider water across Texas through August 2013, but support larger population densities quantity degradation from drought to be there was not enough rain to break the (Bendik 2012, COA, pers. comm.). a threat of high impact for the drought (LCRA 2013, p. 1). Year-end Research on related salamander species, Georgetown and Salado salamanders totals show that 2013 was the second such as the grotto salamander now and in the future. lowest year of inflows into the Highland (Typhlotriton spelaeus) and the Climate Change Lakes region of central Texas since the Oklahoma salamander (Eurycea dams were built in the 1940s. There was tynerensis), demonstrates that resource- Our analyses under the Endangered some heavy rain in late-2013 in central rich surface habitat is necessary for Species Act include consideration of Texas but much of it fell in Austin or juvenile growth (Tumlison and Cline ongoing and projected changes in downstream of Austin having little 1997, p. 105). Prey availability for climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ and effect on recharging the Edwards carnivores, such as the Georgetown and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the Aquifer (LCRA 2014, p. 1). Salado salamanders, is low Intergovernmental Panel on Climate The specific effects of low flow on the underground due to the lack of sunlight Change (IPCC). The term ‘‘climate’’ Georgetown and Salado salamanders and primary production (Hobbs and refers to the mean and variability of can be inferred by examining studies on Culver 2009, p. 392). Complete loss of different types of weather conditions the closely related Barton Springs surface habitat may lead to the over time, with 30 years being a typical salamander. Drought decreases spring extirpation of predominately period for such measurements, although flow and dissolved oxygen levels and subterranean populations that depend shorter or longer periods also may be increases temperature in Barton Springs on surface flows for biomass input used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term (Turner 2004, p. 2; Turner 2009, p. 14). (Bendik 2012, COA, pers. comm.). In ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change Low dissolved oxygen levels decrease addition, length measurements taken in the mean or variability of one or more reproduction in Barton Springs during a COA mark-recapture study at measures of climate (for example, salamanders (Turner 2004, p. 6; 2009, p. Lanier Spring demonstrated that temperature or precipitation) that 14). Turner (2009, p. 14) also found that individual Jollyville Plateau persists for an extended period, Barton Springs salamander counts salamanders exhibited negative growth typically decades or longer, whether the decline with decreasing discharge. The (shrinkage) during a 10-month period of change is due to natural variability,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10274 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

human activity, or both (IPCC 2007a, p. species, downscaled projections are sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity 78). available. (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al. According to the IPCC (2007b, p. 1), Localized projections suggest the 2011, pp. 19–22). There is no single ‘‘Warming of the climate system is southwest may experience the greatest method for conducting such analyses unequivocal, as is now evident from temperature increase of any area in the that applies to all situations (Glick et al. observations of increases in global lower 48 States (IPCC 2007b, p. 8). 2011, p. 3). We use our expert judgment average air and ocean temperatures, Temperature in Texas is expected to and appropriate analytical approaches widespread melting of snow and ice, increase by up to 4.8 °C (8.6 °F) by the to weigh relevant information, including and rising global average sea level.’’ end of 2100 (Jiang and Yang 2012, p. uncertainty, in our consideration of Average Northern Hemisphere 235). The IPCC also predicts that hot various aspects of climate change. temperatures during the second half of extremes and heat waves will increase Climate change could compound the the 20th century were very likely higher in frequency and that many semi-arid threat of decreased water quantity at than during any other 50-year period in areas like the western United States will salamander spring sites. Recharge, the last 500 years and likely the highest suffer a decrease in water resources due pumping, natural discharge, and saline in at least the past 1300 years (IPCC to climate change (IPCC 2007b, p. 8). intrusion of Texas groundwater systems 2007b, p. 1). It is very likely that from Model projections of future climate in could all be affected by climate change 1950 to 2012 cold days and nights have southwestern North America show a (Mace and Wade 2008, p. 657). become less frequent, and hot days and transition to a more arid climate that Although climate change predictions on hot nights have become more frequent began in the late 20th and early 21st the Northern Segment of the Edwards on a global scale (IPCC 2013, p. 4). It is centuries (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1183). Aquifer are not available, the Southern likely that the frequency and intensity Milly et al. (2005, p. 349) project a 10 Edwards Aquifer is predicted to of heavy precipitation events has to 30 percent decrease in stream flow in experience additional stress from increased over North America (IPCC mid-latitude western North America by climate change that could lead to 2013, p. 4). the year 2050 based on an ensemble of decreased recharge (Loa´iciga et al. 2000, 12 climate models. Based on pp. 192–193). In addition, CH2M HILL The IPCC (2013, pp. 15–16) predicts downscaling global models of climate (2007, pp. 22–23) identified possible that changes in the global climate change, Texas is expected to receive up effects of climate change on water system during the 21st century are very to 20 percent less precipitation in resources within the Lower Colorado likely to be larger than those observed winters and up to 10 percent more River Watershed (which contributes during the 20th century. For the next precipitation in summers (Jiang and recharge to the Barton Springs Segment two decades (2016 to 2035), a warming Yang 2012, p. 238). However, most of the Edwards Aquifer, just south of the of 0.3 °C (0.5 °F) to 0.7 °C (1.3 °F) per regions in Texas are predicted to range of the Georgetown and Salado decade is projected (IPCC 2013, p. 15). become drier as temperatures increase salamanders). We therefore conclude Afterwards, temperature projections (Jiang and Yang 2012, pp. 240–242). that the best available evidence increasingly depend on specific An increased risk of drought in Texas indicates that the Northern Segment of emission scenarios (IPCC 2007b, p. 6). could occur if evaporation exceeds the Edwards Aquifer will respond Various emissions scenarios suggest that precipitation levels in a particular similarly to climate change as the rest of by the end of the 21st century, average region due to increased greenhouse the Edwards Aquifer. global temperatures are expected to gases in the atmosphere (CH2M HILL Rainfall and ambient temperatures are increase 0.3 °C to 4.8 °C (0.5 °F to ° 2007, p. 18). A reduction of recharge to factors that may affect Georgetown and 8.6 F), relative to 1986 to 2005 (IPCC aquifers and a greater likelihood for Salado salamander populations. 2013, p. 15). By the end of 2100, it is more extreme droughts, such as the Different ambient temperatures in the virtually certain that there will be more droughts of 2008 to 2009 and 2011, were season that rainfall occurs can influence frequent hot and fewer cold temperature identified as potential climate change- spring water temperature if aquifers extremes over most land areas on daily related impacts to water resources have fast transmission of rainfall to and seasonal timescales, and it is very (CH2M HILL 2007, p. 23). Extreme springs (Martin and Dean 1999, p. 238). likely that heat waves and extreme droughts in Texas are now much more Gillespie (2011, p. 24) found that precipitation events will occur with a probable than they were 40 to 50 years reproductive success and juvenile higher frequency and intensity (IPCC ago (Rupp et al. 2012, pp. 1053–1054). survivorship in the Barton Springs 2013, pp. 15–16). Various changes in climate may have salamander may be significantly Global climate projections are direct or indirect effects on species. influenced by fluctuations in mean informative, and, in some cases, the These effects may be positive, neutral, monthly water temperature. This study only or the best scientific information or negative, and they may change over also found that groundwater available for us to use. However, time, depending on the species and temperature is influenced by the season projected changes in climate and related other relevant considerations, such as in which rainfall events occur over the impacts can vary substantially across interactions of climate with other recharge zone of the aquifer. When and within different regions of the variables (for example, habitat recharging rainfall events occur in world (for example, IPCC 2007b, p. 9). fragmentation) (IPCC 2007a, pp. 8–14, winter when ambient temperature is Therefore, we use ‘‘downscaled’’ 18–19). Identifying likely effects often low, mean monthly water temperature projections when they are available and involves aspects of climate change within the aquatic habitat of this species have been developed through vulnerability analysis. Vulnerability can drop as low as 65.5 °F (18.6 °C) and appropriate scientific procedures, refers to the degree to which a species remain below the annual average because such projections provide higher (or system) is susceptible to, and unable temperature of 70.1 °F (21.2 °C) for resolution information that is more to cope with, adverse effects of climate several months (Gillespie 2011, p. 24). relevant to spatial scales used for change, including climate variability In summary, the threat of water analyses of a given species (see Glick et and extremes. Vulnerability is a quantity degradation from climate al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a discussion of function of the type, magnitude, and change could negatively impact the downscaling). With regard to our rate of climate change and variation to Georgetown and Salado salamanders in analysis for the Georgetown and Salado which a species is exposed, its combination with other threats and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10275

contribute to significant declines in attributed to their reliance on interstitial the Edwards Aquifer Rules. Additional population sizes or habitat quality. We spaces in the streambed habitats (Welsh threats from sediments as a source of consider this to be a threat of moderate and Ollivier 1998, p. 1,128). contaminants were discussed in the impact for the Georgetown and Salado Excessive sedimentation has ‘‘Contaminants and Pollutants’’ under salamanders now and in the future. contributed to declines in Jollyville the ‘‘Water Quality Degradation’’ section Plateau salamander populations in the above. Physical Modification of Surface past. Monitoring by the COA found that, The threat of physical modification of Habitat as sediment deposition increased at surface habitat from sedimentation by The Georgetown and Salado several sites, salamander abundances itself could cause irreversible declines salamanders are sensitive to direct significantly decreased (COA 2001, pp. in population sizes or habitat quality for physical modification of surface habitat 101, 126). Additionally, the COA found the Georgetown and Salado from sedimentation, impoundments, that sediment deposition rates have salamanders. It could also negatively flooding, feral hogs, livestock, and increased significantly along one of the impact the species in combination with human activities. Direct mortality to long-term monitoring sites (Bull Creek other threats to contribute to significant salamanders can also occur as a result Tributary 5) as a result of construction declines. Although we do not consider of these stressors, such as being crushed activities upstream (O’Donnell et al. this to be an ongoing threat to the by feral hogs, livestock, or humans. 2006, p. 34). This site has had Georgetown and Salado salamanders at Sedimentation significant declines in salamander the present time, we expect physical abundance, based on 10 years of modification of surface habitat from Elevated mobilization of sediment monitoring, and the COA attributes this sedimentation to become a significant (mixture of silt, sand, clay, and organic decline to the increases in threat in the future as urbanization debris) is a stressor that occurs as a sedimentation (O’Donnell et al. 2006, expands within these species’ surface result of increased velocity of water pp. 34–35). The location of this watersheds. running off impervious surfaces monitoring site is within a large Impoundments (Schram 1995, p. 88; Arnold and preserved tract. However, the Gibbons 1996, pp. 244–245). Increased headwaters of this drainage are outside Impoundments can alter the rates of stormwater runoff also cause the preserve and the development in Georgetown and Salado salamanders’ increased erosion through scouring in this area increased sedimentation physical habitat in a variety of ways that headwater areas and sediment downstream and impacted salamander are detrimental. Impoundments can deposition in downstream channels habitat within the preserved tract. alter the natural flow regime of streams, (Booth 1991, pp. 93, 102–105; Schram Effects of sedimentation on the increase siltation, support larger, 1995, p. 88). Waterways are adversely Georgetown and Salado salamanders are predatory fish (Bendik 2011b, COA, affected in urban areas, where expected to be similar to the effects on pers. comm.), leading to a variety of impervious cover levels are high, by the Barton Spring salamanders based on impacts to the Georgetown and Salado sediment loads that are washed into similarities in their ecology and life- salamanders and their surface habitats. streams or aquifers during storm events. history needs. Barton Spring salamander For example, a low water crossing on a Sediments are either deposited into population numbers are adversely tributary of Bull Creek occupied by the layers or become suspended in the affected by high turbidity and Jollyville Plateau salamander resulted in water column (Ford and Williams 1989, sedimentation (COA 1997, p. 13). sediment build-up above the p. 537; Mahler and Lynch 1999, p. 177). Sediments discharge through Barton impoundment and a scour hole below Sediment derived from soil erosion has Springs, even during baseflow the impoundment that supported been cited as the greatest single source conditions (not related to a storm event) predaceous fish (Bendik 2011b, COA, of pollution of surface waters by volume (Geismar 2005, p. 12). Storms can pers. comm.). As a result, Jollyville (Menzer and Nelson 1980, p. 632). increase sedimentation rates Plateau salamanders were not found in Excessive sediment from stormwater substantially (Geismar 2005, p. 12). this degraded habitat after the runoff is a threat to the physical habitat Areas in the immediate vicinity of the impoundment was constructed. When of salamanders because it can cover spring outflows lack sediment, but the the crossing was removed in October substrates (Geismar 2005, p. 2). remaining bedrock is sometimes 2008, the sediment build-up was Sediments suspended in water can clog covered with a layer of sediment several removed, the scour hole was filled, and gill structures in aquatic animals, which inches thick (Geismar 2005, p. 5). Jollyville Plateau salamanders were later can impair breathing and reduce their Further, urban development within the observed (Bendik 2011b, COA, pers. ability to avoid predators or locate food watersheds of Georgetown and Salado comm.). sources due to decreased visibility salamander sites will increase Impoundments have also impacted (Schueler 1987, p. 1.5). Excessive sedimentation and degrade water some of the Georgetown and Salado deposition of sediment in streams can quality in salamander habitat both salamanders’ surface habitats. Two sites physically reduce the amount of during and after construction activities. for the Georgetown salamander (Cobb available habitat and protective cover However, the City of Georgetown’s Spring and Shadow Canyon) have for aquatic organisms, by filling the water quality ordinance requires that spring openings that are surrounded at interstitial spaces of gravel and rocks permanent structural water quality least in part by brick and mortar where they could otherwise hide. As an controls for regulated activities over the impoundments (White 2011, SWCA, example, a California study found that Edwards Aquifer recharge zone must pers. comm.; Booker 2011, Service, pers. densities of two aquatic salamander remove 85 percent of total suspended comm.), presumably to collect the species were significantly lower in solids for the entire project. This spring water for cattle. San Gabriel streams that experienced a large increases the amount of total suspended Springs is also impounded with a infusion of sediment from road solids that must be removed from substrate of aquarium gravel (Booker construction after a storm event (Welsh projects within the City of Georgetown 2011, Service, pers. comm.). However, and Ollivier 1998, pp. 1,118–1,132). The and its ETJ by 5 percent over the the future threat of impoundments at vulnerability of the aquatic salamander existing requirements (i.e. removal of 80 occupied Georgetown salamander sites species in this California study was percent total suspended solids) found in has been reduced through the City of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10276 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Georgetown’s water quality ordinance. Salamanders also may be flushed Feral Hogs The ordinance established a 984-ft (300- from the surface habitat by strong flows Feral hogs are another source of m) buffer zone within which the during flooding, which can result in physical habitat disturbance to construction of impoundments would death by predation or by physical Georgetown and Salado salamander not be permitted. In addition, all springs trauma, as has been observed in other surface sites. There are between 1.8 and within the City of Georgetown or its ETJ aquatic salamander species 3.4 million feral hogs in Texas, and the will be protected by a 164-ft (50-m) (Baumgartner et al. 1999, p. 36; Sih et feral hog population in Texas is buffer zone. Two sites for the Salado al. 1992, p. 1,429). Bowles et al. (2006, projected to increase 18 to 21 percent salamander (Cistern Springs and Lazy p. 117) observed no Jollyville Plateau every year (Texas A&M University Days Fish Farm) have been modified by salamanders in riffle habitat at one site (TAMU) 2011, p. 2). Feral hogs prefer to impoundments. during high water velocities and live around moist areas, including The threat of physical modification of hypothesized that individual riparian areas near streams, where they surface habitat from impoundments by salamanders were either flushed itself may not be likely to cause can dig into the soft ground for food and downstream or retreated to the wallow in mud to keep cool (Mapson significant population declines, but it subsurface. Rudolph (1978, p. 158) could negatively impact the Salado 2004, pp. 11, 14–15). Feral hogs disrupt observed that severe floods could these ecosystems by decreasing plant salamander in combination with other reduce populations of five different threats and contribute to significant species diversity, increasing invasive species of aquatic salamanders by 50 to species abundance, increasing soil declines in the population size or 100 percent. habitat quality. We consider nitrogen, and exposing bare ground Flooding can alter the surface (TAMU 2012, p. 4). Feral hogs impoundments to be an ongoing threat salamander habitat by deepening stream of moderate impact to the Salado negatively impact surface salamander channels, which may increase habitat habitat by digging and wallowing in salamander and their surface habitats for predaceous fish. Much of the that will continue in the future. Due to spring heads, which increases Georgetown and Salado salamanders’ sedimentation downstream (O’Donnell the City of Georgetown’s water quality surface habitat is characterized by ordinance, we do not expect additional et al. 2006, pp. 34, 46). This activity can shallow water depth (COA 2001, p. 128; also result in direct mortality of Georgetown salamander sites to be Pierce 2011a, p. 3). However, deep pools impounded in the future. amphibians (Bull 2009, p. 243). are sometimes formed within stream Feral hogs have become abundant in Flooding channels from the scouring of floods. As some areas where the Georgetown and Flooding as a result of rainfall events water depth increases, the deeper pools Salado salamanders occur. Evidence of can considerably alter the substrate and support more predaceous fish hogs has been observed near one hydrology of salamander habitat, populations. However, several central Georgetown salamander site (Cobbs negatively impacting salamander Texas Eurycea species are able to Spring) (Booker 2011, Service, pers. populations and behavior (Rudolph survive in deep water environments in comm.). The landowner of Cobbs Spring 1978, p. 155). Extreme flood events have the presence of many predators. is actively trapping feral hogs (Booker occurred in the Georgetown and Salado Examples include the San Marcos 2011, Service, pers. comm.), but the salamanders’ surface habitats (Pierce salamander in Spring Lake, Eurycea effectiveness of this management has 2011a, p. 10; TPWD 2011, p. 6; Turner species in Landa Lake, and the Barton not been assessed. Feral hogs are also 2009, p. 11; O’Donnell et al. 2005, p. Springs salamander in Barton Springs present in the area of several Salado 15). A flood in September 2010 Pool. All of these sites have vegetative salamander sites. At least one private modified surface habitat for the cover, which may allow salamanders to landowner has fenced off three spring Georgetown salamander in at least two avoid predation. Anti-predator sites known to be occupied by the sites (Swinbank Spring and Twin behaviors may allow these species to co- Salado salamander (Cistern, Hog Springs) (Pierce 2011a, p. 10). The exist with predaceous fish, but the Hollow, and Solana Springs) (Glen stormwater runoff caused erosion, effectiveness of these behaviors may be 2012, Sedgwick LLP, pers. comm.), scouring of the streambed channel, the species-specific (reviewed in Pierce and which likely provides protection from loss of large rocks, and the creation of Wall 2011, pp. 18–19), and many of the feral hogs at these sites. several deep pools. Georgetown shallow surface habitats of the The threat of physical modification of salamander densities dropped Georgetown and Salado salamanders do surface habitat from feral hogs by itself dramatically in the days following the not have much vegetative cover. may not be likely to cause significant flood (Pierce 2011a, p. 11). At Twin The threat of physical modification of population declines, but it could Springs, Georgetown salamander surface habitat from flooding by itself negatively impact the Georgetown and densities increased some during the may not be likely to cause significant Salado salamanders in combination winter following the flood and again population declines, but it could with other threats and contribute to within 2 weeks after habitat restoration negatively impact the species in significant declines in the population took place (returning large rocks to the combination with other threats and size or habitat quality. We consider spring run) in the spring of 2011 (Pierce contribute to significant declines in the physical modification of surface habitat 2011a, p. 11). Likewise, three storm population size or habitat quality. We from feral hogs to be an ongoing threat events in 2009 and 2010 deposited consider this to be a threat of moderate of moderate impact to the Georgetown sediment and other material on top of impact to the Georgetown and Salado and Salado salamanders that will likely spring openings at Salado Spring salamanders that will likely increase in continue in the future as the feral hog (TPWD 2011, p. 6). The increased flow the future as urbanization and population increases. rate from flooding causes unusually impervious cover increases within the high dissolved oxygen concentrations, surface watersheds of these species, Livestock which may exert direct or indirect, sub- causing more frequent and more intense Similar to feral hogs, livestock can lethal effects (reduced reproduction or flash flooding (see discussion in the negatively impact surface salamander foraging success) on salamanders ‘‘Urbanization’’ section under ‘‘Water habitat by disturbing the substrate and (Turner 2009, p. 11). Quantity Degradation’’ above). increasing sedimentation in the spring

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10277

run where salamanders are often found. with other threats and contribute to game warden to stop work within Poorly managed livestock grazing significant declines in the population TPWD’s jurisdiction until they obtained results in changes in vegetation (from size or habitat quality, particularly with a permit, which the Salado Chamber of grass-dominated to brush-dominated), repeated or continuous exposure. We Commerce did temporarily, but work which leads to increased erosion of the consider livestock to be an ongoing started again despite the game warden’s soil profile along stream banks (COA threat of moderate impact to the directive (Heger 2012a, TPWD, pers. 1995, p. 3–59) and sediment in Georgetown salamander because 9 of its comm.). A sand and gravel permit was salamander habitat. Evidence of 15 surface sites are likely affected. On obtained on March 21, 2012. The spring trampling and grazing in riparian areas the other hand, because only 1 of the 7 run modifications were already from cattle was found at one Salado salamander surface sites is completed by this date, but further Georgetown salamander site (Shadow exposed to livestock, we do not consider modifications in the springs were Canyon) (White 2011, SWCA, pers. this to be a threat to the Salado prohibited by the permit. Additional comm.), and cattle are present on at salamander now or in the future. work on the bank of Salado Creek least one other Georgetown salamander upstream of the springs was permitted Other Human Activities site (Cobbs Spring). Cattle are also and completed (Heger 2012b, TPWD, present on lands where four Salado Some of the Georgetown and Salado pers. comm.). salamander sites occur (Gluesenkamp salamander sites have been directly At the complex of springs occupied 2011c, TPWD, pers. comm.; Texas modified by human-related activities. In by the Georgetown salamander within Section Society for Range Management the summer of 2008, a spring opening at San Gabriel River Park, a thick bed of 2011, p. 2). However, a private a Salado salamander site was covered nonnative aquarium gravel has been landowner has fenced three spring sites with gravel (Service 2010, p. 6). placed in the spring runs (TPWD 2011, where Salado salamanders are known to Although we received anecdotal p. 9). This gravel is too small to serve occur (Cistern, Hog Hollow, and Cistern information that at least one salamander as cover habitat and does not form the Springs), which likely provide the was observed at the site after the gravel interstitial spaces required for salamander and its habitat protection was dumped at Big Boiling Springs, the Georgetown salamanders. Georgetown from the threat of livestock at these Service has no detailed information on salamanders have not been observed locations (Glen 2012, Sedgwick LLP, how the Salado salamander was affected here since 1991 (Chippindale et al. pers. comm.). by this action. Heavy machinery is 2000, p. 40; Pierce 2011b, Southwestern We assessed the risk of exposure of currently used in the riparian area of Big University, pers. comm.). Aquarium the Georgetown and Salado salamanders Boiling and Lil’ Bubbly Springs to clear gravel dumping has not been to the threat of physical habitat out vegetation and maintain a grassy documented at any other Georgetown modification from livestock by lawn to the water’s edge (Gluesenkamp salamander sites. The City of examining 2012 Google Earth aerial 2011a, c, TPWD, pers. comm.), which Georgetown’s water quality ordinance imagery. Because livestock are so has led to erosion problems during flood establishes a 262-ft (80-m) no- common across the landscape, we events (TPWD 2011, p. 6). The disturbance zone around occupied sites assumed that where present, these modification of springs for recreation or within which only limited activities animals have access to spring sites other purposes degrades natural riparian such as maintenance of existing unless they are fenced out. For our areas, which are important for improvements, scientific monitoring, assessment, we assumed that unless we controlling erosion and attenuating and fences will be permitted. In could identify the presence of fencing or floodwaters in aquatic habitats. addition, the ordinance establishes a no- unless the site is located in a densely Other recent human activities at Big disturbance zone that extends 164 ft (50 urbanized area, livestock have access Boiling Spring include pumping water m) around all springs within the and present a threat of physical habitat from the spring opening, contouring the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone in modification to as many as 9 of the 15 substrate of the spring environment, and Georgetown and its ETJ. These measures Georgetown salamander surface sites covering spring openings with gravel will reduce the threat of habitat and 1 of the 7 Salado salamander sites. (TPWD 2011, p. 4). In the fall of 2011, modification as the result of human There is some management of the outflow channels and edges of Big activities. Additionally, for the livestock occurring that reduces the Boiling and Lil’ Bubbly Springs were Georgetown salamander, the Adaptive magnitude of negative impacts. An reconstructed with large limestone Management Working Group is charged 8,126-ac (3,288-ha) property in Bell blocks and mortar. In addition, the U.S. specifically with reviewing Georgetown County with at least three Salado Army Corps of Engineers issued a cease salamander monitoring data and new salamander sites (Cistern, Hog Hollow, and desist order to the Salado Chamber research over time and recommending and Solana Springs) has limited its of Commerce in October 2011, for improvements to the ordinance that may cattle rotation to a maximum of 450 unauthorized discharge of dredged or be necessary to ensure that it achieves head (Texas Section Society for Range fill material that occurred in this area its stated purposes. This Adaptive Management 2011, p. 2), which is (Brooks 2011, U.S. Army Corps of Management Working Group, which considered a moderate stocking rate. In Engineers, pers. comm.). This order was includes representatives of the Service addition, the landowner of Cobbs Spring issued in relation to the need for a and TPWD, will also review and make (a Georgetown salamander site) is in the section 404 permit under the Clean recommendations on the approval of process of phasing out cattle on the Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). Also any variances to the ordinance. property (Boyd 2011, Williamson in October 2011, a TPWD game warden Frequent human visitation of sites County Conservation Foundation, pers. issued a citation to the Salado Chamber occupied by the Georgetown and Salado comm.). of Commerce due to the need for a sand salamanders may negatively affect the The threat of physical modification of and gravel permit from the TPWD for species and their habitats. The COA has surface habitat from livestock by itself these activities being conducted within documented disturbed vegetation, may not be likely to cause significant TPWD’s jurisdiction (Heger 2012a, vandalism, and the destruction of population declines, but it could TPWD, pers. comm.). The citation was travertine deposits (fragile rock negatively impact the Georgetown and issued because the Salado Chamber of formations formed by deposit of calcium Salado salamanders in combination Commerce had been directed by the carbonate on stream bottoms) by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10278 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

pedestrian traffic at one of their about the Georgetown salamander and (26.1-ha) Lyda tract (Cobbs Cavern) in Jollyville Plateau salamander to educate the public on the threats Williamson County through the monitoring sites in the Bull Creek faced by this species. Service’s section 6 grant program. This watershed (COA 2001, p. 21), and it may In a separate undertaking, and with section 6 grant was awarded for the have resulted in direct destruction of the help of a grant funded through protection of listed karst invertebrate small amounts of the salamander’s section 6 of the Act, the WCCF species; however, protecting this land habitat. Eliza Spring and Sunken developed the Williamson County also benefits the Georgetown Garden Spring, locations for both the Regional Habitat Conservation Plan salamander. Although the spring where Barton Springs and Austin blind (HCP) to obtain a section 10(a)(1)(B) salamanders are located was not salamanders, also experience vandalism permit for incidental take of federally included in the easement, a portion of despite the presence of fencing and listed endangered species in Williamson the contributing surface watershed was signage (Dries 2011, COA, pers. comm.). County, Texas. This HCP became final included. For this reason, some water Frequent human visitation can reduce in October 2008. Although the quality benefits to the salamander are the amount of cover available for Georgetown salamander was not a expected. In January 2008, the WCCF salamander breeding, feeding, and covered species in the incidental take also purchased the 145-ac (59-ha) Twin sheltering. We are aware of impacts permit, the WCCF included some Springs preserve area. This area from recreational use at one Georgetown considerations for the Georgetown contains one of the sites known to be salamander site (San Gabriel Springs) salamander in the HCP. In particular, occupied by the Georgetown and two Salado salamander sites (Big they included work to conduct a status salamander. This species is limited to Boiling and Lil Bubbly Springs) (TPWD review of the Georgetown salamander, 17 known localities, 2 of which (Cobbs 2011, pp. 6, 9). However, as the human which is currently underway. The Spring and Twin Springs) have some population is projected to increase by WCCF began allocating funding for amount of protection by the WCCF. The 377 percent in the range of the Georgetown salamander research and population size of Georgetown Georgetown salamander and by 128 monitoring beginning in 2010. The salamanders at Cobbs Spring is percent in the range of the Salado WCCF plans to fund at least $50,000 per unknown, while the population size at salamander by 2050, we expect more year for 5 years for monitoring, Twin Springs is estimated to be 100 to Georgetown and Salado salamander surveying, and gathering baseline data 200 individuals (Pierce 2011a, p. 18). sites will be negatively affected from on water quality and quantity at Furthermore, the surface watersheds of frequent human visitation. salamander spring sites. They intend to both springs are currently only partially The threat of physical modification of use information gathered during this protected by the WCCF, and there is surface habitat from human visitation, status review to develop a conservation uncertainty about where subsurface recreation, and alteration is not strategy for this species. A portion of flows are coming from at both sites and significantly affecting the Georgetown that funding supported mark-recapture whether or not these subsurface areas and Salado salamanders now. However, studies of the Georgetown salamander at are protected as well. we consider this will be a threat of two of its known localities (Twin In Bell County, the landowners of a moderate impact in the future as the Springs and Swinbank Spring) in 2010 8,126-ac (3,288-ha) property (Solana human population increases in and 2011 (Pierce 2011a, p. 20) by Dr. Ranch) with at least three Salado Williamson and Bell Counties. Benjamin Pierce of Southwestern salamander sites along with the University, who had already been landowner of another property Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat studying the Georgetown salamander for (Robertson Ranch) that contains one Destruction, Modification, or several years prior to this. Additional Salado salamander site have shown a Curtailment of Its Range funds have been directed at water commitment to natural resource When considering the listing quality assessments of at least two conservation and land stewardship determination of species, it is important known localities and efforts to find practices that benefit the Salado to consider conservation efforts that are previously undiscovered Georgetown salamander. Neither ranch owner has nonregulatory, such as habitat salamander populations (Boyd 2011, immediate plans to develop their land, conservation plans, safe harbor WCCF, pers. comm.). We have received which means that the Salado agreements, habitat management plans, water quality data on several salamander is currently not faced with memorandums of understanding, or Georgetown salamander locations threats from urbanization (see other voluntary actions that may be (SWCA 2012, pp. 11–20) and the discussion above under Factor A) at helping to ameliorate stressors to the location of one previously undiscovered these four sites. Furthermore, in early species’ habitat, but are not legally Georgetown salamander population 2013, the Texas Nature Conservancy required. There have been a number of (Hogg Hollow Spring 2; Covey 2013, acquired funding to obtain a efforts aimed at minimizing the habitat pers. comm.) as a result of this funding. conservation easement over 256 acres destruction, modification, or The Service worked with the WCCF to (104 hectares) of the Solana Ranch that curtailment of the salamanders’ ranges. develop the Williamson County encompasses all three spring outlets For example, the WCCF, a nonprofit Regional HCP for several listed karst (Cistern, Hog Hollow, and Solana organization established by Williamson invertebrates, and it is also expected to Springs) occupied by Salado County in 2002, is currently working to benefit the Georgetown salamander by salamanders. This easement would find ways to conserve endangered lessening the potential for water quality permanently protect the area around species and other unlisted species of degradation where karst invertebrate these springs from urban development. concern in Williamson County, Texas. preserves are established in the surface In addition, the Solana Ranch has This organization held a Georgetown watersheds of known Georgetown fenced off feral hogs and livestock salamander workshop in November salamander sites. As part of the around its three springs. 2003, in an effort to bring together Williamson County Regional HCP, the The conservation efforts implemented landowners, ranchers, farmers, WCCF has begun establishing preserves thus far for the Salado salamander developers, local and state officials, that are beneficial to karst invertebrate represent over half of the known spring Federal agencies, and biologists to species. In addition, the WCCF has sites occupied by this species. This discuss information currently known purchased an easement on the 64.4-ac includes about 21 percent of the surface

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10279

watershed for the three Salado Salado salamanders. This threat may and Salado salamanders in combination salamander sites is contained within the affect only the surface habitat, only the with other threats. Solana Ranch property boundary, and subsurface habitat, or both habitat types. only 3 percent of the surface watershed In consideration of the stressors C. Disease or Predation for the one Salado salamander site currently impacting the salamander Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus) is a (Robertson Spring) is contained within species and their habitats along with fungal disease that is responsible for the Robertson Ranch property boundary. their risk of exposure to potential killing amphibians worldwide (Daszak The efforts by these landowners sources of this threat, we find the threat et al. 2000, p. 445). The chytrid fungus represent an important step toward the of habitat destruction and modification has been documented on the feet of conservation of the Salado salamander. within the ranges of the Georgetown and Jollyville Plateau salamanders from 15 The remaining area of the surface Salado salamanders to be of low severity different sites in the wild (O’Donnell et watersheds and the recharge zone for now, but will become significant in the al. 2006, pp. 22–23; Gaertner et al. 2009, these springs is not contained within future as the human population is the properties and is not protected from pp. 22–23) and on Austin blind projected to increase by 377 percent in salamanders in captivity (Chamberlain future development. Considering the the range of the Georgetown salamander projected growth rates expected in Bell 2011, COA, pers. comm.). However, the and by 128 percent in the range of the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau County (from 310,235 in 2010 to Salado salamander by 2050. 707,840 in 2050, a 128 percent increase salamanders did not display any over the 40-year period; Texas State B. Overutilization for Commercial, noticeable health effects (O’Donnell et Data Center 2012, p. 353), these four Recreational, Scientific, or Educational al. 2006, p. 23). We do not consider Salado salamander spring sites are still Purposes chytridiomycosis to be a threat to the at threat from the detrimental effects of Georgetown and Salado salamanders at There is little available information this time. The best available information urbanization that could occur outside of regarding overutilization of the these properties. Although the pattern of does not indicate that impacts from this Georgetown and Salado salamanders for disease on the Georgetown or Salado existing infrastructure suggests that commercial, recreational, scientific, or salamander may increase or decrease in much of the urbanization will occur educational purposes, although we are the future, and therefore, we conclude along IH–35 and downstream of the aware that some individuals of these that this disease is not a threat to either three Solana Ranch springs, the threat of species have been collected from their species. development and urbanization natural habitat for a variety of purposes. continues into the future because more Collecting individuals from populations Regarding predation, COA biologists than 75 percent of the surface watershed that are already small enough to found Jollyville Plateau salamander for these sites is located outside the experience reduced reproduction and abundances were negatively correlated boundaries of these properties. There survival due to inbreeding depression or with the abundance of predatory are no long-term, binding conservation become extirpated due to environmental centrarchid fish (carnivorous freshwater plans currently in place for either of or demographic stochasticity and other fish belonging to the sunfish family), these properties as the conservation catastrophic events (see the discussion such as black bass (Micropterus spp.) easement for Solana Ranch has not been on small population sizes under Factor and sunfish (Lepomis spp.) (COA 2001, finalized. In addition, the regulations in E—Other Natural or Manmade Factors p. 102). Predation of a Jollyville Plateau place in Bell County are not adequate to Affecting Its Continued Existence salamander by a centrarchid fish was protect water quality within occupied below) can pose a risk to the continued observed during a May 2006 field watersheds or within the Edwards existence of these populations. survey (O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 38). Aquifer recharge zone. Additionally, there are no regulations The Georgetown and Salado Although these conservation efforts salamanders have been observed likely contribute water quality benefits currently in place to prevent or restrict the collections of salamanders from retreating into gravel substrate after to surface flow, surface habitats can be cover was moved, suggesting these influenced by land use throughout the their habitat in the wild for scientific or salamanders display anti-predation recharge zone of the aquifer that other purposes, and we know of no behavior (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). supplies its spring flow. Furthermore, plans within the scientific community Studies have found that San Marcos the surface areas influencing subsurface to limit the amount or frequency of salamanders (Eurycea nana) and Barton water quality (that is draining the collections at known salamander Springs salamanders both have the surface and flowing to the subsurface locations. We recognize the importance ability to recognize and show anti- habitat) is not clearly delineated for of collecting for scientific purposes; predator response to the chemical cues many of the sites (springs or caves) for such as for research, captive assurance of introduced and native centrarchid the Georgetown and Salado programs, taxonomic analyses, and fish predators (Epp and Gabor 2008, p. salamanders. Because we are not able to museum collections. However, 612; DeSantis et al. 2013, p. 294). precisely assess additional pathways for removing individuals from small, However, the best available information negative impacts to the Georgetown and localized populations in the wild, does not indicate that predation of the Salado salamanders to occur, many of without any proposed plans or Georgetown and Salado salamanders is their sites may be affected by threats regulations to restrict these activities, significantly limiting these species. that cannot be mitigated through the could increase the population’s conservation efforts that are currently vulnerability and decrease its resiliency In summary, while disease and ongoing. and ability to withstand stochastic predation may be affecting individuals events. of these salamander species, these are Conclusion of Factor A Currently, we do not consider not significant factors affecting the Degradation of habitat, in the form of overutilization from collecting species. Neither disease nor predation is reduced water quality and quantity and salamanders in the wild to be a threat occurring at a level that we consider to disturbance of spring sites (physical by itself, but it may contribute to be a threat to the Georgetown and modification of surface habitat), is the significant population declines, and Salado salamanders now or in the primary threat to the Georgetown and could negatively impact the Georgetown future.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10280 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

D. The Inadequacy of Existing streams through the Edwards Aquifer requirements provided the plans do not Regulatory Mechanisms Protection Program or ‘‘Edwards Rules.’’ exceed 20 percent impervious cover. The primary threats to the The Edwards Rules require a number of Similarly, the Executive Director of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders are water quality protection measures for TCEQ may waive the requirements for habitat degradation related to a new development occurring in the permanent BMPs for multifamily reduction of water quality and quantity recharge, transition, and contributing residential subdivisions, schools, or and disturbance at spring sites that will zones of the Edwards Aquifer. The small businesses when 20 percent or increase in the future as human Edwards Rules were enacted to protect less impervious cover is used at the site. The jurisdiction of the Edwards Rules populations continue to grow and existing and potential uses of groundwater and maintain Texas does not extend into Bell County (TCEQ urbanization increases. The human Surface Water Quality Standards. 2001, p. 1), which is where all seven of population in Georgetown is expected to Specifically, a water pollution the known Salado salamander grow by 375 percent between 2000 and abatement plan (WPAP) must be populations are located. Therefore, 2033 (City of Georgetown 2008, p. 3.5). submitted to the TCEQ in order to many salamander populations do not The Texas State Data Center also conduct any construction-related or directly benefit from these protections. estimates a 377 percent increase in post-construction activities on the The Service recognizes that human population in Williamson recharge zone. The WPAP must include implementation of the Edwards Rules in County from 2010 to 2050. Population a description of the site and location northern Williamson County has the projections from the Texas State Data maps, a geologic assessment conducted potential to positively influence Center (2012, p. 353) estimate that Bell by a geologist, and a technical report conditions at some spring sites occupied County, where the Salado salamander describing, among other things, by the Salado salamander in southern resides, will increase in population by temporary and permanent best Bell County. However, all seven 128 percent over the same 40-year management practices (BMPs) designed occupied sites and more than half of the period. Therefore, regulatory to reduce pollution related impacts to associated surface watersheds are mechanisms that protect water quality nearby water bodies. located within Bell County and receive and quantity of the Edwards Aquifer The permanent BMPs and measures no protection from the Edwards Rules. from development related impacts are identified in the WPAP are designed, The Edwards Rules provide some crucial to the future survival of these constructed, operated, and maintained benefit to water quality, however, they species. Federal, State, and local laws to remove at least 80 percent of the were not designed to remove all types and regulations have been insufficient incremental increase in annual mass of pollutants and they still allow to prevent past and ongoing impacts to loading of total suspended solids from impacts to basic watershed hydrology, the habitat of Georgetown and Salado the site caused by the regulated activity chemistry, and biology. The Edwards salamanders from water quality (TCEQ 2005, p. 3–1). The use of this Rules do not address land use, degradation, reduction in water standard results in some level of water impervious cover limitations, some quantity, and surface disturbance of quality degradation since up to 20 nonpoint-source pollution, or spring sites. They are unlikely to percent of total suspended solids are application of fertilizers and pesticides prevent further impacts to the Salado ultimately discharged from the site into over the recharge zone (30 TAC 213.3). salamander in the future. The new receiving waterways (for example, They also do not contain requirements ordinance approved by the Georgetown creeks, rivers, lakes). Furthermore, this for stream buffers, surface buffers City Council in December 2013 is standard does not address the around springs, or the protection of intended to reduce the threats to the concentration of dissolved pollutants, stream channels from erosion, all of Georgetown salamander in the future such as nitrates, chloride, pesticides, which would help to minimize water and is discussed in detail below. and other contaminants shown to have quality degradation in light of projected State and Federal Regulations detrimental impacts on salamander human population growth in biology. Separate Edwards Aquifer Williamson and Bell Counties. In Laws and regulations pertaining to protection plans are required for addition, the purpose of the Edwards endangered or threatened animal organized sewage collection systems, Rules is to ‘‘. . . protect existing and species in the state of Texas are underground storage tank facilities, and potential uses of groundwater and contained in Chapters 67 and 68 of the aboveground storage tank facilities. maintain Texas Surface Water Quality Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Regulated activities exempt from the Standards’’, which may not be entirely Code and Sections 65.171–65.176 of requirements of the Edwards Rules are: protective of the Georgetown and Salado Title 31 of the Texas Administrative (1) The installation of natural gas lines; salamanders. We are unaware of any Code (T.A.C.). TPWD regulations (2) the installation of telephone lines; State or Federal water quality prohibit the taking, possession, (3) the installation of electric lines; (4) regulations that are more restrictive than transportation, or sale of any of the the installation of water lines; and (5) the TCEQ’s Edwards Rules in Bell or animal species designated by State law the installation of other utility lines that Williamson Counties outside the City of as endangered or threatened without the are not designed to carry and will not Austin. issuance of a permit. The Georgetown carry pollutants, stormwater runoff, Texas has an extensive program for and Salado salamanders are not listed sewage effluent, or treated effluent from the management and protection of water on the Texas State List of Endangered or a wastewater treatment facility. that operates under State statutes and Threatened Species (TPWD 2013, p. 3). Under the Edwards Rules, temporary the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). It Therefore, these species are receiving no erosion and sedimentation controls are includes regulatory programs such as direct protection from State of Texas required to be installed and maintained the following: Texas Pollutant Discharge regulations. during construction for any exempted Elimination System (to control point- Under authority of the T.A.C. (Title activities located on the recharge zone. source pollution), Texas Surface Water 30, Chapter 213), the TCEQ regulates Individual land owners who seek to Quality Standards (to protect designated activities having the potential for construct single-family residences on uses like recreation or aquatic life), and polluting the Edwards Aquifer and sites are exempt from the Edwards Total Maximum Daily Load Program hydrologically connected surface Aquifer protection plan application (under Section 303(d) of the CWA) (to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10281

reduce pollution loading for impaired Program (SWMP) within five years nitrate levels that exceeded the TCEQ waters) (TCEQ 2013, p. 22). screening level, and one sample In 1998, the State of Texas assumed To be covered under the construction (collected from Cedar Breaks Hiking the authority from the Environmental general permit, an applicant must Trail Spring) exceeded the TCEQ Protection Agency (EPA) to administer prepare a stormwater pollution and screening levels for E. coli and fecal the National Pollutant Discharge prevention plan (SWP3) that describes coliform bacteria. Therefore, water Elimination System. As a result, the the implementation of practices that quality data collected and analyzed by TCEQ’s TPDES program has regulatory will be used to minimize, to the extent the TCEQ and specific water quality authority over discharges of pollutants practicable, the discharge of pollutants data collected by SWCA at springs to Texas surface water, with the in stormwater associated with occupied by the Georgetown salamander exception of discharges associated with construction activity and non- support our concern with the adequacy oil, gas, and geothermal exploration and stormwater discharges. For activities of existing regulations to protect the development activities, which are that disturb greater than 5 ac (2 ha), the Georgetown and Salado salamanders regulated by the Railroad Commission applicant must submit an NOI to TCEQ from the effects of water quality of Texas. In addition, stormwater as part of the approval process. As degradation. discharges as a result of agricultural stated above, the two general permits The TCEQ and Service jointly activities are not subject to TPDES issued by the TCEQ do not address developed voluntary water quality permitting requirements. The TCEQ discharge of pollutants to surface waters protection measures, also known as issues two general permits that from oil, gas, and geothermal Optional Enhanced Measures, for authorize the discharge of stormwater exploration and geothermal developers to implement that would and non-stormwater to surface waters in development activities, stormwater minimize water quality effects to the State associated with: (1) Small discharges associated with agricultural springs systems and other aquatic municipal separate storm sewer systems activities, and from activities disturbing habitats within the Edwards Aquifer (MS4) (TPDES General Permit less than 5 acres (2 ha) of land. Despite region of Texas by providing a higher #TXR040000) and (2) construction sites the significant value the TPDES program level of water quality protection (TCEQ (TPDES General Permit #TXR150000). has in regulating point-source pollution 2005, p. i). In February 2005, the Service The MS4 permit covers small municipal discharged to surface waters in Texas, it concurred that these measures, if separate storm sewer systems that were does not adequately address all sources implemented, would protect several fully or partially located within an of water quality degradation, including aquatic species, including the urbanized area, as determined by the nonpoint-source pollution and the Georgetown, Barton Springs, and San 2000 Decennial Census by the U.S. exceptions mentioned above, that have Marcos salamanders from ‘‘take under Bureau of Census, and the construction the potential to negatively impact the Section 9 of the Act’’ due to water general permit covers discharges of Georgetown and Salado salamanders. quality degradation resulting from stormwater runoff from small and large In reviewing the 2012 Texas Water development in the Edwards Aquifer construction activities impacting greater Quality Integrated Report prepared by (TCEQ 2007, p. 1). This concurrence than 1 acre of land. In addition, both of the TCEQ, the Service identified 5 of 9 does not cover projects that: (1) Occur these permits require new discharges to (56 percent) stream segments located outside the area regulated under the meet the requirements of the Edwards within surface watersheds occupied by Edwards Rules; (2) result in water Rules. the Georgetown and Salado salamanders quality impacts that may affect federally To be covered under the MS4 general where parameters within water samples listed species not specifically named permit, a municipality must submit a exceeded screening level criteria (TCEQ above; (3) result in impacts to federally Notice of Intent (NOI) and a copy of 2012b, pp. 646–736). The analysis of listed species that are not water quality their Storm Water Management Program surface water quality monitoring data related; or (4) occur within 1 mile (1.6 (SWMP) to TCEQ. The SWMP must collected by TCEQ indicated ‘‘screening km) of spring openings that provide include a description of how that level concerns’’ for nitrate, dissolved habitat for federally listed species. municipality is implementing the seven oxygen, and impaired benthic These ‘‘Optional Enhanced Measures’’ minimum control measures, which communities. The TCEQ screening level were intended to be used for the include the following: (1) Public for nitrate (1.95 mg/L) is within the purpose of avoiding take to the education and outreach; (2) public range of concentrations (1.0 to 3.6 mg/ identified species from water quality involvement and participation; (3) L) above which the scientific literature impacts, and they do not address any of detection and elimination of illicit indicates may be toxic to aquatic the other threats to the Georgetown or discharges; (4) construction site organisms (Camargo et al. 2005, p. Salado salamanders. Due to the stormwater runoff control (when greater 1,264; Hickey and Martin 2009, pp. ii, voluntary nature of the measures, the than 1 ac (0.4 ha) is disturbed); (5) post- 17–18; Rouse 1999, p. 802). In addition, Service does not consider them to be a construction stormwater management; the TCEQ screening level for dissolved regulatory mechanism. In addition, (6) pollution prevention and good oxygen (5.0 mg/L) is similar to that TCEQ reported that only 17 Edwards housekeeping for municipal operations; recommended by the Service in 2006 to Aquifer applications have been and (7) authorization for municipal be protective of federally listed approved under the Optional Enhanced construction activities (optional). The salamanders (White et al. 2006, p. 51). Measures between February 2005 and City of Georgetown and the Village of The Service also received baseline water May 2012, and the majority of these Salado were not previously considered quality data from grab samples (that is, applications were for sites in the urbanized areas and covered under the samples collected at one point in time) vicinity of Dripping Springs, Texas, MS4 general permit. Therefore, they collected during the summer of 2012 at which is outside the range of the were not operating under a SWMP four springs (Hogg Hollow, Swinbank, Georgetown and Salado salamanders authorized by TCEQ. However, the City Cedar Breaks Hiking Trail, and Cobb (Beatty 2012, TCEQ, pers. comm.). of Georgetown is now considered a Springs) occupied by the Georgetown Quarry operation is a regulated small MS4 under the new TPDES salamander (SWCA 2012, pp. 11–20). Of activity under the Edwards Aquifer general permit and must develop and these four samples, one sample Rules (Title 30, Texas Administrative implement a Storm Water Management (collected from Swinbank Springs) had Code, Chapter 213, or 30 TAC 213) and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10282 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

owners must apply to the TCEQ in order jurisdiction. Impervious cover limits are months (City of Georgetown 2013, p. 1). to create or expand a quarry located in as high as 70 percent for small In addition, the Williamson County the recharge or contributing zone of the commercial developments to as low as Conservation Foundation (WCCF) also Edwards Aquifer. However, as stated 40 percent for some single family recently adopted an adaptive above, the jurisdiction of the Edwards residential developments within its management plan as part of their overall Rules does not extend into Bell County extraterritorial jurisdiction. conservation plan for the Georgetown (TCEQ 2001, p. 1), which is where all The Georgetown City Council salamander (WCCF 2013, p. 1). This seven of the known Salado salamander approved the Edwards Aquifer Recharge plan will enable the continuation and populations are located. TCEQ Zone Water Quality Ordinance on expansion of water quality monitoring, conducted an inventory of rock quarries December 20, 2013 (Ordinance No. conservation efforts, and scientific in 2004 (Berehe 2005, pp. 44–45). Out 2013–59). The purpose of this ordinance research to conserve the Georgetown of the TCEQ inventoried quarries is to reduce the principal threats to the salamander. statewide, 40 quarry sites were Georgetown salamander within the City As discussed above under Factor A, inventoried in Burnet, Travis and of Georgetown and its extraterritorial habitat modification, in the form of Williamson counties. More than half of jurisdiction through the protection of degraded water quality and quantity and these sites in the study area had no water quality near occupied sites, disturbance of spring sites, has been permit or were violating the minimum enhancement of water quality protection identified as the primary threat to the standards of their permits either by an throughout the Edwards Aquifer Georgetown salamander. The ordinance unauthorized discharge of sediment or recharge zone, and establishment of and associated documents approved by by air quality violation. (Berehe 2005, protective buffers around all springs and the Georgetown City Council reduce pp. 44–45) streams. Specifically, the primary some of the threats from water quality In 2012, TCEQ produced a guidance conservation measures that will be degradation and disturbance at spring document outlining recommended implemented within the Edwards sites. Specifically, water quality threats measures specific for quarry operations Aquifer recharge zone include: (1) A have been reduced by requiring (Barrett and Eck 2012, entire). These requirement for geological assessments permanent structural water quality measures include spill response to identify all springs and streams on a controls in developments to remove measures, separating quarry-pit floor development site; (2) the establishment eighty-five percent (85 percent) of total from the groundwater level, setbacks of a no-disturbance zone that extends suspended solids from the entire site. and buffers for sensitive recharge 262 ft (80 m) upstream and downstream Previous regulations, under TCEQ’s features and streams, creating berms to from sites occupied by Georgetown Edwards Rules, do not require existing protect surface runoff water from salamanders; (3) the establishment of a impervious cover on a site to be draining into quarry pits, and safely zone that extends 984 ft (300 m) around included in the calculation of total storing and moving fuel (Barrett and Eck all occupied sites within which suspended solids and only require 2012, pp. 1–17). Quarry operators can development is limited to Residential eighty percent (80 percent) of total seek variances, exceptions, or revisions Estate and Residential Low Density suspended solids be removed. to these recommendations based on site- District as defined in the City of The new ordinance increases the specific facts (Barrett and Eck 2012, p. Georgetown’s Unified Development required amount of total suspended 1). This clarifying guidance document Code; (4) the establishment of a no- solids that must be removed from could aid in protecting Georgetown disturbance zone that extends 164 ft (50 stormwater leaving a development site. salamander habitat from the threat of m) around all springs; (5) the In addition, requirements for stream quarry activities if quarry operators establishment of stream buffers for buffers and surface buffers around implement the recommended measures, streams that drain more than 64 acres springs reduces water quality but future study is needed to determine (26 hectares); and (6) a requirement that degradation by providing vegetated how quarry sites in Williamson County permanent structural water quality filters that can assist in the further are complying with the Edwards Rules. controls (BMPs) remove eighty-five removal of sediments and pollutants percent (85 percent) of total suspended from stormwater. Surface buffers around Local Ordinances solids for the entire project which is an occupied sites will minimize the The Service has reviewed ordinances increase of 5 percent above what was possibility that the physical disturbance administered by each of the previously required under the Edwards of salamander habitat will occur as the municipalities and counties to Aquifer Rules. result of construction activities. The determine if they contain measures As required by the new ordinance, the ordinance permits Residential Estate protective of salamanders above and City of Georgetown adopted the and Residential Low Density District beyond those already required through Georgetown Water Quality Management residential uses to occur as close as 262 other regulatory mechanisms (Clean Plan, which will implement many of the ft (80 m) from occupied Georgetown Water Act, T.A.C., etc.). minimum control measures required salamander sites and does not limit the The City of Georgetown has under the TPDES general permit for type of development that can occur standards, such as impervious cover small municipal separate storm sewer outside of the 984-ft (300-m) buffer. The limits, that relate to the protection of systems (MS4) (see above discussion). ordinance also requires that roadways or water quality. According to Chapter 11 Because the City of Georgetown is expansions to existing roadways that of the Georgetown Unified Development considered a small MS4 under the new provide a capacity of 25,000 vehicles Code, impervious cover limits have TPDES general permit, they are required per day shall provide for spill been adopted to minimize negative to develop and implement a Storm containment as described in the TCEQ’s flooding effects from stormwater runoff Water Management Program (SWMP) Optional Enhanced Measures. This will and to control, minimize, and abate and the associated minimum control reduce some of the future impacts to water pollution resulting from urban measures within 5 years (TCEQ 2013, p. salamander habitat by preventing some runoff. The impervious cover limits and 22). However, the City of Georgetown hazardous spills from entering water stormwater control requirements apply has committed to developing minimum bodies. to all development in the City of control measures under their Water Five developments within the City of Georgetown and its extraterritorial Quality Management Plan within 6 Georgetown or its ETJ are exempted

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10283

from the requirements of the new Despite the documented loss of flow in Williamson County) are not likewise ordinance because they were platted areas where the Salado salamander managing the shared groundwater before the ordinance was approved. The occurs, the desired future condition of resource (Berehe 2005, p. 3). However, plats for these developments show lots 100 ac-ft (123,348 cubic meters) per in comments on our proposed rule, and other development activities month as measured by the CUWCD was CUWCD stated that their ability to proposed or currently occurring within exceeded throughout this timeframe. protect spring flow is not impacted by 984 ft (300 m), and for some within 262 The Service recognizes the desired pumping in Travis or Williamson ft (80 m), of six occupied Georgetown future condition adopted by the Counties (Aaron 2012, CUWCD, pers. salamander sites (Shadow Canyon CUWCD as a valuable tool for protecting comm.). Spring, Cowan Spring, Bat Well Cave, groundwater; however, it is not Conclusion of Factor D Water Tank Cave, Knight Spring and adequate to ensure spring flow at all Cedar Breaks Hiking Trail) (Covey 2014, sites occupied by the Salado Surface water quality data collected pers. comm.). Although some of these salamander. by TCEQ and SWCA indicate that water developments appear to avoid the no- Williamson County does not currently quality degradation is occurring within disturbance zone (262 ft (80 m)), we have a groundwater conservation many of the surface watersheds were not provided enough information district that can manage groundwater occupied by the Georgetown and Salado to determine if all or some of the resources countywide. A 1990 study by salamanders despite the existence of requirements of the ordinance would be the TCEQ and TWDB determined that State and local regulatory mechanisms met by each of the developments as Williamson County did not meet the to manage stormwater and protect water planned. According to the County, it criteria to be designated as a ‘‘critical quality (SWCA 2012, pp. 11–20; TCEQ does appear that these developments area’’ primarily because of the 2012b, pp. 646–736). Additionally, the meet the intent of the ordinance (Covey availability of surface water supplies to threat to the Salado salamander from a 2014, pers. comm.) meet projected needs (Berehe 2005, p. reduction in water quantity and the There are no additional standards 1). In 2005, TCEQ again declined to associated loss of spring flow has not specifically related to water quality designate Williamson County a priority been completely alleviated despite required by Bell or Williamson Counties groundwater management area, which efforts made in Bell County by the or for development within the Village of would lead to the creation of a CUWCD. No regulatory mechanisms are Salado. groundwater conservation district in place to manage groundwater (Berehe 2005, p. 3). This decision was withdrawals in Williamson County. The Groundwater Conservation Districts based on TCEQ’s opinion that human population in Williamson and The Clearwater Underground Water Williamson County’s water supply Bell Counties is projected to increase by Conservation District (CUWCD) is concerns are mostly solved with current 377 and 128 percent, respectively, responsible for managing groundwater management strategies to increasingly between 2010 and 2050. The associated resources within Bell County. They are rely on surface water (as laid out in increase in urbanization is likely to statutorily obligated under Chapter 36 of TWDB 2012, p. 190) (Berehe 2005, p. 3). result in continued impacts to water the Texas Water Code to regulate water The City Manager has recently indicated quality absent additional regulatory wells and groundwater withdrawals that that the City of Georgetown will not use mechanisms to prevent this from have the potential to impact spring flow water from the Edwards Aquifer in occurring. and aquifer levels. The CUWCD adopted plans for future and additional The City of Georgetown’s Edwards a desired future condition (that is, goal) municipal water supplies (Brandenburg Aquifer Recharge Zone Water Quality for the Edwards Aquifer in Bell County 2013, p .1). Instead, the City of Ordinance, Water Quality Management as the maintenance of at least 100 acre- Georgetown intends to use surface water Plan, and Adaptive Management Plan feet (123,348 cubic meters) per month of or non-Edwards wells for future sources will help to reduce some of the threats spring flow in Salado Creek under of water. to groundwater pollution that are conditions experienced during the TCEQ noted that nearly all of typically associated with urbanized drought of record in Bell County (Aaron Williamson County is within areas. Additionally, for the Georgetown 2012, CUWCD, pers. comm.). The certificated water purveyor service salamander, the Adaptive Management CUWCD has also developed a Drought areas, and through conservation Working Group is charged specifically Management Plan that requires staff to programs and efforts to meet new with reviewing Georgetown salamander monitor discharge values and determine demands with surface water sources, monitoring data and new research over when the CUWCD needs to declare a these entities can largely maintain their time and recommending improvements particular drought stage, from Stage 1 present groundwater systems (Berehe to the ordinance that may be necessary ‘‘Awareness’’ to Stage 4 ‘‘Critical’’ 2005, p. 65). All wholesale and retail to ensure that it achieves its stated (Aaron 2012, CUWCD, pers. comm.). water suppliers are required to prepare purposes. This Adaptive Management However, water conservation goals and and adopt drought contingency plans Working Group, which includes reduction of use for each drought stage under TCEQ rules (Title 30, Texas representatives of the Service and are voluntary. Administrative Code, Chapter 288) TPWD, will also review and make One of the two gauges (FM 2843 (Berehe 2005, p. 64). However, these recommendations on the approval of bridge) used by the CUWCD to monitor types of entities do not have authority any variances to the ordinance to ensure Salado Springs discharge measured no to control large-scale groundwater that granting a variance will not be surface flow in 6 of 15 months during pumpage for private purposes that could detrimental to the preservation of the the period of time between November potentially impact a shared groundwater Georgetown salamander. While the 2011 and January 2013 (Aaron 2013, supply (Berehe 2005, p. 65). Thus, beneficial actions taken by the CUWCD, pers. comm.). In addition, groundwater levels may continue to Georgetown City Council will reduce during visits to Salado salamander sites decline due to private pumping. The some of the threats to the Georgetown Service personnel observed no surface CUWCD in Bell County noted the salamander, there are additional threats flow at Robertson Springs (September effectiveness of their groundwater that have not been addressed by the 2011 and April 2013) and Lil’ Bubbly management measures may be lessened ordinance. Therefore, we consider the Springs (April 2013 and July 2013). if surrounding areas (for example, inadequacy of existing regulatory

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10284 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

mechanisms to be an ongoing threat to reproduction and survival rates of salamander is only known from 15 the Georgetown and Salado salamanders individuals increase with increasing surface and 2 cave sites. This species now and in the future. population density. For example, when has not been observed in more than 20 a species has a small population, it may years at San Gabriel Spring and more E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors be more difficult for individuals to than 10 years at Buford Hollow Spring, Affecting Their Continued Existence encounter mates, reducing their ability despite several survey efforts to find it Small Population Size and Stochastic to produce offspring. Small population (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 40, Pierce Events sizes can act synergistically with 2011b, c, Southwestern University, pers. The Georgetown and Salado ecological traits (such as being a habitat comm.). We are unaware of any salamanders may be susceptible to specialist and having a limited population surveys in the last 10 years threats associated with small population distribution as in the Georgetown and from a number of sites (such as Cedar size and impacts from stochastic events. Salado salamanders) to greatly increase Breaks Hiking Trail, Shadow Canyon, risk of extinction (Davies et al. 2004, p. and Bat Well). Georgetown salamanders The risk of extinction for any species is 270). continue to be observed at the known to be highly indirectly correlated Current evidence from integrated remaining 12 sites (Avant Spring, with population size (O’Grady et al. work on population dynamics shows Swinbank Spring, Knight Spring, Twin 2004, pp. 516, 518; Pimm et al. 1988, that setting conservation targets at only Springs, Cowan Creek Spring, Cedar pp. 774–775). In other words, the a few hundred individuals does not Hollow Spring, Cobbs Spring/Cobbs smaller the population the greater the properly account for the synergistic Well, Garey Ranch Spring, Hogg Hollow overall risk of extinction. Stochastic impacts of multiple threats facing a Spring, Hogg Hollow II Spring, Walnut events from either environmental factors population (Traill et al. 2010, p. 32). As Spring, and Water Tank Cave) (Pierce (random events such as severe weather) discussed above, small populations are 2011c, pers. comm.; Gluesenkamp or demographic factors (random causes vulnerable to both stochastic 2011a, TPWD, pers. comm.). Similarly, of births and deaths of individuals) demographic factors and genetic factors. the Salado salamander has only been increase the risk of extinction of the Studies across taxonomic groups have found at seven spring sites, and two of Georgetown and Salado salamanders found both the demographic and genetic these sites (Big Boiling and Lil’ Bubbly because of their limited range and small constraints on populations require sizes Springs) are very close together and are population sizes (Melbourne and of at least 5,000 adult individuals to likely one population. Due to their very Hastings 2008, p. 100). At small ensure long-term persistence (Traill et limited distribution, these salamanders population levels, the effects of al. 2010, p. 30). Populations below this are especially sensitive to stochastic demographic stochasticity alone greatly number are considered small and at incidences, such as severe and unusual increase the risk of local extinctions increased risk of extinction. It is also storm events (which can dramatically (Van Dyke 2008, p. 218). important to note that this general affect dissolved oxygen levels), Genetic factors play a large role in estimate does not take into account catastrophic contaminant spills, and influencing the long-term viability of species-specific ecological factors that leaks of harmful substances. small populations. Although it remains may impact extinction risk, such as Although rare, catastrophic events a complex field of study, conservation Allee effects. pose a significant threat to small genetics research has demonstrated that The population size of Georgetown populations because they have the long-term inbreeding depression (a and Salado salamanders is unknown for potential to eliminate all individuals in pattern of reduced reproduction and most sites. Recent mark-recapture a small group (Van Dyke 2008, p. 218). survival as a result of genetic studies on the Georgetown salamander Although it may be possible for Eurycea relatedness) can occur within small estimated surface population sizes of salamanders to travel through aquifer populations (Frankham 1995, p. 796; 100 to 200 adult salamanders at two conduits from one surface population to Latter et al. 1995, p. 294; Van Dyke sites thought to be of the highest quality another, or that two individuals from 2008, pp. 155–156). Inbreeding for this species (Twin Springs and different populations could breed in depression contributes to further Swinbank Springs, Pierce 2011a, p. 18). subsurface habitat, there is no direct population decline and reduced Georgetown salamander populations are evidence that they currently migrate reproduction and survival in small likely smaller at other, lower quality from one surface population to another populations, and can contribute to a sites. There are no population estimates on a regular basis. Although gene flow species’ extinction (Van Dyke 2008, pp. available for any Salado salamander between populations has been detected 172–173). Small populations may also sites, but recent surveys have indicated in other central Texas Eurycea suffer a loss of genetic diversity, that Salado salamanders are exceedingly salamander species (TPWD 2012, pers. reducing the ability of these populations rare at the four most impacted sites and comm.), this does not necessarily mean to evolve to changing environmental much more abundant at the three least that there is current or routine dispersal conditions, such as climate change impacted sites (Gluesenkamp 2011a, b, between salamander populations that (Visser 2008, pp. 649–655; Traill et al. TPWD, pers. comm.). Because most of could allow for recolonization of a site 2010, pp. 29–30). the sites occupied by the Georgetown should the population be extirpated by In addition, ecological factors such as and Salado salamanders are not known a catastrophic event (Gillespie 2012, Allee effects may manifest at small to have many individuals, any of the University of Texas, pers. comm.). population sizes, further increasing the threats described above or stochastic In conclusion, we do not consider risk of extinction (Courchamp et al. events that would not otherwise be small population sizes to be a threat in 1999, p. 405). Allee effects are defined considered a threat could extirpate and of itself to the Georgetown and as a positive relationship between any populations. Salado salamanders, but their small component of individual fitness (the The highly restricted ranges of the population sizes make them more ability to survive and reproduce) and Georgetown and Salado salamanders vulnerable to extinction from other either numbers or density of individuals and their entirely aquatic environmental existing or potential threats, such as of the same species (Stephens et al. habitat make them extremely vulnerable stochastic events. Restricted ranges 1999, p. 186). In other words, an Allee to threats such as decreases in water could negatively affect the Georgetown effect refers to the phenomenon where quality and quantity. The Georgetown and Salado salamanders in combination

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10285

with other threats (such as water quality deposited underground (Bendik 2011b, Currently, the synergistic effect or water quantity degradation) and lead COA, pers. comm.), UV–B radiation may between multiple stressors on the to the species being at a higher risk of have no impact on the hatching success Georgetown and Salado salamanders is extinction. We consider the level of of these species. not fully known. Furthermore, different impacts from stochastic events to be In conclusion, the effect of increased species of amphibians differ in their moderate for the Georgetown UV–B radiation has the potential to reactions to stressors and combinations salamander, because this species has 17 cause deformities or developmental of stressors (Kiesecker and Blaustein populations over a broader range. On problems to individuals, but we do not 1995, p. 11,051; Relyea et al. 2009, pp. the other hand, recolonization following consider this to significantly contribute 367–368; Rohr et al. 2003, pp. 2,387– a stochastic event is less likely for the to the risk of extinction for the 2,390). Studies that examine the effects Salado salamander due to its more Georgetown and Salado salamanders at of interactions among multiple stressors limited distribution and low numbers. this time. However, UV–B radiation on the Georgetown and Salado Therefore, the impact from a stochastic could negatively affect any of these salamanders are lacking. However, event for the Salado salamander is a salamanders in combination with other based on the number of examples in significant threat. threats (such as water quality or water other amphibians, the possibility of Ultraviolet Radiation quantity degradation) and contribute to synergistic effects on the salamanders significant declines in population sizes. cannot be discounted. Increased levels of ultraviolet-B (UV– B) radiation, due to depletion of the Synergistic and Additive Interactions Conclusion of Factor E stratospheric ozone layers, may lead to Among Stressors The effect of increased UV–B declines in amphibian populations The interactions among multiple radiation is an unstudied stressor to the (Blaustein and Kiesecker 2002, pp. 598– Georgetown and Salado salamanders 600). For example, research has stressors (for example, contaminants, UV–B radiation, pathogens, that has the potential to cause demonstrated that UV–B radiation deformities or development problems. causes significant mortality and sedimentation, and drought) may be contributing to amphibian population There is no evidence that the deformities in developing long-toed salamander species’ exposure to UV–B salamanders (Ambystoma declines (Blaustein and Kiesecker 2002, p. 598). Multiple stressors may act radiation is increasing or spreading. In macrodactylum) (Blaustein et al. 1997, addition, small population sizes at most p. 13,735). Exposure to UV–B radiation additively or synergistically to have greater detrimental impacts on of the sites for the Georgetown and reduces growth in clawed frogs Salado salamanders increases the risk of (Xenopus laevis) (Hatch and Burton, amphibians compared to a single stressor alone. Kiesecker and Blaustein local extirpation events. We do not 1998, p. 1,783) and lowers hatching consider small population sizes to be a success in Cascades frogs (Rana (1995, p. 11,051) found a synergistic effect between UV–B radiation and a threat in and of itself to the Georgetown cascadae) and western toads (Bufo and Salado salamanders, but their small boreas) (Kiesecker and Blaustein 1995, pathogen in Cascades frogs and western toads. Researchers demonstrated that population sizes make them more pp. 11,050–11,051). In lab experiments vulnerable to extinction from other with spotted salamanders, UV–B reduced pH levels and increased levels of UV–B radiation independently had existing or potential threats, such as radiation diminished their swimming stochastic events. Thus, we consider the ability (Bommarito et al. 2010, p. 1151). no effect on leopard frog (Rana pipiens) larvae; however, when combined, these level of impacts from stochastic events Additionally, UV–B radiation may act to be high for the Georgetown and synergistically (the total effect is greater two caused significant mortality (Long Salado salamanders due to their limited than the sum of the individual effects) et al. 1995, p. 1,302). Additionally, distributions and low number of with other factors (for example, researchers demonstrated that UV–B populations. Finally, the synergistic and contaminants, pH, pathogens) to cause radiation increases the toxicity of PAHs, additive interactions among multiple declines in amphibians (Alford and which can cause mortality and stressors (contaminants, UV–B Richards 1999, p. 141; see ‘‘Synergistic deformities on developing amphibians radiation, pathogens) may impact and Additive Interactions among (Hatch and Burton 1998, pp. 1,780– Georgetown and Salado salamanders Stressors’’ below). Some researchers 1,783). Beattie et al. (1992, p. 566) based on studies of other amphibians. have indicated that future increases in demonstrated that aluminum becomes UV–B radiation will have significant toxic to amphibians at low pH levels. Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other detrimental impacts on amphibians that Also, disease outbreaks may occur only Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting are sensitive to this radiation (Blaustein when there are contaminants or other Its Continued Existence and Belden 2003, p. 95). stressors in the environment that reduce The effect of increased UV–B immunity (Alford and Richards 1999, p. We have no information on any radiation on the Georgetown and Salado 141). For example, Christin et al. (2003, conservation efforts currently underway salamanders is unknown. It is pp. 1,129–1,132) demonstrated that to reduce the effects of UV–B radiation, questionable whether the few cave mixtures of pesticides reduced the small population sizes, stochastic populations of the Georgetown immunity to parasitic infections in events, or the synergistic and additive salamander that are restricted entirely to leopard frogs. Finally, the interaction of interactions among multiple stressors on the subsurface are exposed to UV–B different stressors may interfere with a the Georgetown and Salado radiation. Surface populations may salamander species’ ability to adapt to a salamanders. receive some protection from UV–B stressor. Miller et al. (2007, pp. 82–83) Cumulative Impacts radiation through shading from trees or found that although southern two-lined from hiding under rocks at some spring salamander larvae could adapt to low- Cumulative Effects From Factors A sites. Removal of natural riparian flow conditions by migrating down into Through E vegetation and substrate alteration may the water table, they were unable to Some of the threats discussed in this put the Georgetown and Salado perform this behavior when the finding could work in concert with one salamanders at greater risk of UV–B interstitial spaces between rocks were another to cumulatively create exposure. Because eggs are likely filled with sediment. situations that impact the Georgetown

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10286 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

and Salado salamanders. Some threats alter substrates, and by removing rocky Council in December 2013 is expected to these species may seem to be of low substrates or washing salamanders out to reduce some of the threats to the significance by themselves, but when of suitable habitat. Impoundments are Georgetown salamander from water you consider other threats that are also a threat to these species’ habitat quality degradation and direct impacts occurring at each site, such as small because of their tendency to alter the to surface habitat. Existing regulations population sizes, the risk of extirpation stream substrate and increase are not providing adequate protection is increased. Furthermore, we have no predacious fish abundance. Feral hogs for the Georgetown and Salado direct evidence that salamanders and livestock are threats because they salamanders and their habitats. currently migrate from one population can physically alter the salamander’s Therefore, we consider the existing to another on a regular basis, and many surface habitat and increase nutrients. regulatory mechanisms inadequate to of the populations are isolated in a way Additionally, catastrophic spills and protect the Georgetown and Salado that makes re-colonization of extirpated leaks remain a threat for many salamander now and in the future. sites very unlikely. Cumulatively, as salamander locations due to the Under Factor E, we identified several threats to the species increase over time abundance of point-sources and history stressors that could negatively impact in tandem with increasing urbanization of past spill events. All of these threats any of the Georgetown and Salado within the surface watersheds of these are projected to increase in the future, salamanders, including the increased species, more and more populations as the human population and risk of local extirpation events due to will be lost, which will increase the development increases within small population sizes and stochastic species’ risk of extinction. watersheds that provide habitat for events, UV–B radiation, and the Overall Threats Summary these salamanders. The human synergistic and additive effects of population is projected to increase by multiple stressors. Although none of The primary threat to the Georgetown 377 percent in the range of the these stressors rose to the level of being and Salado salamanders is the present Georgetown salamander and by 128 considered a threat by itself, small or future destruction, modification, or percent in the range of the Salado population sizes and restricted ranges curtailment of their habitat or range salamander by 2050. Some of these make the Georgetown and Salado (Factor A) in the form of reduced water threats are moderated, in part, by salamanders more vulnerable to quality and quantity and disturbance of ongoing conservation efforts, preserves, extirpation from other existing or spring sites (surface habitat). Reductions and other programs in place to protect potential threats, such as stochastic in water quality will occur primarily as land from the effects of urbanization events. Thus, we consider the level of a result of urbanization, which increases and to gather water quality data that impacts from stochastic events to be the amount of impervious cover in the would be helpful in designing high for the Georgetown and Salado watershed and exposes the salamanders conservation strategies for the salamanders due to their low number of to more hazardous material sources. salamander species. Overall, we populations and limited distributions. Impervious cover increases storm flow, consider the combined threats of Factor erosion, and sedimentation. Impervious Determination A to be ongoing and with a high degree cover also changes natural flow regimes of impact to the Georgetown and Salado Standard for Review within watersheds and increases the salamanders and their habitats in the transport of contaminants common in Section 4 of the Act, and its future. urban environments, such as oils, implementing regulations at 50 CFR part metals, fertilizers, and pesticides. Another factor we considered is 424, set forth the procedures for adding Expanding urbanization results in an Factor D, the inadequacy of existing species to the Federal Lists of increase of these contaminants within regulatory mechanisms. Surface water Endangered and Threatened Wildlife the watershed, which degrades water quality data collected by TCEQ and Plants. Under section 4(b)(1)(a), the quality at salamander spring sites. indicates that water quality degradation Secretary is to make endangered or Additionally, urbanization increases is occurring within many of the surface threatened determinations required by nutrient loads at spring sites, which can watersheds occupied by the Georgetown subsection 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of lead to decreases in dissolved oxygen and Salado salamanders despite the the best scientific and commercial data levels. Construction activities associated existence of numerous state and local available after conducting a review of with urbanization are a threat to both regulatory mechanisms to manage the status of the species and after taking water quality and quantity because they stormwater and protect water quality. into account conservation efforts by can increase sedimentation and Additionally, the threat to the Salado States or foreign nations. The standards exposure to contaminants, as well as salamander from a reduction in water for determining whether a species is dewater springs by intercepting aquifer quantity and the associated loss of endangered or threatened are provided conduits. spring flow has not been completely in section 3 of the Act. An endangered Various other threats to habitat exist alleviated through the management of species is any species that is ‘‘in danger for the Georgetown and Salado groundwater in Bell County by the of extinction throughout all or a salamanders as well. Drought, which CUWCD. Groundwater resources are not significant portion of its range.’’ A may be compounded by the effects of holistically managed in Williamson threatened species is any species that is global climate change, also degrades County to protect the aquifer from ‘‘likely to become an endangered water quantity and reduces available depletion from private pumping. species within the foreseeable future habitat for the salamanders. Water Human population growth and throughout all or a significant portion of quantity can also be reduced by urbanization in Williamson and Bell its range.’’ Per section 4(a)(1) of the Act, groundwater pumping and decreases in Counties is projected to continue into in reviewing the status of the species to baseflow due to increases in impervious the future as well as the associated determine if it meets the definitions of cover. Flood events contribute to the impacts to water quality and quantity endangered or threatened, we determine salamanders’ risks of extinction by (see Factor A discussion above). whether any species is an endangered degrading water quality through However, the Edwards Aquifer Recharge species or a threatened species because increased contaminants levels and Zone Water Quality Ordinance of any of the following five factors: (A) sedimentation, which may damage or approved by the Georgetown City The present or threatened destruction,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10287

modification, or curtailment of its Georgetown City Council are expected quality from increased conductivity, habitat or range; (B) overutilization for to reduce the threats to the Georgetown PAHs, pesticides, and nutrients have all commercial, recreational, scientific, or salamander, additional threats have not been shown to have detrimental impacts educational purposes; (C) disease or been addressed by their recent water on salamander density, growth, and predation; (D) the inadequacy of quality ordinance. We, therefore, find behavior (Marco et al. 1999, p. 2,837; existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) that the Georgetown salamander Albers 2003, p. 352; Rohr et al. 2003, p. other natural or manmade factors warrants a threatened species listing 2,391; Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 117–118; affecting its continued existence. status determination. Elsewhere in O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 37; Reylea We evaluated whether the today’s Federal Register, we propose 2009, p. 370; Sparling et al. 2009, p. 28; Georgetown and Salado salamanders are special regulations for the Georgetown Bommarito et al. 2010, pp. 1,151–1,152). in danger of extinction now (that is, an salamander under section 4(d) of the Sedimentation causes the amount of endangered species) or are likely to Act. We invite public comment on that available foraging habitat and protective become in danger of extinction in the proposed special rule. cover for salamanders to be reduced foreseeable future (that is, a threatened There is a limited amount of data on (Welsh and Ollivier 1998, p. 1,128), species). The foreseeable future refers to the current status of most Georgetown reducing salamander abundance (Turner the extent to which the Secretary can salamander populations and how these 2003, p. 24; O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. reasonably rely on predictions about the populations respond to stressors. Of the 34). Sharp declines and increases in future in making determinations about 17 known Georgetown salamander stream flow have also been shown to the future conservation status of the populations, only 3 have been regularly reduce salamander abundance (Petranka species. A key statutory difference monitored since 2008, and we only have and Sih 1986, p. 732; Sih et al. 1992, p. between a threatened species and an population estimates for 2 of those sites. 1,429; Baumgartner et al. 1999, p. 36; endangered species is the timing of In addition, no studies have used Miller et al. 2007, pp. 82–83; Price et al. when a species may be in danger of controlled experiments to understand 2012b, p. 319). In the absence of extinction, either now (endangered how environmental changes might affect species-specific information, we species) or in the foreseeable future Georgetown salamander individuals. To conclude that Georgetown salamanders (threatened species). deal with this uncertainty and evaluate respond negatively to these stressors threats to the Georgetown salamander Listing Status Determination for the because aquatic invertebrates (the prey that are occurring now or in the future, Georgetown Salamander base of the Georgetown salamander) and we used information on substitute several species of closely related stream In the proposed rule (77 FR 50768, species, which is an accepted practice salamanders have demonstrated direct August 22, 2012), the Georgetown in aquatic ecotoxicology and and indirect negative responses to these salamander species was proposed as conservation biology (Caro et al. 2005, stressors. endangered, rather than threatened, p. 1,823; Wenger 2008, p. 1,565). In because at that time, we determined the instances where information was not Reduced water quality, increased threats to be imminent, and their available for the Georgetown sedimentation, and altered flow regimes potential impacts to the species would salamander specifically, we have are primarily the result of human be catastrophic given the very limited provided references for studies population growth and subsequent range of the species. For this final conducted on similarly related species, urbanization within the watersheds and determination, we took into account such as the Jollyville Plateau recharge and contributing zones of the data that were made available after the salamander and Barton Springs groundwater supporting spring and cave proposed rule published, information salamander, which occur within the sites. Urbanization in the range of the provided by commenters on the central Texas area, and other Georgetown salamander is currently at proposed rule, and further discussions salamander species that occur in other relatively low levels. However, based on within the Service to determine whether parts of the United States. We our current knowledge of the the Georgetown salamander should be concluded that these were appropriate Georgetown salamander and classified as endangered or threatened. comparisons to make based on the observations made on the impacts of Based on our review of the best following similarities between the urbanization on other closely related available scientific and commercial species: (1) A clear systematic species of aquatic salamanders, information, we conclude that the (evolutionary) relationship (for example, urbanization at current levels is likely Georgetown salamander is likely to members of the Family Plethodontidae); affecting both surface and subsurface become in danger of extinction in the (2) shared life-history attributes (for habitat. Based on our analysis of foreseeable future throughout all of its example, the lack of metamorphosis into impervious cover (which we use as a range and, therefore, meets the a terrestrial form); (3) similar proxy for urbanization) throughout the definition of a threatened species. This morphology and physiology (for range of the Georgetown salamander, 10 finding, explained below, is based on example, the lack of lungs for of 12 surface watersheds known to be our conclusions that some habitat respiration and sensitivity to occupied by Georgetown salamanders in supporting populations of the species environmental conditions); and (4) 2006 had levels of impervious cover that have begun to experience impacts from similar habitat and ecological are likely causing habitat degradation threats, and threats are expected to requirements (for example, dependence now. Although we do not have long- increase in the future. As the threats on aquatic habitat in or near springs term survey data on Georgetown increase, we expect Georgetown with a rocky or gravel substrate). salamander populations, the best salamander populations to decline and Present and future degradation of available information indicates that be extirpated, reducing the overall habitat (Factor A) is the primary threat habitat degradation from urbanization is representation and redundancy across to the Georgetown salamander. This causing declines in Georgetown the species range and increasing the threat primarily occurs in the form of salamander populations throughout species risk of extinction. We find the reduced water quality from introduced most of the species’ range now or will Georgetown salamander will be at an and concentrated contaminants, cause population declines in the future, elevated risk of extinction in the future. increased sedimentation, and altered putting these populations at an elevated While beneficial actions taken by the stream flow regimes. Reduced water risk of extirpation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10288 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Further degradation of the Williamson County, indicating that habitat from degradation. Data indicate Georgetown salamander’s habitat is quarry activities were having an impact that some water quality degradation in likely to continue into the foreseeable on local water quality (Berehe 2005, p. the range of the Georgetown salamander future based on the current projected 44). At this time, we are not aware of has occurred and continues to occur increases in urbanization in the region. any studies that have examined despite relatively low impervious cover Substantial human population growth is sediment loading due to construction and the existence of state and local ongoing within this species’ range, activities within the watersheds of regulatory mechanisms in place to indicating that the urbanization and its Georgetown salamander habitat. While protect water quality (SWCA 2012, pp. effects on Georgetown salamander the City of Georgetown’s new water 11–20; TCEQ 2012b, pp. 646–736). In habitat will likely increase in the future. quality ordinance will reduce addition, Williamson County does not The human population within the range construction-related sediment loading, currently have a groundwater of the Georgetown salamander is it will not remove all such loading, and conservation district that can manage expected to increase by 375 percent given that construction-related sediment groundwater resources countywide and from the year 2000 to 2033 (City of loading has been shown to impact other prevent groundwater levels from Georgetown 2008, p. 3.5). salamander species (Turner 2003, p. 24; declining from private pumping. Hazardous materials that could be O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34), sediment Existing regulations have not prevented spilled or leaked resulting in the loading is likely to occur within the the disturbance of surface habitat that contamination of both surface and rapidly developing range of the has occurred at several sites. The City of groundwater resources add to the Georgetown salamander. Thus, we Georgetown’s Edwards Aquifer additional threats affecting the expect that effects from construction Recharge Zone Water Quality Georgetown salamander. For example, a activities will increase as urbanization Ordinance, Water Quality Management number of point-sources of pollutants increases within the range of the Plan, and Adaptive Management Plan, exist within the Georgetown Georgetown salamander. approved in December 2013, will help salamander’s range, including fuel The habitat of Georgetown to reduce some of the threats from water tankers, fuel storage tanks, wastewater salamanders is sensitive to direct quality degradation and direct impacts lines, and chlorinated drinking water physical habitat modification, such as to surface habitat that are typically lines, and some of these sources have those resulting from human recreational associated with urbanized areas. contaminated groundwater in the past activities, impoundments, feral hogs, However, these mechanisms are not (Mace et al. 1997, p. 32; City of and livestock. Present disturbance of adequate to protect this species and its Georgetown 2008, p. 3.37; McHenry et Georgetown salamander habitat has habitat now, nor do we anticipate them al. 2011, p. 1). It is unknown what effect been attributed to direct human to sufficiently protect this species and these past spills have had on modification of spring outlets (TPWD its habitat in the future. Georgetown salamander populations 2011a, p. 9), feral hog activity (Booker Other natural or manmade factors thus far. As development around 2011, pers. comm.), and livestock (Factor E) affecting all Georgetown Georgetown increases, the number of activity (White 2011, SWCA, pers. salamander populations include UV–B point-sources will increase within the comm.). radiation, small population sizes, range of the Georgetown salamander, The effects of present and future stochastic events (such as floods or subsequently increasing the likelihood climate change could also affect water droughts), and synergistic and additive of a hazardous materials spill or leak. quantity and spring flow for the interactions among the stressors However, the City of Georgetown’s Georgetown salamander. Climate change mentioned above. For example, the only ordinance to protect water quality will could compound the threat of decreased mark-recapture studies on the help reduce the risk of a significant water quantity at salamander spring Georgetown salamander estimated hazardous materials spill impacting sites by decreasing precipitation, surface population sizes of 100 to 200 surface stream drainages of the increasing evaporation, increasing adult salamanders at 2 sites thought to Georgetown salamander by requiring groundwater pumping demands, and be of the highest quality for this species roadways that have a capacity of 25,000 increasing the likelihood of extreme (Twin Springs and Swinbank Springs, vehicles per day to provide for spill drought events. Climate change could Pierce 2011a, p. 18). Georgetown containment as described in the TCEQ’s cause spring sites with small amounts of salamander populations are likely Optional Enhanced Measures. discharge to go dry and no longer smaller at other, lower quality sites. In In addition, construction activities support salamanders, reducing the fact, this species has not been observed resulting from urban development or overall redundancy and representation in more than 10 years at two locations rock quarry mining activities may for the species. For example, at least two (San Gabriel Spring and Buford Hollow negatively impact both water quality Georgetown salamander sites (Cobb and Spring), despite several survey efforts to and quantity because they can increase San Gabriel Springs) are known to lose find it (Pierce 2011b, c, Southwestern sedimentation and dewater springs by surface flow for periods of time (Booker University, pers. comm.). Factors such intercepting aquifer conduits. There are 2011, p. 1; Breen and Faucette 2013, p. as small population size, especially in currently five Georgetown salamander 1). Climate change is causing extreme combination with the threats sites that are located within 1 mile (1.6 droughts to become much more summarized above, make Georgetown km) of active rock quarries within probable than they were 40 to 50 years salamander populations less resilient Williamson County, Texas, which may ago (Rupp et al. 2012, pp. 1,053–1,054). and more vulnerable to population impact the species and its habitat, and Therefore, climate change is an ongoing extirpations in the foreseeable future. which could result in the destruction of threat to this species that could add to Because of the fact-specific nature of spring sites, collapse of karst caverns, the likelihood of the Georgetown listing determinations, there is no single degradation of water quality, and salamander becoming an endangered metric for determining if a species is ‘‘in reduction of water quantity (Ekmekci species within the foreseeable future. danger of extinction’’ now. In the case 1990, p. 4). In 2004, elevated levels of Although there are several regulations of the Georgetown salamander, the best perchlorate (a chemical used in in place (Factor D) that benefit the available information indicates that producing quarry explosives) were Georgetown salamander, none have habitat degradation will result in detected in multiple springs within proven adequate to protect this species’ significant impacts on salamander

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10289

populations. The threat of urbanization in danger of extinction now. However, threats to the Salado salamander that are indicates that most of the Georgetown with future urbanization and the added occurring now or in the future, we used salamander populations are currently at effects of climate change, we expect information on substitute species, an elevated risk of extirpation, or will be habitat degradation and Georgetown which is an accepted practice in aquatic at an elevated risk in the future. These salamander count declines to continue ecotoxicology and conservation biology impacts are expected to increase in into the future to the point where the (Caro et al. 2005, p. 1823; Wenger 2008, severity and scope as urbanization species will then be in danger of p. 1,565). In instances where within the range of the species extinction. information was not available for the increases. Also, the combined result of Listing Status Determination for the Salado salamander specifically, we have increased impacts to habitat quality and Salado Salamander provided references for studies inadequate regulatory mechanisms leads conducted on similarly related species, us to the conclusion that Georgetown In the proposed rule (77 FR 50768, such as the Jollyville Plateau salamanders will likely be in danger of August 22, 2012), the Salado salamander and Barton Springs extinction within the foreseeable future. salamander species was proposed as salamander, which occur within the As Georgetown salamander populations endangered, rather than threatened, central Texas area, and other become more degraded, isolated, or because at that time, we determined the salamander species that occur in other extirpated by urbanization, the species threats to be imminent, and their parts of the United States. We will lose resiliency and be at an elevated potential impacts to the species would concluded that these were appropriate risk from climate change impacts, small be catastrophic given the very limited comparisons to make based on the population sizes, and catastrophic range of the species. For this final following similarities between the events, such as drought, floods, and determination, we took into account species: (1) a clear systematic hazardous material spills. These events data that were made available after the (evolutionary) relationship (for example, will affect all known extant populations, proposed rule published, information members of the Family Plethodontidae); putting the Georgetown salamander at a provided by commenters on the (2) shared life history attributes (for high risk of extinction. Therefore, proposed rule, and further discussions example, the lack of metamorphosis into because the resiliency of populations is within the Service to determine whether a terrestrial form); (3) similar expected to decrease in the foreseeable the Salado salamander should be morphology and physiology (for future, the Georgetown salamander will classified as endangered or threatened. example, the lack of lungs for be in danger of extinction throughout all Based on our review of the best respiration and sensitivity to available scientific and commercial of its range in the foreseeable future, environmental conditions); and (4) information, we conclude that the and appropriately meets the definition similar habitat and ecological Salado salamander is likely to become of a threatened species (that is, in requirements (for example, dependence in danger of extinction in the danger of extinction in the foreseeable on aquatic habitat in or near springs foreseeable future throughout all of its future). with a rocky or gravel substrate). Under the Act and our implementing range and, therefore, meets the regulations, a species may warrant definition of a threatened species. This Present and future degradation of listing if it is endangered or threatened finding, explained below, is based on habitat (Factor A) is the primary threat throughout all or a significant portion of our conclusions that few (seven) Salado to the Salado salamander. This threat its range. The threats to the survival of salamander sites exist (some of these primarily occurs in the form of reduced this species occur throughout its range sites are close to each other and likely water quality from introduced and and are not restricted to any particular part of the same population), some concentrated contaminants, increased significant portion of its range. populations have begun to experience sedimentation, and altered stream flow Accordingly, our assessments and impacts from threats to its habitat, and regimes. Reduced water quality from determinations apply to this species these threats are expected to increase in increased conductivity, PAHs, throughout its entire range. the future. As the threats increase, we pesticides, and nutrients have all been In conclusion, as described above, the expect Salado salamander populations shown to have detrimental impacts on Georgetown salamander is subject to to decline and be extirpated, reducing salamander density, growth, and significant current and ongoing threats the overall representation and behavior (Marco et al. 1999, p. 2,837; now and will be subject to more severe redundancy across the species range Albers 2003, p. 352; Rohr et al. 2003, p. threats in the future. After a review of and increasing the species risk of 2,391; Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 117–118; the best available scientific information extinction. We find the Salado O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 37; Reylea as it relates to the status of the species salamander will be at an elevated risk of 2009, p. 370; Sparling et al. 2009, p. 28; and the five listing factors, we find the extinction in the future. We, therefore, Bommarito et al. 2010, pp. 1,151–1,152). Georgetown salamander is not currently find that the Salado salamander Sedimentation causes the amount of in danger of extinction, but will be in warrants a threatened species listing available foraging habitat and protective danger of extinction in the future. status determination. cover for salamanders to be reduced Therefore, on the basis of the best There is a limited amount of data on (Welsh and Ollivier 1998, p. 1,128), available scientific and commercial Salado salamander populations and reducing salamander abundance (Turner information, we list the Georgetown how these populations respond to 2003, p. 24; O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. salamander as a threatened species in stressors. There are no population 34). Sharp declines and increases in accordance with section 3(6) of the Act. estimates for any of the seven known stream flow have also been shown to We find that an endangered species Salado salamander populations, and reduce salamander abundance (Petranka status is not appropriate for the salamanders are very rarely seen at four and Sih 1986, p. 732; Sih et al. 1992, p. Georgetown salamander because the of the seven sites. In addition, no 1,429; Baumgartner et al. 1999, p. 36; species is not in danger of extinction at studies have used controlled Miller et al. 2007, pp. 82–83; Price et al. this time. While some threats to the experiments to understand how 2012b, p. 319). In the absence of Georgetown salamander are occurring environmental changes might affect species-specific information, we now, the impacts from these threats are Salado salamander individuals. To deal conclude that Salado salamanders not yet at a level that puts this species with this uncertainty and evaluate respond negatively to these stressors

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10290 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

because aquatic invertebrates (the prey State Data Center estimates a 377 The habitat of Salado salamanders is base of the Salado salamander) and percent increase in human population sensitive to direct physical habitat several species of closely related stream in Williamson County from 2010 to modification, such as those resulting salamanders have demonstrated direct 2050. from human recreational activities, and indirect negative responses to these Adding to the likelihood of the Salado impoundments, feral hogs, and stressors. salamander becoming endangered in the livestock. Destruction of Salado Reduced water quality, increased future is the risk from hazardous salamander habitat has been attributed sedimentation, and altered flow regimes materials that could be spilled or to direct human modification, including are primarily the result of human leaked, potentially resulting in the heavy machinery use, outflow channel population growth and subsequent contamination of both surface and reconstruction, substrate alteration, and urbanization within the watersheds and groundwater resources. Three of the impoundments (Service 2010, p. 6; recharge and contributing zones of the seven Salado salamander sites are Gluesenkamp 2011a, c, pers. comm.). groundwater supporting spring and cave located less than 0.25 mi (0.40 km) One of the seven Salado salamander sites. Urbanization in the range of the downstream of Interstate Highway 35 sites is unfenced and vulnerable to Salado salamander is currently at and may be particularly vulnerable to access and damage from livestock and relatively low levels. However, based on spills due to their proximity to this feral hogs. our current knowledge of the Salado major transportation corridor. Should a The effects of present and future salamander and observations made on hazardous materials spill occur at the climate change could also affect water the impacts of urbanization on other Interstate Highway 35 bridge that quantity and spring flow for the Salado closely related species of aquatic crosses at Salado Creek, this species salamander. Climate change will likely salamanders, urbanization is likely could be at risk from contaminants compound the threat of decreased water affecting both surface and subsurface entering the water flowing into its quantity at salamander spring sites by habitat and is likely having impacts on surface habitat downstream. In addition, decreasing precipitation, increasing Salado salamander populations. Based multiple petroleum leaks from evaporation, increasing groundwater on our analysis of impervious cover underground storage tanks have pumping demands, and increasing the (which we use as a proxy for occurred near Salado salamander sites likelihood of extreme drought events. urbanization) throughout the range of in the past (Price et al. 1999, p. 10). Climate change could cause spring sites the Salado salamander, five of the six Because no follow-up studies were with small amounts of discharge to go dry and no longer support salamanders, surface watersheds occupied by Salado conducted, we have no information to salamanders had levels of impervious reducing the overall redundancy and indicate what effect these spills had on cover in 2006 that are likely causing representation for the species. For the species or its habitat. A significant habitat degradation. Although we do not example, at least two Salado salamander hazardous materials spill within stream have long-term survey data on Salado sites (Robertson Spring and Lil’ Bubbly drainages of the Salado salamander has salamander populations, recent surveys Spring) are known to lose surface flow the potential to threaten the long-term have indicated that Salado salamanders for periods of time (Gluesenkamp 2011a, survival and sustainability of multiple are exceedingly rare at the three most pers. comm.; Breen and Faucette 2013, populations, and we expect the risk of impacted sites (no salamanders were p. 1). Climate change is currently spills will increase in the future as found during surveys conducted in causing extreme droughts to become urbanization increases. 2012; Hibbitts 2013, p. 2) and more much more probable than they were 40 abundant at the three least impacted In addition, construction activities to 50 years ago (Rupp et al. 2012, pp. sites (Gluesenkamp 2011a, b, TPWD, resulting from urban development or 1,053–1,054). Therefore, climate change pers. comm.). The best available rock quarry mining activities may is an ongoing threat to this species and information indicates that habitat negatively impact both water quality will add to the likelihood of the Salado degradation from urbanization or and quantity because they can increase salamander becoming an endangered physical disturbance is causing declines sedimentation and dewater springs by species within the foreseeable future. in Salado salamander populations intercepting aquifer conduits. There is Although there are several regulations throughout most of the species’ range currently an active rock quarry located in place (Factor D) that benefit the now, or will cause population declines within 1.25 mi (2.0 km) of three Salado Salado salamander, none have proven in the future, putting these populations salamander sites within Bell County, adequate to protect this species’ habitat at an elevated risk of extirpation. Texas, which may impact the species from degradation. Data indicate that Further degradation of the Salado and its habitat, and which could result some water quality degradation in the salamander’s habitat is expected to in the collapse of karst caverns, range of the Salado salamander has continue into the future, primarily as a degradation of water quality, and occurred and continues to occur despite result of an increase in urbanization. reduction of water quantity (Ekmekci relatively low impervious cover and the Substantial human population growth is 1990, p. 4). At this time, we are not existence of state and local regulatory ongoing within this species’ range, aware of any studies that have examined mechanisms in place to protect water indicating that the urbanization and its sediment loading due to construction quality (TCEQ 2012b, pp. 646–736). In effects on Salado salamander habitat activities within the watersheds of addition, although Bell County does will increase in the future. The Texas Salado salamander habitat. However, have a groundwater conservation State Data Center (2012, p. 353) has given that construction-related sediment district that can manage groundwater reported a population increase of 128 loading has been shown to impact other resources countywide, this management percent for Bell County, Texas, from the salamander species (Turner 2003, p. 24; has not prevented Salado salamander year 2010 to 2050. Because subsurface O’Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34) and is spring sites from going dry during flow into some Salado salamander sites likely to occur within the developing droughts (TPWD 2011a, p. 5; Aaron may originate in Williamson County to range of the Salado salamander, we 2013, CUWCD, pers. comm.; Breen and the southwest, human population expect that effects from construction Faucette 2013, pers. comm.). Finally, no growth in Williamson County also could activities will increase as urbanization regulations have prevented the have increasing negative impacts on increases within the range of the Salado disturbance of the physical surface Salado salamander habitat. The Texas salamander. habitat that has occurred at three sites

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10291

within the Village of Salado. Therefore, its range. The threats to the survival of planning process involves the the existing regulatory mechanisms are this species occur throughout its range identification of actions that are not adequate to protect this species and and are not restricted to any particular necessary to halt or reverse the decline its habitat now, nor do we anticipate significant portion of its range. in the species’ status by addressing the them to sufficiently protect this species Accordingly, our assessments and threats to its survival and recovery. The in the future. determinations apply to this species goal of this process is to restore listed Other natural or manmade factors throughout its entire range. species to a point where they are secure, (Factor E) affecting all Salado In conclusion, the Salado salamander self-sustaining, and functioning salamander populations include UV–B is subject to significant current and components of their ecosystems. radiation, small population sizes, ongoing threats now and will be subject Recovery planning includes the stochastic events (such as floods or to more severe threats in the future. development of a recovery outline droughts), and synergistic and additive After a review of the best available shortly after a species is listed and interactions among the stressors scientific information as it relates to the preparation of a draft and final recovery mentioned above. Because of how rare status of the species and the five listing plan. The recovery outline guides the Salado salamanders are at most sites factors, we find the Salado salamander immediate implementation of urgent (Gluesenkamp 2011a, b, TPWD, pers. is not in danger of extinction now, but recovery actions and describes the comm.; TPWD 2011a, pp. 1–3), we will be in danger of extinction in the process to be used to develop a recovery assume that population sizes are very foreseeable future. Therefore, on the plan. Revisions of the plan may be done small. Factors such as small population basis of the best available scientific and to address continuing or new threats to size, in combination with the threats commercial information, we list the the species, as new substantive summarized above, make Salado Salado salamander as a threatened information becomes available. The salamander populations less resilient species, in accordance with section 3(6) recovery plan identifies site-specific and more vulnerable to population of the Act. We find that an endangered management actions that set a trigger for extirpations in the foreseeable future. species status is not appropriate for the review of the five factors that control Because of the fact-specific nature of Salado salamander because the species whether a species remains endangered listing determinations, there is no single is not in danger of extinction now. or may be downlisted or delisted, and metric for determining if a species is ‘‘in While some threats to the Salado methods for monitoring recovery danger of extinction’’ now. In the case salamander are occurring now, the progress. Recovery plans also establish of the Salado salamander, the best impacts from these threats are not yet at a framework for agencies to coordinate available information indicates that a level that puts this species in danger their recovery efforts and provide habitat degradation will result in of extinction at this time. However, with estimates of the cost of implementing significant impacts on salamander future urbanization and the added recovery tasks. Recovery teams populations. The threat of urbanization effects of climate change, we expect (comprising species experts, Federal indicates that most of the Salado habitat degradation and Salado and state agencies, non-governmental salamander populations are currently at salamander count declines to continue organizations, and stakeholders) are an elevated risk of extirpation, or will be into the foreseeable future to the point often established to develop recovery at an elevated risk in the future. These where the species will then be in danger plans. When completed, the recovery impacts are expected to increase in of extinction. outline, draft recovery plan, and the severity and scope as urbanization final recovery plan will be available on Available Conservation Measures within the range of the species our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ increases. Also, the combined result of Conservation measures provided to endangered), or from our Austin increased impacts to habitat quality and species listed as endangered or Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR inadequate regulatory mechanisms leads threatened species under the Act FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). us to the conclusion that Salado include recognition, recovery actions, Implementation of recovery actions salamanders will likely be in danger of requirements for Federal protection, and generally requires the participation of a extinction within the foreseeable future. prohibitions against certain practices. broad range of partners, including other As Salado salamander populations Recognition through listing results in Federal agencies, states, tribes, non- become more degraded, isolated, or public awareness and conservation by governmental organizations, businesses, extirpated by urbanization, the species Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies, and private landowners. Examples of will lose resiliency and be at an elevated private organizations, and individuals. recovery actions include habitat risk from climate change impacts, small The Act encourages cooperation with restoration (for example, restoration of population sizes, and catastrophic the states and requires that recovery native vegetation), research, captive events (for example, drought, floods, actions be carried out for all listed propagation and reintroduction, and hazardous material spills). These events species. The protection required by outreach and education. The recovery of will affect all known extant populations, Federal agencies and the prohibitions many listed species cannot be putting the Salado salamander at a high against certain activities are discussed, accomplished solely on Federal lands risk of extinction. Therefore, because in part, below. because their range may occur primarily the resiliency of populations is expected The primary purpose of the Act is the or solely on non-Federal lands. To to decrease in the foreseeable future, the conservation of endangered and achieve recovery of these species Salado salamander will be danger of threatened species and the ecosystems requires cooperative conservation efforts extinction throughout all of its range in upon which they depend. The ultimate on private, state, tribal, and other lands. the future, and it appropriately meets goal of such conservation efforts is the Once these species are listed, funding the definition of a threatened species recovery of these listed species, so that for recovery actions will be available (that is, in danger of extinction in the they no longer need the protective from a variety of sources, including foreseeable future). measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of Federal budgets, state programs, and Under the Act and our implementing the Act requires the Service to develop cost-share grants for non-Federal regulations, a species may warrant and implement recovery plans for the landowners, the academic community, listing if it is endangered or threatened conservation of endangered and and nongovernmental organizations. In throughout all or a significant portion of threatened species. The recovery addition, pursuant to section 6 of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 10292 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Act, the State of Texas will be eligible The Act and its implementing National Environmental Policy Act for Federal funds to implement regulations set forth a series of general (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not management actions that promote the prohibitions and exceptions that apply be prepared in connection with listing protection or recovery of the to all endangered wildlife. The a species as an endangered or Georgetown and Salado salamanders. prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, threatened species under the Act. We Information on our grant programs that codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered published a notice outlining our reasons are available to aid species recovery can wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any for this determination in the Federal be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants. person subject to the jurisdiction of the Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR Section 7(a) of the Act requires United States to take (includes harass, 49244). Federal agencies to evaluate their harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, Data Quality Act actions with respect to any species that trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt is proposed or listed as endangered or any of these), import, export, ship in In developing this rule, we did not threatened and with respect to its interstate commerce in the course of conduct or use a study, experiment, or critical habitat, if any is designated. commercial activity, or sell or offer for survey requiring peer review under the Regulations implementing this sale in interstate or foreign commerce Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554). interagency cooperation provision of the any listed species. Under the Lacey Act References Cited Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. (18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, A complete list of all references cited Federal agencies to confer with the carry, transport, or ship any such in this rule is available on the Internet Service on any action that is likely to wildlife that has been taken illegally. at http://www.regulations.gov or upon jeopardize the continued existence of a Certain exceptions apply to agents of the request from the Field Supervisor, species proposed for listing or result in Service and state conservation agencies. Austin Ecological Services Field Office destruction or adverse modification of We may issue permits to carry out (see ADDRESSES). otherwise prohibited activities proposed critical habitat. If a species is Author(s) listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of involving endangered and threatened the Act requires Federal agencies to wildlife species under certain The primary author of this document ensure that activities they authorize, circumstances. Regulations governing is staff from the Austin Ecological fund, or carry out are not likely to permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) jeopardize the continued existence of endangered wildlife, and at 50 CFR with support from the Arlington, Texas, the species or destroy or adversely 17.32 for threatened wildlife. With Ecological Services Field Office. regard to endangered wildlife, a permit modify its critical habitat. If a Federal List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 action may affect a listed species or its must be issued for the following critical habitat, the responsible Federal purposes: for scientific purposes, to Endangered and threatened species, agency must enter into formal enhance the propagation or survival of Exports, Imports, Reporting and consultation with the Service. the species, and for incidental take in recordkeeping requirements, Federal agency actions within the connection with otherwise lawful Transportation. species habitat that may require activities. Regulation Promulgation conference or consultation or both as Required Determinations described in the preceding paragraph Accordingly, we amend part 17, include management, construction, and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the any other activities with the possibility U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: of altering aquatic habitats, groundwater This rule does not contain any new PART 17—[AMENDED] flow paths, and natural flow regimes collections of information that require within the ranges of the Georgetown and approval by OMB under the Paperwork ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 Salado salamanders. Such consultations Reduction Act. This rule will not continues to read as follows: could be triggered through the issuance impose recordkeeping or reporting of section 404 Clean Water Act permits requirements on state or local Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. by the Army Corps of Engineers or other governments, individuals, businesses, or actions by the Service, U.S. Geological organizations. An agency may not ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding entries Survey, and Bureau of Reclamation; conduct or sponsor, and a person is not for ‘‘Salamander, Georgetown’’ and construction and maintenance of roads required to respond to, a collection of ‘‘Salamander, Salado’’ in alphabetical or highways by the Federal Highway information unless it displays a order under Amphibians to the List of Administration; landscape-altering currently valid OMB control number. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to activities on Federal lands administered read as follows: by the Department of Defense; and National Environmental Policy Act construction and management of gas We have determined that § 17.11 Endangered and threatened pipelines and power line rights-of-way environmental assessments and wildlife. by the Federal Energy Regulatory environmental impact statements, as * * * * * Commission. defined under the authority of the (h) * * *

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 10293

Species Vertebrate population where en- When Critical Special Historic range dangered Status listed habitat rules Common name Scientific name or threat- ened

******* Amphibians

******* Salamander, Georgetown Eurycea naufragia ...... U.S.A. (TX) ...... Entire T ...... NA NA

******* Salamander, Salado ...... Eurycea chisholmensis .... U.S.A. (TX) ...... Entire T ...... NA NA

*******

* * * * * Dated: February 14, 2014. Daniel M. Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2014–03717 Filed 2–21–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Feb 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\24FER2.SGM 24FER2 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2