Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Species Status for the Georgetown Salamander and Salado Salamander Throughout Their Ranges, 10235-10293 [2014-03717]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10235-10293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03717]



[[Page 10235]]

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

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 10236]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0035; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY22


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Threatened Species Status for the Georgetown Salamander and Salado 
Salamander Throughout Their Ranges

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
threatened status for the Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia) and 
the Salado salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis) under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. The effect of this regulation is 
to conserve the two salamander species and their habitats under the 
Act. This final rule implements the Federal protections provided by the 
Act for these species. We are also notifying the public that, in 
addition to this final listing determination, today we publish a 
proposed special rule under the Act for the Georgetown salamander.

DATES: This rule becomes effective March 26, 2014.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/. 
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation 
used in preparing this final rule, are available for public inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours, at U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 
10711 Burnet Rd, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; by telephone 512-490-
0057; or by facsimile 512-490-0974. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may warrant 
protection through listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. Listing a species as an 
endangered or threatened species can only be completed by issuing a 
rule.
    This rule lists the Georgetown and Salado salamanders as threatened 
species under the Act.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders are threatened under the Act due to threats faced by the 
species both now and in the future from Factors A, D, and E.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers 
to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered all comments and 
information received during the comment period (see Summary of Comments 
and Recommendations section below).

Background

Previous Federal Action

    The Georgetown salamander was included in 10 Candidate Notices of 
Review:
     66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001;
     67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002;
     69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004;
     70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005;
     71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006;
     72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007;
     73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008;
     74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009;
     75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; and
     76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011.
    In the 2008 review, the listing priority number was lowered from 2 
to 8, indicating that threats to the species were imminent, but 
moderate to low in magnitude. This reduction in listing priority number 
was primarily due to the land acquisition and conservation efforts of 
the Williamson County Conservation Foundation. In addition, we were 
petitioned by the Center for Biological Diversity to list the 
Georgetown salamander as an endangered species on May 11, 2004, but at 
that time, it was already a candidate species whose listing was 
precluded by higher priority actions.
    The Salado salamander was included in nine Candidate Notices of 
Review:
     67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002;
     69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004;
     70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005;
     71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006;
     72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007;
     73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008;
     74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009;
     75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; and
     76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011.
    The listing priority number has remained at 2 throughout the 
reviews, indicating that threats to the species were both imminent and 
high in magnitude. In addition, on May 11, 2004, the Service received a 
petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list 225 species 
we previously had identified as candidates for listing in accordance 
with section 4 of the Act, including the Salado salamander.
    On August 22, 2012, we published a proposed rule to list as 
endangered and designate critical habitat for the Austin blind 
salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis), Jollyville Plateau salamander 
(Eurycea tonkawae), Georgetown salamander, and Salado salamanders (77 
FR 50768). That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending October 
22, 2012. We held a public meeting and hearing in Round Rock, Texas, on 
September 5, 2012, and a second public meeting and hearing in Austin, 
Texas, on September 6, 2012. On January 25, 2013, we reopened the 
public comment period on the August 22, 2012, proposed listing and 
critical habitat designation; announced the availability of a draft 
economic analysis; and an amended required determinations section of 
the proposal (78 FR 5385). On August 20, 2013, we extended the final 
determination for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders by 6 months due 
to substantial disagreement regarding: (1) The short- and long-term 
population trends of these two species; (2) the interpretation of water 
quality and quantity degradation information as it relates to the 
status of these two species; and (3) the effectiveness of conservation 
practices and regulatory mechanisms (78 FR 51129). That comment period 
closed on September 19, 2013.
    Since that time, the City of Georgetown, Texas, prepared and 
finalized ordinances for the Georgetown salamander. All 17 of the known 
Georgetown salamander locations are within the City of Georgetown's 
jurisdiction for residential and commercial development. The enacted

[[Page 10237]]

ordinances were directed at alleviating threats to the Georgetown 
salamander from urban development by requiring geologic assessments 
prior to construction, establishing occupied site protections through 
stream buffers, maintaining water quality through best management 
practices, developing a water quality management plan for the City of 
Georgetown, and monitoring occupied spring sites by an adaptive 
management working group. In order to consider the ordinances in our 
final listing determination, on January 7, 2014 (79 FR 800), we 
reopened the comment period for 15 days on the proposed listing rule to 
allow the public an opportunity to provide comment on the application 
of the City of Georgetown's ordinances to our status determination 
under section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    This rule constitutes our final determination to list the 
Georgetown and Salado salamanders as threatened species.

Species Information

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

[[Page 10238]]

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

[[Page 10239]]

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

[[Page 10240]]

of the Edwards Aquifer and associated limestone along Salado Creek 
(Brune 1975, p. 31). The four spring sites all contribute to Salado 
Creek. Under Brune's (1975, p. 5) definition, which identifies springs 
depending on flow, all sites are considered small (4.5 to 45 gallons 
per minute [17 to 170 liters per minute]) to medium springs (45 to 449 
gallons per minute [170 to 1,1700 liters per minute]). Two other spring 
sites (Benedict and Anderson Springs) are located downstream from Big 
Boiling Springs and Robertson Springs. These springs have been surveyed 
by TPWD periodically since June 2009, but no salamanders have been 
found (Gluesenkamp 2010, TPWD, pers. comm.). In August 2009, TPWD 
discovered a population of salamanders at a new site (Solana Spring 
1) farther upstream on Salado Creek in Bell County, Texas 
(TPWD 2011, p. 2). Salado salamanders were recently confirmed at two 
additional spring sites (Cistern and Hog Hollow Springs) on the Salado 
Creek in March 2010 (TPWD 2011, p. 2). In total, the Salado salamander 
is currently known from seven springs. A groundwater divide between 
Salado Creek and Berry Creek to the south likely creates a division 
between the ranges of the Georgetown and Salado salamander (Williamson 
County 2008, p. 3-34).
    Of the two salamander species, Salado salamanders have been 
observed the least. Biologists were unable to observe this species in 
its type locality (location from which a specimen was first collected 
and identified as a species) despite over 20 visits to Big Boiling 
Springs that occurred between 1991 and 1998 (Chippindale et al. 2000, 
p. 43). Likewise, TPWD surveyed this site weekly from June 2009 until 
May 2010, and found one salamander (Gluesenkamp 2010, TPWD, pers. 
comm.) at a spring outlet locally referred to as ``Lil' Bubbly'' 
located near Big Boiling Springs. One additional unconfirmed sighting 
of a Salado salamander in Big Boiling Springs was reported in 2008, by 
a citizen of Salado, Texas. In 2009, TPWD was granted access to 
Robertson Springs to survey for the Salado salamander. This species was 
reconfirmed at this location in February 2010 (Gluesenkamp 2010, TPWD, 
pers. comm.). In the fall of 2012, all of the spring outlets near the 
Village of Salado were thoroughly searched over a period of two months 
using a variety of sampling methods, and no Salado salamanders were 
found (Hibbitts 2013, p. 2). Salado salamander populations appear to be 
larger at spring sites upstream of the Village of Salado, probably due 
to the higher quality of the habitat (Gluesenkamp 2011b, TPWD, pers. 
comm.).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested comments from the public on the proposed listing for 
Georgetown salamander and Salado salamander during three comment 
periods. The first comment period associated with the publication of 
the proposed rule (77 FR 50768) opened on August 22, 2012, and closed 
on October 22, 2012, during which we held public meetings and hearings 
on September 5 and 6, 2012, in Round Rock and Austin, Texas, 
respectively. We reopened the comment period on the proposed listing 
rule from January 25, 2013, to March 11, 2013 (78 FR 5385). During our 
6-month extension on the final determination for the Georgetown and 
Salado salamanders, we reopened the comment period from August 20, 
2013, to September 19, 2013 (78 FR 51129). On January 7, 2014, we 
reopened the comment period and announced the availability of the City 
of Georgetown's final ordinance for water quality and urban development 
(79 FR 800). We reopened the comment period to allow all interested 
parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule 
and the effect of the new city ordinance on the threats to the species. 
That comment period closed on January 22, 2014. We also contacted 
appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies; scientific 
organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment 
on the proposed rule during these comment periods.
    We received a total of approximately 483 comments during the open 
comment periods for the proposed listing and critical habitat rules. 
All substantive information provided during the comment periods has 
been incorporated directly into the final listing rule for the 
salamanders and is addressed below in our response to comments. 
Comments from peer reviewers and state agencies are grouped separately 
below. Comments received are grouped into general issues specifically 
relating to the proposed listing for the salamander species. Beyond the 
comments addressed below, several commenters submitted additional 
reports and references for our consideration, which were reviewed and 
incorporated into this final listing rule as appropriate.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from 22 knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise concerning the hydrology, 
taxonomy, and ecology that is important to these salamander species. We 
requested expert opinions from taxonomists specifically to review the 
proposed rule in light of an unpublished report by Forstner (2012, 
entire) that questioned the taxonomic validity of the four central 
Texas salamanders as separate species. We received responses from 13 of 
the peer reviewers.
    During the first comment period, we received some contradictory 
public comments, and we also found new information relative to the 
listing determination. For these reasons, we conducted a second peer 
review on: (1) Salamander demographics and (2) urban development and 
stream habitat. During this second peer review, we solicited expert 
opinions from 20 knowledgeable individuals with expertise in the two 
areas identified above. We received responses from eight peer reviewers 
during this second review. The peer reviewers generally concurred with 
our methods and conclusions and provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final listing and 
critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the 
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

Taxonomy
    (1) Comment: Most peer reviewers stated that the best available 
scientific information was used to develop the proposed rule and the 
Service's analysis of the available information was scientifically 
sound. Further, most reviewers stated that our assessment that these 
are four distinct species and our interpretation of literature 
addressing threats (including reduced habitat quality due to 
urbanization and increased impervious cover) to these species was well 
researched. However, some researchers suggested that further research 
would strengthen or refine our understanding of these salamanders. For 
example, one reviewer stated that the Jollyville Plateau salamander 
taxonomy was supported by weak but suggestive evidence, and therefore, 
it needed more study. Another reviewer thought there was evidence of 
missing descendants in the group that included the Jollyville Plateau 
and Georgetown salamanders in the enzyme analysis presented in the 
original species descriptions (Chippindale et al. 2000, entire).
    Our Response: Peer reviewers' comments indicate that we used the 
best available science, and we correctly

[[Page 10241]]

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

[[Page 10242]]

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

[[Page 10243]]

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

Comments From States

    Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the 
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt 
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' 
Comments received from all State agencies and entities in Texas 
regarding the proposal to list the Georgetown and Salado salamanders 
are addressed below.
    (22) Comment: Chippindale (2010) demonstrated that it is possible 
for Jollyville Plateau salamanders to move between sites in underground 
conduits. Close genetic affinities between populations in separate 
watersheds on either side of the RM 620 suggest that these populations 
may be connected hydrologically. Recent studies (Chippindale 2011 and 
2012, in prep) indicate that gene flow among salamander populations 
follows groundwater flow routes in some cases and that genetic exchange 
occurs both

[[Page 10244]]

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

Public Comments

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    (29) Comment: The Service improperly discounts the value of

[[Page 10245]]

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

[[Page 10246]]

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

[[Page 10247]]

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

[[Page 10248]]

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

[[Page 10249]]

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

[[Page 10250]]

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

[[Page 10251]]

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

[[Page 10252]]

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

[[Page 10253]]

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

[[Page 10254]]

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

[[Page 10255]]

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

[[Page 10256]]

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

[[Page 10257]]

recommendations on the approval of any variances to the ordinance.
    Our response to Comments 91-98: The Service has analyzed the effect 
of the ordinance on the threats identified below under Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species and have made a determination as to 
whether or not the regulatory mechanism (City of Georgetown ordinance) 
has reduced the threats to the point that listing the species as 
threatened or endangered under the Act is no longer warranted.
    (99) Comment: The Red Zone buffer should extend past culverts and 
roadways because these are not documented impediments to salamander 
migration.
    Our response: The ordinance specifically states that the Red Zone 
``. . . shall not extend beyond any existing physical obstructions that 
prevent the surface movement of Georgetown salamanders . . .'' 
Therefore, the Service believes that any physical obstructions that do 
not prevent the surface movement of salamanders would not be included 
as limiting the size of the Red Zone.
    (100) Comment: Development activities within the contributing area 
of the spring outside of the 984-ft (300-m) buffer of the Orange Zone 
would still affect the quality and quantity of spring discharge.
    Our response: The Service agrees that some activities occurring 
further than 984 ft (300 m) from a spring site could have the potential 
to impact the quality and quantity of spring discharge. However, 
overall, we believe that the ordinance has minimized and reduced some 
of the threats to the Georgetown salamander. See the discussion below 
under Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.
    (101) Comment: While the City of Georgetown has expressed its 
intention to rely upon surface water or wells outside the Edwards 
Aquifer for additional future water supplies, these intentions are 
purely voluntary and cannot be considered sufficient to remove the 
threat of inadequate spring flows.
    Our response: The Service does not consider the City of 
Georgetown's intention to rely upon surface water or wells outside the 
Edwards Aquifer sufficient to entirely remove the threat of inadequate 
spring flows.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Based upon our review of the public comments, comments from other 
Federal and State agencies, peer review comments, issues addressed at 
the public hearing, and any new relevant information that may have 
become available since the publication of the proposal, we reevaluated 
our proposed rule and made changes as appropriate. The Service has 
incorporated information related to the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone 
Water Quality Ordinance approved by the Georgetown City Council on 
December 20, 2013 (Ordinance No. 2013-59). The purpose of this 
ordinance is to reduce some of the threats to the Georgetown salamander 
within the City of Georgetown and its ETJ through the protection of 
water quality near occupied sites known at the time the ordinance was 
approved, enhancement of water quality protection throughout the 
Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, and establishment of protective buffers 
around all springs and streams. Additionally, an Adaptive Management 
Working Group has been established that is charged specifically with 
reviewing Georgetown salamander monitoring data and new research over 
time and recommending improvements to the ordinance that may be 
necessary to ensure that it achieves its stated purposes. This Adaptive 
Management Working Group, which includes representatives of the Service 
and TPWD, will also review and make recommendations on the approval of 
any variances to the ordinance.
    During the two comment periods that were opened during the 6-month 
extension, the Service did not receive any additional information to 
assist us in making a conclusion regarding the population trends of 
either of these two species. However, a report submitted by the 
Williamson County Conservation Foundation noted that since April 2012 
biologists have observed Georgetown salamanders at Swinbank Spring and 
Twin Springs (Pierce and McEntire 2013, p. 8). These two sites and one 
additional site (Cowan Spring) are the only Georgetown salamander 
locations for which population surveys have been conducted over 
multiple years. We are not aware of any population trend analysis that 
has been conducted for the Georgetown salamander. Dr. Toby Hibbits 
conducted surveys for the Salado salamander at nine different locations 
during the fall of 2013 and was unable to locate any salamanders. He 
concluded ``. . . even in the best conditions that Salado Salamanders 
are difficult to find and likely occupy the surface habitat in low 
numbers'' (Hibbits 2013, p. 3). Therefore, we are not making any 
conclusions related to the short- and long-term population trends of 
the Georgetown or Salado salamanders in this final rule.
    Finally, in addition to minor clarifications and incorporation of 
additional information on the species' biology and related to the new 
Georgetown water quality ordinance, this determination differs from the 
proposal because, based on our analyses, the Service has determined 
that the Georgetown and Salado salamanders should be listed as 
threatened species instead of endangered species.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more 
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may 
be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual 
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no 
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If 
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may 
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat 
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the 
risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants 
listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the 
Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The 
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the 
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of 
factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to 
compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that 
these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the 
point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act.

[[Page 10258]]

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

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

Water Quality Degradation

Urbanization

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

[[Page 10259]]

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

[[Page 10260]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24FE14.000

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

[[Page 10261]]

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

[[Page 10262]]

    Like the Georgetown and Salado salamanders, larval (juveniles that 
are strictly aquatic) southern two-lined salamanders are entirely 
aquatic salamanders within the family Plethodontidae. They are also 
similar to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders in morphology, 
physiology, size, and habitat requirements. Given these similarities, 
we expect a negative relationship between the abundance of Georgetown 
and Salado salamanders and impervious cover within the surface 
watersheds of these species as human population growth and development 
increase.
    To reduce the stressors associated with impervious cover, the City 
of Georgetown recently adopted a water quality ordinance that requires 
that permanent structural water quality controls for regulated 
activities over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone must remove 85 
percent of total suspended solids for the entire project. This 
increases the amount of total suspended solids that must be removed 
from projects within the City of Georgetown and its ETJ by 5 percent 
over the existing requirements (i.e., removal of 80 percent total 
suspended solids) found in the Edwards Aquifer Rules. In addition, the 
ordinance requires that all regulated activities implement temporary 
best management practices (BMPs) to minimize sediment runoff during 
construction. Finally, the Adaptive Management Working Group is charged 
specifically with reviewing Georgetown salamander monitoring data and 
new research over time and recommending improvements to the City of 
Georgetown's water quality ordinance that may be necessary to ensure 
that it achieves its stated purposes. This Adaptive Management Working 
Group, which includes representatives of the Service and TPWD, will 
also review and make recommendations on the approval of any variances 
to the ordinance.
    In another example from a more closely related species, the COA 
cited five declining Jollyville Plateau salamander populations from 
1997 to 2006: Balcones District Park Spring, Tributary 3, Tributary 5, 
Tributary 6, and Spicewood Tributary (O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 4). All 
of these populations occur within surface watersheds containing more 
than 10 percent impervious cover (Service 2013, pp. 9-11). Springs with 
relatively low amounts of impervious cover in their surface drainage 
areas (6.77 and 0 percent for Franklin and Wheless Springs, 
respectively) tend to have generally stable or increasing salamander 
populations (Bendik 2011a, pp. 18-19). Bendik (2011a, pp. 26-27) 
reported statistically significant declines in Jollyville Plateau 
salamander populations over a 13-year period at six monitored sites 
with high impervious cover (18 to 46 percent) compared to two sites 
with low impervious cover (less than 1 percent). These results are 
consistent with Bowles et al. (2006, p. 111), who found lower densities 
of Jollyville Plateau salamanders at urbanized sites compared to non-
urbanized sites.
    We recognize that the long-term survey data of Jollyville Plateau 
salamanders using simple counts may not give conclusive evidence on the 
long-term trend of the population at each site. However, based on the 
threats and evidence from the literature and other information 
available in our files (provided by peer reviewers of the Jollyville 
Plateau salamander listing determination), the declines in counts seen 
at urban Jollyville Plateau salamander sites are likely representative 
of real declines in the population. Because of the similarities in 
morphology, physiology, habitat requirements, and life history traits 
shared with the Jollyville Plateau salamander, we expect downward 
trends in Georgetown and Salado salamander populations in the future as 
human population growth increases within the range of these species. 
This human population growth is projected to increase by 377 percent in 
the range of the Georgetown salamander and by 128 percent in the range 
of the Salado salamander by 2050. As indicated by the analogies 
presented above, subsequent urbanization within the watersheds occupied 
by the Georgetown and Salado salamanders will likely cause declines in 
habitat quality and numbers of individuals.

Impervious Cover Analysis

    For this final rule, we calculated impervious cover within the 
watersheds occupied by the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. In this 
analysis, we delineated the surface areas that drain into spring sites 
and which of these sites may be experiencing habitat quality 
degradation as a result of impervious cover in the surface drainage 
area. However, we only examined surface drainage areas for each spring 
site for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders because we did not know 
the recharge area for specific spring or cave sites. Also, we did not 
account for riparian (stream edge) buffers or stormwater runoff control 
measures, both of which have the potential to mitigate some of the 
effects of impervious cover on streams (Schueler et al. 2009, pp. 312-
313). Please see the Service's refined impervious cover analysis 
(Service 2013, pp. 2-7) for a description of the methods used to 
conduct this analysis. This analysis may not represent the current 
impervious cover because small areas may have gone undetected at the 
resolution of our analysis and additional areas of impervious cover may 
have been added since 2006, which is the year the impervious cover data 
for our analysis were generated. We compared our results with the 
results of similar analyses completed by SWCA, and impervious cover 
percentages at individual sites from these analyses were generally 
higher than our own (Service 2013, Appendix C).

Impervious Cover Categories

    We examined studies that report ecological responses to watershed 
impervious cover levels based on a variety of degradation measurements 
(Service 2013, Table 1, p. 4). Most studies examined biological 
responses to impervious cover (for example, aquatic invertebrate and 
fish diversity), but several studies measured chemical and physical 
responses as well (for example, water quality parameters and stream 
channel modification). In light of these studies, we created the 
following impervious cover categories:

 None: 0 percent impervious cover in the watershed
 Low: Greater than 0 percent to 10 percent impervious cover in 
the watershed
 Medium: Greater than 10 percent to 20 percent impervious cover 
in the watershed
 High: Greater than 20 percent impervious cover in the 
watershed

Sites in the Low category may still be experiencing impacts from 
urbanization, as cited in studies such as Coles et al. (2012, p. 64), 
King et al. (2011, p. 1,664), and King and Baker (2010, p. 1,002). In 
accordance with the findings of Bowles et al. (2006, pp. 113, 117-118), 
sites in the Medium category are likely experiencing impacts from 
urbanization that are negatively impacting salamander densities. Sites 
in the High category are so degraded that habitat recovery will either 
be impossible or very difficult (Schueler et al. 2009, pp. 310, 313).

Results of Our Impervious Cover Analysis

    We estimated impervious cover percentages for each surface drainage 
area of a spring known to have at least one population of either a 
Georgetown or Salado salamander (cave locations were omitted). These 
estimates and

[[Page 10263]]

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

[[Page 10264]]

salamander and by 128 percent in the range of the Salado salamander by 
2050. Subsequent urbanization will likely cause declines in habitat 
quality and numbers of individuals at sites occupied by these species. 
The recently adopted ordinances in the City of Georgetown may reduce 
these threats. The Adaptive Management Working Group will provide the 
monitoring and research to track whether the ordinance is helping to 
reduce this threat.

Hazardous Material Spills

    The Edwards Aquifer is at risk from a variety of sources of 
contaminants and pollutants (Ross 2011, p. 4), including hazardous 
materials that have the potential to be spilled or leaked, resulting in 
contamination of both surface and groundwater resources (Service 2005, 
pp. 1.6-14-1.6-15). Utility structures such as storage tanks or 
pipelines (particularly gas and sewer lines) can accidentally 
discharge. Any activity that involves the extraction, storage, 
manufacture, or transport of potentially hazardous substances, such as 
fuels or chemicals, can contaminate water resources and cause harm to 
aquatic life. Spill events can involve a short release with immediate 
impacts, such as a collision that involves a tanker truck carrying 
gasoline. Alternatively, the release can be long-term, involving the 
slow release of chemicals over time, such as a leaking underground 
storage tank.
    A peer reviewer for the proposed rule provided information from the 
National Response Center's database of incidents of chemical and 
hazardous materials spills (https://www.nrc.uscg.mil/foia.html) from 
anthropogenic activities including, but not limited to, automobile or 
freight traffic accidents, intentional dumping, storage tanks, and 
industrial facilities. The number of incidents is likely to be an 
underestimate of the total number of incidents because not all 
incidents are discovered or reported. The database produced 189 records 
of spill events (33 that directly affected a body of water) in 
Williamson County between 1990 and 2012. Our search of the database 
produced 49 records of spill events that all directly affected water in 
Bell County between 1990 and 2013. Spills that did not directly affect 
aquatic environments may have indirectly done so by contaminating soils 
within watersheds that recharge springs where salamanders are known to 
occur (Gillespie 2012, University of Texas, pers. comm.). The risk of 
this type of contamination is currently ongoing and expected to 
increase as urbanization continues within the ranges of the Georgetown 
and Salado salamanders.
    Hazardous material spills pose a significant threat to the 
Georgetown and Salado salamanders, and impacts from spills could 
increase substantially under drought conditions due to lower dilution 
and buffering capability of impacted water bodies. Spills under low-
flow conditions are predicted to have an impact at much smaller volumes 
(Turner and O'Donnell 2004, p. 26). A significant hazardous materials 
spill within stream drainages of the Georgetown or Salado salamander 
could have the potential to threaten its long-term survival and 
sustainability of multiple populations or possibly the entire species. 
For example, a single hazardous materials spill on Interstate Highway 
35 in the Village of Salado could cause three (Big Boiling Springs, 
Lil' Bubbly Springs, and Lazy Days Fish Farm Springs) of the seven 
known Salado salamander populations to go extinct. The City of 
Georgetown ordinances have a requirement that new roadways providing a 
capacity of 25,000 vehicles per day must provide for hazardous spill 
containment. This measure reduces the threat of spills on larger 
roadways in the future. In combination with the other threats 
identified in this final rule, a catastrophic hazardous materials spill 
could contribute to the species' risk of extinction by reducing its 
overall probability of persistence. Furthermore, we consider hazardous 
material spills to be an ongoing significant threat to the Georgetown 
and Salado salamanders due to their limited distributions, the 
abundance of potential sources, and the number of salamanders that 
could be killed during a single spill event.

Underground Storage Tanks

    The risk of hazardous material spills from underground storage 
tanks is widespread in Texas and is expected to increase as 
urbanization continues to occur. As of 1996, more than 6,000 leaking 
underground storage tanks in Texas had resulted in contaminated 
groundwater (Mace et al. 1997, p. 2), including a large leak in the 
range of the Georgetown salamander (Mace et al. 1997, p. 32). In 1993, 
approximately 6,000 gallons (22,712 liters) of gasoline leaked from an 
underground storage tank located near Krienke Springs in southern 
Williamson County, Texas, which is known to be occupied by the 
Jollyville Plateau salamander (Manning 1994, p. 1). The leak originated 
from an underground storage tank from a gas station near the salamander 
site. This incident illustrates that despite laws or ordinances that 
require all underground storage tanks to be protected against 
corrosion, installed properly, and equipped with spill protection and 
leak detection mechanisms, leaks can still occur in urbanized areas 
despite the precautions put in place to prevent them (Manning 1994, p. 
5). As human population growth increases within the ranges of the 
Georgetown and Salado salamanders, such leaks could be threat to these 
species.
    Several groundwater contamination incidents have occurred within 
Salado salamander habitat (Price et al. 1999, p. 10). Big Boiling 
Springs is located on the south bank of Salado Creek, near locations of 
past contamination events (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 43). Between 
1989 and 1993, at least four incidents occurred within 0.25 mi (0.4 km) 
from the spring site, including a 700-gallon (2,650-liter) and 400-
gallon (1,514-liter) gasoline spill and petroleum leaks from two 
underground storage tanks associated with a gas station and a gas 
distributor business, respectively (Price et al. 1999, p. 10). Because 
no follow-up studies were conducted, we have no information to indicate 
what effect these spills had on the species or its habitat. However, 
between 1991 and 1998, only a single salamander was observed at Big 
Boiling Springs despite multiple surveys (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 
43; TPWD 2011, p. 2). Between 2008 and 2010, one salamander was 
confirmed by biologists (Gluesenkamp 2010, TPWD, pers. comm.) at Lil' 
Bubbly Spring, and one additional unconfirmed sighting of a Salado 
salamander in Big Boiling Springs was reported by a citizen of Salado, 
Texas.
    The threat of water quality degradation from an underground storage 
tank alone (that is, without the consideration of additional threat 
sources that may be present at specific sites) could cause irreversible 
declines or extirpation in local populations or significant declines in 
habitat quality of the Georgetown or Salado salamander with only one 
exposure event. This is considered to be an ongoing threat of high 
impact to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. We expect this to 
become a more significant threat in the future for these salamander 
species as urbanization continues to expand within their surface 
watersheds.

Highways

    The transport of hazardous materials is common on many highways, 
which are major transportation routes (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 1). 
Every year, thousands of tons of hazardous materials are transported 
over Texas highways (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 1).

[[Page 10265]]

Transporters of hazardous materials (such as gasoline, cyclic 
hydrocarbons, fuel oils, and pesticides) carry volumes ranging from a 
few gallons up to 10,000 gallons (37,854 liters) or more of hazardous 
material (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 1). An accident involving hazardous 
materials can cause the release of a substantial volume of material 
over a very short period of time. As such, the capability of standard 
stormwater management structures (or best management practices) to trap 
and treat such releases might be overwhelmed (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 
2).
    Interstate Highway 35 crosses the watersheds that contribute 
groundwater to spring sites known to be occupied by the Georgetown and 
Salado salamanders. A catastrophic spill could occur if a transport 
truck overturned and its contents entered the recharge zone of the 
Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. Researchers at Texas Tech 
University reviewed spill records to identify locations or segments of 
highway where spill incidents on Texas roadways are more numerous and, 
therefore, more likely to occur than other areas of Texas. These 
researchers found that one such area is a 10-mi (16-km) radius along 
Interstate Highway 35 within Williamson County (Thompson et al. 2011, 
pp. 25, 44). Three of the five spills reported in this area between 
2000 and 2006 occurred on this highway within the City of Georgetown, 
and one occurred on the same highway within the City of Round Rock 
(Thompson et al. 2011, pp. 25-26, 44). As recently as 2011, a fuel 
tanker overturned in Georgetown and spilled 3,500 gallons (13,249 
liters) of gasoline (McHenry et al. 2011, p. 1). A large plume of 
hydrocarbons was detected within the Edwards Aquifer underneath 
Georgetown in 1997 (Mace et al. 1997, p. 32), possibly the result of a 
leaking fuel storage tank. Thus, spills from Interstate Highway 35 are 
an ongoing threat source. The City of Georgetown's water quality 
ordinance now requires that new roadways or expansions to existing 
roadways that provide a capacity of 25,000 vehicles per day and are 
located on the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone must provide for spill 
containment as described in TCEQ's Optional Enhanced Measures. This 
measure will reduce the threat of hazardous spills on new roadways or 
expansions but does not address the threat from existing roadways.
    Transportation accidents involving hazardous materials spills at 
bridge crossings are of particular concern because recharge areas in 
creek beds can transport contaminants directly into the aquifer 
(Service 2005, p. 1.6-14). Salado salamander sites located downstream 
of Interstate Highway 35 may be particularly vulnerable due to their 
proximity to this major transportation corridor. Interstate Highway 35 
crosses Salado Creek just 760 to 1,100 ft (231 to 335 m) upstream from 
three spring sites (Big Boiling Springs, Lil' Bubbly Springs, and Lazy 
Days Fish Farm Springs) where the Salado salamander is known to occur. 
The highway also crosses the surface watershed of an additional Salado 
salamander site, Robertson Spring. Should a hazardous materials spill 
occur at the Interstate Highway 35 bridge that crosses at Salado Creek 
or over the watershed of Robertson Spring, the Salado salamander could 
be at risk from contaminants entering the water flowing into its 
surface habitat downstream.
    In addition, the Texas Department of Transportation is 
reconstructing a section of Interstate Highway 35 within the Village of 
Salado (Najvar 2009, Service, pers. comm.). This work includes the 
replacement of four bridges that cross Salado Creek (two main lane 
bridges and two frontage road bridges) in an effort to widen the 
highway at this location. This project could affect the risk of 
hazardous materials spills and runoff into Salado Creek upstream of 
known Salado salamander locations. In August 2009, the Texas Department 
of Transportation began working with the Service to identify measures, 
such as the installation of permanent water quality control mechanisms 
to contain runoff, to protect the Salado salamander and its habitat 
from the effects of this project (Najvar 2009, Service, pers. comm.).
    The threat of water quality degradation from highways alone (that 
is, without the consideration of additional threat sources that may be 
present at specific sites) could cause irreversible declines or 
extirpation in local populations or significant declines in habitat 
quality of any of the four central Texas salamander species with only 
one exposure event. We consider this to be an ongoing threat of high 
impact to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. Given the amount of 
urbanization predicted for Williamson and Bell Counties, Texas, the 
risk of exposure from this threat is expected to increase in the future 
as well.

Water and Sewage Lines

    Sewage spills often include contaminants such as nutrients, 
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals, pesticides, 
pharmaceuticals, and high levels of fecal coliform bacteria (Turner and 
O'Donnell 2004, p. 27). Increased ammonia levels and reduced dissolved 
oxygen are the most likely impacts of a sewage spill that could cause 
rapid mortality of large numbers of salamanders (Turner and O'Donnell 
2004, p. 27). Fecal coliform bacteria from sewage spills cause diseases 
in salamanders and their prey base (Turner and O'Donnell 2004, p. 27). 
Municipal water lines that convey treated drinking water throughout the 
surrounding areas of Georgetown and Salado salamander habitat could 
break and potentially flow into surface or subsurface habitat, exposing 
salamanders to chlorine concentrations that are potentially toxic. A 
typical chlorine concentration in a water line is 1.5 mg/L, and a 
lethal concentration of chloride for the related San Marcos salamander 
is 0.088 mg/L (Herrington and Turner 2009, p. 1).
    The Georgetown salamander is particularly exposed to the threat of 
water and sewage lines. As of the date of this rule, there are eight 
water treatment plants within the Georgetown city limits, with 
wastewater and chlorinated drinking water lines running throughout 
Georgetown salamander stream drainages (City of Georgetown 2008, p. 
3.37). A massive wastewater line is being constructed in the South San 
Gabriel River drainage (City of Georgetown 2008, p. 3.22), which is 
within the watershed of one known Georgetown salamander site. Almost 
700 septic systems were permitted or inspected in Georgetown in 2006 
(City of Georgetown 2008, p. 3.36). Service staff also noted a sewage 
line that runs nearby Bat Well Cave. Data submitted to the Service 
during our comment period (SWCA 2012, p. 20) indicated that one 
Georgetown salamander site (Cedar Breaks Spring) had a concentration of 
fecal coliform bacteria [83,600 colony-forming units per 100 
milliliters (cfu/100mL)] 418 times the concentration that the Service 
recommended to be protective of federally listed salamanders (200 cfu/
100mL) (White et al. 2006, p. 51). It is unknown if this elevated 
concentration of fecal coliform bacteria was the result of a sewage or 
septic spill, or what impact this poor water quality had on the Cedar 
Breaks Spring population.
    Spills from sewage and water lines have been documented in the past 
in the central Texas area within the ranges of closely related 
salamander species. There are 9,470 known septic facilities in the 
Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer as of 2010 (Herrington et 
al. 2010, p. 5), up from 4,806 septic systems in 1995 (COA 1995, p. 3-
13). In one COA survey of these septic systems, over 7 percent were 
identified as failing (no longer functioning properly, causing

[[Page 10266]]

water from the septic tank to leak out and accumulate on the ground 
surface) (COA 1995, p. 3-18). Sewage spills from pipelines also have 
been documented in watersheds supporting Jollyville Plateau salamander 
populations (COA 2001, pp. 16, 21, 74). For example, in 2007, a sewage 
line overflowed an estimated 50,000 gallons (190,000 liters) of raw 
sewage into the Stillhouse Hollow drainage area of Bull Creek below the 
area where salamanders are known to occur (COA 2007b, pp. 1-3). The 
human population is projected to increase by 377 percent in the range 
of the Georgetown salamander and by 128 percent in the range of the 
Salado salamander by 2050. We expect that subsequent urbanization will 
increase the prevalence of water and sewage systems within the areas 
where Georgetown and Salado salamander populations are known to occur, 
and thereby increase the exposure of salamanders to this threat source.
    The threat of water quality degradation from water and sewage lines 
alone (that is, without the consideration of additional threat sources 
that may be present at specific sites) could cause irreversible 
declines or extirpation in local populations or significant declines in 
habitat quality with only one exposure event. We consider this to be an 
ongoing threat of high impact to the Georgetown salamander that is 
likely to increase in the future as urbanization expands within the 
ranges of these species. Although we are unaware of any information 
that indicates water and sewage lines are located in areas that could 
impact Salado salamanders if spills occurred, we expect this to become 
a significant threat in the future for this species as urbanization 
continues to expand within its surface watersheds.

Construction Activities

    Short-term increases in pollutants, particularly sediments, can 
occur during construction in areas of new development. When vegetation 
is removed and rain falls on unprotected soils, large discharges of 
suspended sediments can erode from newly exposed areas, resulting in 
increased sedimentation in downstream drainage channels (Schueler 1987, 
pp. 1-4; Turner 2003, p. 24; O'Donnell et al. 2005, p. 15). This 
increased sedimentation from construction activities has been linked to 
declines in Jollyville Plateau salamander counts at multiple sites 
(Turner 2003, p. 24; O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34).
    Cave sites are also impacted by construction, as Testudo Tube Cave 
(Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat) showed an increase in nickel, 
calcium, and nitrates/nitrites after nearby road construction (Richter 
2009, pp. 6-7). Barton Springs (Austin blind salamander habitat) is 
also under the threat of pollutant loading due to its proximity to 
construction activities and the spring's location at the downstream 
side of the watershed (COA 1997, p. 237). The COA (1995, pp. 3-11) 
estimated that construction-related sediment and in-channel erosion 
accounted for approximately 80 percent of the average annual sediment 
load in the Barton Springs watershed. In addition, the COA (1995, pp. 
3-10) estimated that total suspended sediment loads have increased 270 
percent over pre-development loadings within the Barton Springs Segment 
of the Edwards Aquifer. Because the Jollyville Plateau and Barton 
Springs salamanders are similar to the Georgetown and Salado salamander 
with regard to size, morphology, physiology, life history traits and 
habitat requirements, we expect similar declines to occur for the 
Georgetown and Salado salamanders from construction activities as the 
human population growth increases and subsequent development follows 
within surface watersheds of these species.
    At this time, we are not aware of any studies that have examined 
sediment loading due to construction activities within the watersheds 
of Georgetown or Salado salamander habitats. However, because 
construction occurs and is expected to continue in many of these 
watersheds occupied by the Georgetown and Salado salamanders as the 
human population is projected to increase by 377 percent in the range 
of the Georgetown salamander and by 128 percent in the range of the 
Salado salamander by 2050, we have determined that the threat of 
construction in areas of new development applies to these species as 
well. The City of Georgetown's water quality ordinance now requires 
stream buffers for all streams in the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone 
within the City of Georgetown and its ETJ that drain more than 64 acres 
(26 ha). These buffers are similar to those required under similar 
water quality regulations in central Texas and will help reduce the 
amount of sediment and other pollutants that enter waterways.
    The ordinance also requires that permanent structural water quality 
controls for regulated activities over the Edwards Aquifer recharge 
zone must remove 85 percent of total suspended solids for the entire 
project. This increases the amount of total suspended solids that must 
be removed from projects within the City of Georgetown and its ETJ by 5 
percent over the existing requirements (i.e., removal of 80 percent 
total suspended solids) found in the Edwards Aquifer Rules. Lastly, the 
ordinance requires that all developments implement temporary BMPs to 
minimize sediment runoff during construction. Construction is 
intermittent and temporary, but it affects both surface and subsurface 
habitats and is occurring throughout the ranges of these salamanders. 
Therefore, we have determined that this threat is ongoing and will 
continue to affect the Georgetown and Salado salamanders and their 
habitats in the future.
    Also, the physical construction of pipelines, shafts, wells, and 
similar structures that penetrate the subsurface has the potential to 
negatively affect subsurface habitat for salamander species. It is 
known that the Georgetown and Salado salamanders inhabit the subsurface 
environment and that water flows through the subsurface to the surface 
habitat. Tunneling for underground pipelines can destroy potential 
habitat by removing subsurface material, thereby destroying subsurface 
spaces/conduits in which salamanders can live, grow, forage, and 
reproduce. Additional material can become dislodged and result in 
increased sediment loading into the aquifer and associated spring 
systems. In addition, disruption of water flow to springs inhabited by 
salamanders can occur through the construction of tunnels and vertical 
shafts to access them. Because of the complexity of the aquifer and 
subsurface structure and because detailed maps of the underground 
conduits that feed springs in the Edwards Aquifer are not available, 
tunnels and shafts have the possibility of intercepting and severing 
those conduits (COA 2010a, p. 28). Affected springs could rapidly 
become dry and would not support salamander populations. The closer a 
shaft or tunnel location is to a spring, the more likely that the 
construction will impact a spring (COA 2010a, p. 28). Even small shafts 
pose a threat to nearby spring systems. As the human population is 
projected to increase by 377 percent in the range of the Georgetown 
salamander and by 128 percent in the range of the Salado salamander by 
2050, we expect subsurface construction of pipelines, shafts, wells, 
and similar structures to be a threat to their surface and subsurface 
habitats. However, under the City of Georgetown's water quality 
ordinance, these types of activities will no longer be permitted within 
262 ft (80

[[Page 10267]]

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

[[Page 10268]]

    Amphibians, especially their eggs and larvae (which are usually 
restricted to a small area within an aquatic environment), are 
sensitive to many different aquatic pollutants (Harfenist et al. 1989, 
pp. 4-57). Contaminants found in aquatic environments, even at 
sublethal concentrations, may interfere with a salamander's ability to 
develop, grow, or reproduce (Burton and Ingersoll 1994, pp. 120, 125). 
Salamanders in the central Texas region are particularly vulnerable to 
contaminants, because they have evolved under very stable environmental 
conditions, remain aquatic throughout their entire life cycle, have 
highly permeable skin, have severely restricted ranges, and cannot 
escape contaminants in their environment (Turner and O'Donnell 2004, p. 
5). In addition, macroinvertebrates, such as small freshwater 
crustaceans (amphipods and copepods), that aquatic salamanders feed on 
are especially sensitive to water pollution (Phipps et al. 1995, p. 
282; Miller et al. 2007, p. 74; Coles et al. 2012, pp. 64-65). For 
example, studies in the Bull Creek watershed in Austin, Texas, found a 
loss of some sensitive macroinvertebrate species, potentially due to 
contaminants of nutrient enrichment and sediment accumulation (COA 
2001, p. 15; COA 2010b, p. 16). Below, we discuss specific contaminants 
and pollutants that may be impacting the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

    Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a common form of 
aquatic contaminants in urbanized areas that could affect salamanders, 
their habitat, or their prey. This form of pollution can originate from 
petroleum products, such as oil or grease, or from atmospheric 
deposition as a byproduct of combustion (for example, vehicular 
combustion). These pollutants accumulate over time on impervious cover, 
contaminating water supplies through urban and highway runoff (Van 
Metre et al. 2000, p. 4,067; Albers 2003, pp. 345-346). Although 
information is lacking on PAH loading in Williamson and Bell Counties, 
research shows that the main source of PAH loading in Austin-area 
streams is parking lots with coal tar emulsion sealant, even though 
this type of lot only covers 1 to 2 percent of the watersheds (Mahler 
et al. 2005, p. 5,565). A recent analysis of the rate of wear on coal 
tar lots revealed that the sealcoat wears off relatively quickly and 
contributes more to PAH loading than previously thought (Scoggins et 
al. 2009, p. 4,914).
    Petroleum and petroleum byproducts can adversely affect living 
organisms by causing direct toxic action, altering water chemistry, 
reducing light, and decreasing food availability (Albers 2003, p. 349). 
Exposure to PAHs at certain levels can cause impaired reproduction, 
reduced growth and development, and tumors or cancer in species of 
amphibians, reptiles, and other organisms (Albers 2003, p. 354). Coal 
tar pavement sealant slowed hatching, growth, and development of a frog 
(Xenopus laevis) in a laboratory setting (Bryer et al. 2006, pp. 244-
245). High concentrations of PAHs from coal tar sealant negatively 
affected the righting ability (amount of time needed to flip over after 
being placed on back) of adult eastern newts (Notophthalmus 
viridescens) and may have also damaged the newt's liver (Sparling et 
al. 2009, pp. 18-20). For juvenile spotted salamanders (Ambystoma 
maculatum), PAHs reduced growth in the lab (Sparling et al. 2009, p. 
28). Bommarito et al. (2010, pp. 1,151-1,152) found that spotted 
salamanders displayed slower growth rates and diminished swimming 
ability when exposed to PAHs. These contaminants are also known to 
cause death, reduced survival, altered physiological function, 
inhibited reproduction, and changes in community composition of 
freshwater invertebrates (Albers 2003, p. 352). From the information 
available above, we conclude that PAHs are known to cause disruptions 
to the survival, growth, development, and reproduction in a variety of 
amphibian species and alterations to their prey base of aquatic 
invertebrates. Therefore, the same effects are expected to occur to the 
Georgetown and Salado salamanders when exposed to PAHs.
    This form of aquatic contaminant has already been documented in the 
central Texas area within the urbanized ranges of closely related 
salamander species. Limited sampling by the COA has detected PAHs at 
concentrations of concern at multiple sites within the range of the 
Jollyville Plateau salamander. Most notable were the levels of nine 
different PAH compounds at the Spicewood Springs site in the Shoal 
Creek drainage area, which were above concentrations known to adversely 
affect aquatic organisms (O'Donnell et al. 2005, pp. 16-17). The 
Spicewood Springs site is located within an area with greater than 30 
percent impervious cover and down gradient from a commercial business 
that changes vehicle oil. This is also one of the sites where 
salamanders have shown declines in abundance (from an average of 12 
individuals per visit in 1997 to an average of 2 individuals in 2005) 
during the COA's long-term monitoring studies (O'Donnell et al. 2006, 
p. 47). Another study found several PAH compounds in seven Austin-area 
streams, including Barton, Bull, and Walnut Creeks, downstream of coal 
tar sealant parking lots (Scoggins et al. 2007, p. 697). Sites with 
high concentrations of PAHs (located in Barton and Walnut Creeks) had 
fewer macroinvertebrate species and lower macroinvertebrate density 
(Scoggins et al. 2007, p. 700). This form of contamination has also 
been detected at Barton Springs, which is the Austin blind salamander's 
habitat (COA 1997, p. 10).
    The threat of water quality degradation from PAH exposure alone 
(that is, without the consideration of additional threat sources that 
may be present at specific sites) could cause irreversible declines or 
extirpation in local populations or significant declines in habitat 
quality of any of the Georgetown and Salado salamander sites with 
continuous or repeated exposure. In some instances, exposure to PAH 
contamination could negatively impact a salamander population in 
combination with exposure to other sources of water quality 
degradation, resulting in significant habitat declines or other 
significant negative impacts (such as loss of invertebrate prey 
species). We consider water quality degradation from PAH contamination 
to be a threat of high impact to Georgetown and Salado salamanders now 
and in the future as urbanization increases within these species' 
surface watersheds.

Pesticides

    Pesticides (including herbicides and insecticides) are also 
associated with urban areas. Sources of pesticides include lawns, road 
rights-of-way, and managed turf areas, such as golf courses, parks, and 
ball fields. Pesticide application is also common in residential, 
recreational, and agricultural areas. Pesticides have the potential to 
leach into groundwater through the soil or be washed into streams by 
stormwater runoff. Pesticides are known to impact amphibian species in 
a number of ways. For example, Reylea (2009, p. 370) demonstrated that 
diazinon reduces growth and development in larval amphibians. Another 
pesticide, carbaryl, causes mortality and deformities in larval 
streamside salamanders (Ambystoma barbouri) (Rohr et al. 2003, p. 
2,391). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2007, p. 9) also 
found that carbaryl is likely to adversely affect the

[[Page 10269]]

Barton Springs salamander both directly and indirectly through 
reduction of prey. Additionally, atrazine has been shown to impair 
sexual development in male amphibians (African clawed frogs) at 
concentrations as low as 0.1 parts per billion (Hayes 2002, p. 5,477). 
Atrazine levels were found to be greater than 0.44 parts per billion 
after rainfall in Barton Springs Pool (Mahler and Van Mere 2000, pp. 4, 
12). From the information available above, we conclude that pesticides 
are known to cause disruptions to the survival, growth, development, 
and reproduction in a variety of amphibian species. Therefore, we 
conclude such effects may occur to the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders when exposed to pesticides as well.
    We acknowledge that in 2007 a Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) of 
the EPA reviewed the available information on atrazine effects on 
amphibians and concluded that atrazine concentrations less than 100 
[micro]g/L had no effects on clawed frogs. However, the 2012 SAP is 
currently re-examining the conclusions of the 2007 SAP using a meta-
analysis of published studies along with additional studies on more 
species (EPA 2012, p. 35). The 2012 SAP expressed concern that some 
studies were discounted in the 2007 SAP analysis, including studies 
like Hayes (2002, p. 5,477) that indicated that atrazine is linked to 
endocrine (hormone) disruption in amphibians (EPA 2012, p. 35). In 
addition, the 2007 SAP noted that their results on clawed frogs are 
insufficient to make global conclusions about the effects of atrazine 
on all amphibian species (EPA 2012, p. 33). Accordingly, the 2012 SAP 
has recommended further testing on at least three amphibian species 
before a conclusion can be reached that atrazine has no effect on 
amphibians at concentrations less than 100 [micro]g/L (EPA 2012, p. 
33). Due to potential differences in species sensitivity, exposure 
scenarios that may include dozens of chemical stressors simultaneously, 
and multigenerational effects that are not fully understood, we 
continue to view pesticides, including carbaryl, atrazine, and many 
others to which aquatic organisms may be exposed, as a potential threat 
to water quality, salamander health, and the health of aquatic 
organisms that comprise the diet of salamanders.
    The threat of water quality degradation from pesticide exposure 
alone (that is, without the consideration of additional threat sources 
that may be present at specific sites) could cause irreversible 
declines or extirpation in local populations or significant declines in 
habitat quality of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. In some 
instances, exposure to pesticide contamination could negatively impact 
a salamander population in combination with exposure to other sources 
of water quality degradation, resulting in significant habitat declines 
or other significant negative impacts (such as loss of invertebrate 
prey species). Although the best available information does not 
indicate that pesticides have been detected in the aquatic environments 
within the ranges of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders to date 
(SWCA 2012, pp. 17-18), we expect this to become a significant threat 
in the future for these species as the human population expands within 
their surface watersheds.

Nutrients

    Nutrient input (such as phosphorus and nitrogen) to watershed 
drainages, which often results in abnormally high organic growth in 
aquatic ecosystems, can originate from multiple sources, such as human 
and animal wastes, industrial pollutants, and fertilizers (from lawns, 
golf courses, or croplands) (Garner and Mahler 2007, p. 29). As the 
human population grows and subsequent urbanization occurs within the 
ranges of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders, they will likely 
become more susceptible to the effects of excessive nutrients within 
their habitats because their exposure increases. To illustrate, an 
estimated 102,262 domestic dogs and cats (pet waste is a potential 
source of excessive nutrients) were known to occur within the Barton 
Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer in 2010 (Herrington et al. 2010, 
p. 15). Their distributions were correlated with human population 
density (Herrington et al. 2010, p. 15).
    Human population growth will bring about an increase in the use of 
nutrients that are harmful to aquatic species, such as the Georgetown 
and Salado salamanders. This was the case as urban development 
increased within the Jollyville Plateau salamander's range. Various 
residential properties and golf courses use fertilizers to maintain 
turf grass within watersheds where Jollyville Plateau salamander 
populations are known to occur (COA 2003, pp. 1-7). Analysis of water 
quality attributes conducted by the COA (1997, pp. 8-9) showed 
significant differences in nitrate, ammonia, total dissolved solids, 
total suspended solids, and turbidity concentrations between watersheds 
dominated by golf courses, residential land, and rural land. Golf 
course tributaries were found to have higher concentrations of these 
constituents than residential tributaries, and both golf course and 
residential tributaries had substantially higher concentrations for 
these five water quality attributes than rural tributaries (COA 1997, 
pp. 8-9).
    Residential irrigation of wastewater effluent is another source 
that leads to excessive nutrient input aquatic systems, as has been 
identified in the recharge and contributing zones of the Barton Springs 
Segment of the Edwards Aquifer (Ross 2011, pp. 11-18; Mahler et al. 
2011, pp. 16-23). Wastewater effluent permits do not require treatment 
to remove metals, pharmaceutical chemicals, or the wide range of 
chemicals found in body care products, soaps, detergents, pesticides, 
or other cleaning products (Ross 2011, p. 6). These chemicals remaining 
in treated wastewater effluent can enter streams and the aquifer and 
alter water quality within salamander habitat. A USGS study found 
nitrate concentrations in Barton Springs and the five streams that 
provide most of its recharge much higher during 2008 to 2010 than 
before 2008 (USGS 2011, pp. 1-4). Additionally, nitrate levels in water 
samples collected between 2003 and 2010 from Barton Creek tributaries 
exceeded TCEQ screening levels and were identified as screening level 
concerns (TCEQ 2012a, p. 344). The rapid development over the Barton 
Springs contributing zone since 2000 was associated with an increase in 
the generation of wastewater (Mahler et al. 2011, p. 29). Septic 
systems and land-applied treated wastewater effluent are likely sources 
contributing nitrate to the recharging streams (Mahler et al. 2011, p. 
29).
    As of November 2010, the permitted volume of irrigated flow in the 
contributing zone of the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer 
was 3,300,000 gallons (12,491 kiloliters) per day. About 95 percent of 
that volume was permitted during 2005 to 2010 (Mahler et al. 2011, p. 
30). As the human population is projected to increase by 377 percent in 
the range of the Georgetown salamander and by 128 percent in the range 
of the Salado salamander by 2050, we expect the permitted volume of 
irrigated flow of wastewater effluent in the contributing zone of the 
Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer to increase considerably.
    Excessive nutrient input into aquatic systems can increase plant 
growth (including algae blooms), which pulls more oxygen out of the 
water when the dead plant matter decomposes, resulting in less oxygen 
being available in the water for salamanders to breathe (Schueler 1987, 
pp. 1.5-1.6; Ross 2011,

[[Page 10270]]

p. 7). A reduction in dissolved oxygen concentrations could not only 
affect respiration in salamander species, but also lead to decreased 
metabolic functioning and growth in juveniles (Woods et al. 2010, p. 
544), or death (Ross 2011, p. 6). Excessive plant material can also 
reduce stream velocities and increase sediment deposition (Ross 2011, 
p. 7). When the interstitial spaces become compacted or filled with 
fine sediment, the amount of available foraging habitat and protective 
cover is reduced (Welsh and Ollivier 1998, p. 1,128).
    Increased nitrate levels have been known to affect amphibians by 
altering feeding activity and causing disequilibrium and physical 
abnormalities (Marco et al. 1999, p. 2,837). Nitrate toxicity studies 
have indicated that salamanders and other amphibians are sensitive to 
these pollutants (Marco et al. 1999, p. 2,837). Some studies have 
indicated that nitrate concentrations between 1.0 and 3.6 mg/L can be 
toxic to aquatic organisms (Rouse 1999, p. 802; Camargo et al. 2005, p. 
1,264; Hickey et al. 2009, pp. ii, 17-18). Nitrate concentrations have 
been documented within this range (1.85 mg/L) at one Salado salamander 
site (Lazy Days Fish Farm, which is reported as Critchfield Springs in 
Norris et al. 2012, p. 14) and higher than this range (4.05 mg/L, 4.28 
mg/L, and 4.21 mg/L) at three Salado salamander sites (Big Boiling, 
Lil' Bubbly, and Robertson Springs, respectively) (Norris et al. 2012, 
pp. 23-25). Likewise, nitrate samples taken at a Georgetown salamander 
site (Swinbank Springs) were found to be as high as 3.32 mg/L (SWCA 
2012, pp. 15, 20). For comparison, nitrate levels in undeveloped 
Edwards Aquifer springs (watersheds without high levels of 
urbanization) are typically close to 1 mg/L (O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 
26). From the information available on the effects of elevated nitrate 
levels on amphibian species, we conclude that the salamanders at these 
sites may be experiencing impairments to their respiratory, metabolic, 
and feeding capabilities.
    We also assessed the risk of exposure to sources of excessive 
nutrient input for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders by examining 
2012 Google Earth aerial imagery. For the 12 known surface sites of the 
Georgetown salamander, we found 3 have golf courses; 3 have livestock; 
and we assumed that 10 of the surface watersheds are accessible to 
feral hogs given that they are common across the landscape and because 
we could not identify any fencing that would exclude them from these 
areas. In addition, we found that surface watersheds for six of the 
seven known Salado salamander sites have livestock access. We also 
assumed these six surface watersheds contain feral hogs.
    The threat of water quality degradation from excessive nutrient 
exposure alone (that is, without the consideration of additional threat 
sources that may be present at specific sites) could cause irreversible 
declines or extirpation in local populations or significant declines in 
habitat quality of any of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders with 
continuous or repeated exposure. In some instances, exposure to 
excessive nutrient exposure could negatively impact a salamander 
population in combination with exposure to other sources of water 
quality degradation, resulting in significant habitat declines. The 
City of Georgetown's water quality ordinance requires that permanent 
structural water quality controls for regulated activities over the 
Edwards Aquifer recharge zone must remove 85 percent of total suspended 
solids for the entire project. This increases the amount of total 
suspended solids that must be removed from projects within the City of 
Georgetown and its ETJ by 5 percent over the existing requirements 
(i.e. removal of 80 percent total suspended solids) found in the 
Edwards Aquifer Rules. Although structural water quality controls are 
generally less efficient at removing nutrients from stormwater, by 
increasing the required removal of total suspended solids, the 
implementation of the ordinance will result in an increase in the 
amount of nutrients removed from stormwater. In addition, the ordinance 
now requires stream buffers for all streams in the Edwards Aquifer 
recharge zone within the City of Georgetown and its ETJ that drain more 
than 64 ac (26 ha). These buffers are similar to those required under 
similar water quality regulations in central Texas and will help reduce 
the amount of nutrients and other pollutants that enter waterways. 
However, we still consider excessive nutrient exposure to be an ongoing 
threat of high impact for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders that is 
likely to continue in the future.

Changes in Water Chemistry

Conductivity

    Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to carry an 
electrical current and can be used to approximate the concentration of 
dissolved inorganic solids in water that can alter the internal water 
balance in aquatic organisms, affecting the four central Texas 
salamanders' survival. Conductivity levels in the Edwards Aquifer are 
naturally low, ranging from approximately 550 to 700 microsiemens per 
centimeter ([mu]S cm-1) (derived from several conductivity 
measurements in two references: Turner 2005, pp. 8-9; O'Donnell et al. 
2006, p. 29). As ion concentrations, such as chlorides, sodium, 
sulfates, and nitrates rise, conductivity will increase. These 
compounds are the chemical products or byproducts of many common 
pollutants that originate from urban environments (Menzer and Nelson 
1980, p. 633), which are often transported to streams via stormwater 
runoff from impervious cover. This combined with the stability of the 
measured ions makes conductivity an excellent monitoring tool for 
assessing the impacts of urbanization to overall water quality.
    Conductivity can be influenced by weather. Rainfall serves to 
dilute ions and lower conductivity while drought has the opposite 
effect. The trends of increasing conductivity in urban watersheds were 
evident under baseflow conditions and during a period when 
precipitation was above average in all but 3 years, so drought was not 
a factor (NOAA 2013, pp. 1-7). The COA also monitored water quality as 
impervious cover increased in several subdivisions with known 
Jollyville Plateau salamander sites between 1996 and 2007. They found 
increasing ions (calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate) and nitrates with 
increasing impervious cover at four Jollyville Plateau salamander sites 
and as a general trend during the course of the study from 1997 to 2006 
(Herrington et al. 2007, pp. 13-14). These results indicate that 
developed watersheds can alter the water chemistry within salamander 
habitats.
    High conductivity has been associated with declining salamander 
abundance in a species that is closely related to the Georgetown and 
Salado salamanders. For example, three of the four sites with 
statistically significant declining Jollyville Plateau salamander 
counts from 1997 to 2006 are cited as having high conductivity readings 
(O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 37). Similar correlations were shown in 
studies comparing developed and undeveloped sites from 1996 to 1998 
(Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 117-118). This analysis found significantly 
lower numbers of salamanders and significantly higher measures of 
specific conductance at developed sites as compared to undeveloped 
sites (Bowles et al. 2006, pp. 117-118). Tributary 5 of Bull Creek has 
had an increase in conductivity, chloride, and sodium and a decrease in

[[Page 10271]]

invertebrate diversity from 1996 to 2008 (COA 2010b, p. 16). Only one 
Jollyville Plateau salamander has been observed here from 2009 to 2010 
in quarterly surveys (Bendik 2011a, p. 16). A separate analysis found 
that ions such as chloride and sulfate increased in Barton Creek 
despite the enactment of city-wide water quality control ordinances 
(Turner 2007, p. 7). Poor water quality, as measured by high specific 
conductance and elevated levels of ion concentrations, is cited as one 
of the likely factors leading to statistically significant declines in 
salamander counts at the COA's long-term monitoring sites (O'Donnell et 
al. 2006, p. 46). Because the Jollyville Plateau salamander is similar 
to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders with regard to morphology, 
physiology, habitat requirements, and life history traits, we expect 
similar declines of Georgetown and Salado salamanders as impervious 
cover increases within Williamson and Bell Counties, Texas. The human 
population is projected to increase by 377 percent in the range of the 
Georgetown salamander and by 128 percent in the range of the Salado 
salamander by 2050, so we expect that conductivity levels within the 
areas where Georgetown and Salado salamander populations are known to 
occur will increase the exposure of salamanders to this stressor.
    The threat of water quality degradation from high conductivity 
alone (that is, without the consideration of additional threat sources 
that may be present at specific sites) could cause irreversible 
declines or extirpation in local populations or significant declines in 
habitat quality of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders with 
continuous or repeated exposure. In some instances, exposure to high 
conductivity could negatively impact a salamander population in 
combination with exposure to other sources of water quality 
degradation, resulting in significant habitat declines. Although the 
best available information does not indicate that increased 
conductivity is occurring within the ranges of the Georgetown and 
Salado salamanders to date (SWCA 2012, p. 19), we expect this to become 
a significant threat in the future for these species as urbanization 
continues to expand within their surface watersheds.

Changes in Prey Base Community

    As noted above, stressors from urbanization such as contaminants 
can alter the invertebrate community of a water body by replacing 
sensitive species with species that are more tolerant of pollution 
(Schueler 1994, p. 104; Coles et al. 2012, pp. 4, 58). This shift in 
community can have negative, indirect effects on Georgetown and Salado 
salamander populations. Studies on closely related species of 
salamanders have shown these predators to be sensitive to changes in 
the species composition of their prey base. For example, Johnson and 
Wallace (2005, pp. 305-306) found that when the Blue Ridge two-lined 
salamander (Eurycea wilderae) fed on an altered composition of prey 
species, salamander densities were lower compared to salamanders 
feeding on an unaltered prey community. The researchers partly 
attributed this difference in density to reduced larval growth caused 
by the lack of nutrition in the diet (Johnson and Wallace 2005, p. 
309). Another study on the Tennessee cave salamander (Gyrinophilus 
palleucus) found the prey composition of salamanders within one cave 
differed from another cave, and this difference resulted in significant 
differences in salamander densities and biomass (Huntsman et al. 2011, 
pp. 1750-1753). Based on this literature, we conclude that the species 
composition of invertebrates is an important factor in determining the 
health of Georgetown and Salado salamander populations. Although the 
best available information does not indicate shifting invertebrate 
communities within the ranges of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders, 
we expect this to become a significant threat in the future for these 
species as urbanization continues to expand within their surface 
watersheds.

Water Quantity Degradation

    Water quantity decreases and spring flow declines are considered 
threats to Eurycea salamanders (Corn et al. 2003, p. 36; Bowles et al. 
2006, p. 111) because drying spring habitats can cause salamanders to 
be stranded, resulting in death of individuals (O'Donnell et al. 2006, 
p. 16). It is also known that prey availability is low underground due 
to the lack of primary production (Hobbs and Culver 2009, p. 392). 
Therefore, relying entirely on subsurface habitat during dry conditions 
on the surface may negatively impact the salamanders' feeding abilities 
and slow individual and population growth. Ultimately, dry surface 
conditions can exacerbate the risk of extirpation in combination with 
other threats occurring at the site. In addition, water quantity 
increases in the form of large spring discharge events and flooding may 
impact salamander populations by flushing individuals downstream into 
unsuitable habitat (Petranka and Sih 1986, p. 732; Barrett et al. 2010, 
p. 2,003) or forcing individuals into subsurface habitat refuge (Bendik 
2011b, COA, pers. comm.; Bendik and Gluesenkamp 2012, pp. 3-4). Below, 
we evaluate the sources of water quantity alterations in Georgetown and 
Salado salamander habitat.

Urbanization

    Increased urbanization in the watershed has been cited as one 
factor, particularly in combination with drought that causes 
alterations in spring flows (COA 2006, pp. 46-47; TPWD 2011, pp. 4-5; 
Coles et al. 2012. p. 10). This is partly due to increases in 
groundwater pumping and reductions in baseflow due to impervious cover. 
Urbanization removes the ability of a watershed to allow slow 
filtration of water through soils following rain events. Instead 
rainfall runs off impervious surfaces and into stream channels at 
higher rates, increasing downstream ``flash'' flows and decreasing 
groundwater recharge and subsequent baseflows from springs (Miller et 
al. 2007, p. 74; Coles et al. 2012, pp. 2, 19). Urbanization can also 
impact water quantity by increasing groundwater pumping and altering 
the natural flow regime of streams. These stressors are discussed in 
more detail below.
    Urbanization can also result in increased groundwater pumping, 
which has a direct impact on spring flows, particularly under drought 
conditions. From 1980 to 2000, groundwater pumping in the Northern 
Segment of the Edwards Aquifer nearly doubled (TWDB 2003, pp. 32-33). 
Municipal wells within 500 ft (152 m) of San Gabriel Springs 
(Georgetown salamander habitat) now flow in the summer only 
intermittently due to pumping from nearby water wells (Booker 2011, 
Service, pers. comm.). Georgetown salamanders have not been found there 
since 1991 despite searches for them (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 40; 
Pierce 2011b, Southwestern University, pers. comm.).
    Furthermore, water levels in Williamson County wells were lower in 
2005 than in 1995 (Boghici 2011, pp. 28-29). The declining water levels 
are attributed in part to groundwater pumping by industrial and public 
supply users (Berehe 2005, p. 18). Pumpage from the Edwards Aquifer has 
consistently exceeded the estimate available supply between 1985 and 
1997 in Williamson County (Ridgeway and Petrini 1999, p. 35). Over a 
50-year horizon (2001 to 2050), models predict a gradual long-term 
water-level decline will occur in the Pflugerville-Round Rock-
Georgetown area of Williamson County (Berehe 2005, p. 2). There are 34

[[Page 10272]]

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

[[Page 10273]]

population sizes or habitat quality for the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders. Also, it could cause irreversible declines or the 
extirpation of a salamander population at a site with continuous 
exposure. Although we do not consider water quantity degradation from 
urbanization to be a significant threat to Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders at the present time, we expect this threat to become 
significant in the future as urbanization expands within these species' 
surface watersheds.

Drought

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

Climate Change

    Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act include consideration 
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and 
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and 
variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 
years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or 
longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term ``climate 
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or 
more measures of climate (for example, temperature or precipitation) 
that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, 
whether the change is due to natural variability,

[[Page 10274]]

human activity, or both (IPCC 2007a, p. 78).
    According to the IPCC (2007b, p. 1), ``Warming of the climate 
system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases 
in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of 
snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.'' Average Northern 
Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were 
very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 
years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years (IPCC 
2007b, p. 1). It is very likely that from 1950 to 2012 cold days and 
nights have become less frequent, and hot days and hot nights have 
become more frequent on a global scale (IPCC 2013, p. 4). It is likely 
that the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events has 
increased over North America (IPCC 2013, p. 4).
    The IPCC (2013, pp. 15-16) predicts that changes in the global 
climate system during the 21st century are very likely to be larger 
than those observed during the 20th century. For the next two decades 
(2016 to 2035), a warming of 0.3 [deg]C (0.5[emsp14][deg]F) to 0.7 
[deg]C (1.3[emsp14][deg]F) per decade is projected (IPCC 2013, p. 15). 
Afterwards, temperature projections increasingly depend on specific 
emission scenarios (IPCC 2007b, p. 6). Various emissions scenarios 
suggest that by the end of the 21st century, average global 
temperatures are expected to increase 0.3 [deg]C to 4.8 [deg]C 
(0.5[emsp14][deg]F to 8.6[emsp14][deg]F), relative to 1986 to 2005 
(IPCC 2013, p. 15). By the end of 2100, it is virtually certain that 
there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes 
over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales, and it is very 
likely that heat waves and extreme precipitation events will occur with 
a higher frequency and intensity (IPCC 2013, pp. 15-16).
    Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the 
only or the best scientific information available for us to use. 
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary 
substantially across and within different regions of the world (for 
example, IPCC 2007b, p. 9). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' 
projections when they are available and have been developed through 
appropriate scientific procedures, because such projections provide 
higher resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales 
used for analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, 
for a discussion of downscaling). With regard to our analysis for the 
Georgetown and Salado species, downscaled projections are available.
    Localized projections suggest the southwest may experience the 
greatest temperature increase of any area in the lower 48 States (IPCC 
2007b, p. 8). Temperature in Texas is expected to increase by up to 4.8 
[deg]C (8.6[emsp14][deg]F) by the end of 2100 (Jiang and Yang 2012, p. 
235). The IPCC also predicts that hot extremes and heat waves will 
increase in frequency and that many semi-arid areas like the western 
United States will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate 
change (IPCC 2007b, p. 8). Model projections of future climate in 
southwestern North America show a transition to a more arid climate 
that began in the late 20th and early 21st centuries (Seager et al. 
2007, p. 1183). Milly et al. (2005, p. 349) project a 10 to 30 percent 
decrease in stream flow in mid-latitude western North America by the 
year 2050 based on an ensemble of 12 climate models. Based on 
downscaling global models of climate change, Texas is expected to 
receive up to 20 percent less precipitation in winters and up to 10 
percent more precipitation in summers (Jiang and Yang 2012, p. 238). 
However, most regions in Texas are predicted to become drier as 
temperatures increase (Jiang and Yang 2012, pp. 240-242).
    An increased risk of drought in Texas could occur if evaporation 
exceeds precipitation levels in a particular region due to increased 
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (CH2M HILL 2007, p. 18). A reduction 
of recharge to aquifers and a greater likelihood for more extreme 
droughts, such as the droughts of 2008 to 2009 and 2011, were 
identified as potential climate change-related impacts to water 
resources (CH2M HILL 2007, p. 23). Extreme droughts in Texas are now 
much more probable than they were 40 to 50 years ago (Rupp et al. 2012, 
pp. 1053-1054).
    Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on 
species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they 
may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant 
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables 
(for example, habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-14, 18-19). 
Identifying likely effects often involves aspects of climate change 
vulnerability analysis. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a 
species (or system) is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse 
effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. 
Vulnerability is a function of the type, magnitude, and rate of climate 
change and variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity, 
and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al. 
2011, pp. 19-22). There is no single method for conducting such 
analyses that applies to all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We 
use our expert judgment and appropriate analytical approaches to weigh 
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of 
various aspects of climate change.
    Climate change could compound the threat of decreased water 
quantity at salamander spring sites. Recharge, pumping, natural 
discharge, and saline intrusion of Texas groundwater systems could all 
be affected by climate change (Mace and Wade 2008, p. 657). Although 
climate change predictions on the Northern Segment of the Edwards 
Aquifer are not available, the Southern Edwards Aquifer is predicted to 
experience additional stress from climate change that could lead to 
decreased recharge (Lo[aacute]iciga et al. 2000, pp. 192-193). In 
addition, CH2M HILL (2007, pp. 22-23) identified possible effects of 
climate change on water resources within the Lower Colorado River 
Watershed (which contributes recharge to the Barton Springs Segment of 
the Edwards Aquifer, just south of the range of the Georgetown and 
Salado salamanders). We therefore conclude that the best available 
evidence indicates that the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer 
will respond similarly to climate change as the rest of the Edwards 
Aquifer.
    Rainfall and ambient temperatures are factors that may affect 
Georgetown and Salado salamander populations. Different ambient 
temperatures in the season that rainfall occurs can influence spring 
water temperature if aquifers have fast transmission of rainfall to 
springs (Martin and Dean 1999, p. 238). Gillespie (2011, p. 24) found 
that reproductive success and juvenile survivorship in the Barton 
Springs salamander may be significantly influenced by fluctuations in 
mean monthly water temperature. This study also found that groundwater 
temperature is influenced by the season in which rainfall events occur 
over the recharge zone of the aquifer. When recharging rainfall events 
occur in winter when ambient temperature is low, mean monthly water 
temperature within the aquatic habitat of this species can drop as low 
as 65.5 [deg]F (18.6 [deg]C) and remain below the annual average 
temperature of 70.1 [deg]F (21.2 [deg]C) for several months (Gillespie 
2011, p. 24).
    In summary, the threat of water quantity degradation from climate 
change could negatively impact the Georgetown and Salado salamanders in 
combination with other threats and

[[Page 10275]]

contribute to significant declines in population sizes or habitat 
quality. We consider this to be a threat of moderate impact for the 
Georgetown and Salado salamanders now and in the future.

Physical Modification of Surface Habitat

    The Georgetown and Salado salamanders are sensitive to direct 
physical modification of surface habitat from sedimentation, 
impoundments, flooding, feral hogs, livestock, and human activities. 
Direct mortality to salamanders can also occur as a result of these 
stressors, such as being crushed by feral hogs, livestock, or humans.

Sedimentation

    Elevated mobilization of sediment (mixture of silt, sand, clay, and 
organic debris) is a stressor that occurs as a result of increased 
velocity of water running off impervious surfaces (Schram 1995, p. 88; 
Arnold and Gibbons 1996, pp. 244-245). Increased rates of stormwater 
runoff also cause increased erosion through scouring in headwater areas 
and sediment deposition in downstream channels (Booth 1991, pp. 93, 
102-105; Schram 1995, p. 88). Waterways are adversely affected in urban 
areas, where impervious cover levels are high, by sediment loads that 
are washed into streams or aquifers during storm events. Sediments are 
either deposited into layers or become suspended in the water column 
(Ford and Williams 1989, p. 537; Mahler and Lynch 1999, p. 177). 
Sediment derived from soil erosion has been cited as the greatest 
single source of pollution of surface waters by volume (Menzer and 
Nelson 1980, p. 632).
    Excessive sediment from stormwater runoff is a threat to the 
physical habitat of salamanders because it can cover substrates 
(Geismar 2005, p. 2). Sediments suspended in water can clog gill 
structures in aquatic animals, which can impair breathing and reduce 
their ability to avoid predators or locate food sources due to 
decreased visibility (Schueler 1987, p. 1.5). Excessive deposition of 
sediment in streams can physically reduce the amount of available 
habitat and protective cover for aquatic organisms, by filling the 
interstitial spaces of gravel and rocks where they could otherwise 
hide. As an example, a California study found that densities of two 
aquatic salamander species were significantly lower in streams that 
experienced a large infusion of sediment from road construction after a 
storm event (Welsh and Ollivier 1998, pp. 1,118-1,132). The 
vulnerability of the aquatic salamander species in this California 
study was attributed to their reliance on interstitial spaces in the 
streambed habitats (Welsh and Ollivier 1998, p. 1,128).
    Excessive sedimentation has contributed to declines in Jollyville 
Plateau salamander populations in the past. Monitoring by the COA found 
that, as sediment deposition increased at several sites, salamander 
abundances significantly decreased (COA 2001, pp. 101, 126). 
Additionally, the COA found that sediment deposition rates have 
increased significantly along one of the long-term monitoring sites 
(Bull Creek Tributary 5) as a result of construction activities 
upstream (O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34). This site has had significant 
declines in salamander abundance, based on 10 years of monitoring, and 
the COA attributes this decline to the increases in sedimentation 
(O'Donnell et al. 2006, pp. 34-35). The location of this monitoring 
site is within a large preserved tract. However, the headwaters of this 
drainage are outside the preserve and the development in this area 
increased sedimentation downstream and impacted salamander habitat 
within the preserved tract.
    Effects of sedimentation on the Georgetown and Salado salamanders 
are expected to be similar to the effects on the Barton Spring 
salamanders based on similarities in their ecology and life-history 
needs. Barton Spring salamander population numbers are adversely 
affected by high turbidity and sedimentation (COA 1997, p. 13). 
Sediments discharge through Barton Springs, even during baseflow 
conditions (not related to a storm event) (Geismar 2005, p. 12). Storms 
can increase sedimentation rates substantially (Geismar 2005, p. 12). 
Areas in the immediate vicinity of the spring outflows lack sediment, 
but the remaining bedrock is sometimes covered with a layer of sediment 
several inches thick (Geismar 2005, p. 5). Further, urban development 
within the watersheds of Georgetown and Salado salamander sites will 
increase sedimentation and degrade water quality in salamander habitat 
both during and after construction activities. However, the City of 
Georgetown's water quality ordinance requires that permanent structural 
water quality controls for regulated activities over the Edwards 
Aquifer recharge zone must remove 85 percent of total suspended solids 
for the entire project. This increases the amount of total suspended 
solids that must be removed from projects within the City of Georgetown 
and its ETJ by 5 percent over the existing requirements (i.e. removal 
of 80 percent total suspended solids) found in the Edwards Aquifer 
Rules. Additional threats from sediments as a source of contaminants 
were discussed in the ``Contaminants and Pollutants'' under the ``Water 
Quality Degradation'' section above.
    The threat of physical modification of surface habitat from 
sedimentation by itself could cause irreversible declines in population 
sizes or habitat quality for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. It 
could also negatively impact the species in combination with other 
threats to contribute to significant declines. Although we do not 
consider this to be an ongoing threat to the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders at the present time, we expect physical modification of 
surface habitat from sedimentation to become a significant threat in 
the future as urbanization expands within these species' surface 
watersheds.

Impoundments

    Impoundments can alter the Georgetown and Salado salamanders' 
physical habitat in a variety of ways that are detrimental. 
Impoundments can alter the natural flow regime of streams, increase 
siltation, support larger, predatory fish (Bendik 2011b, COA, pers. 
comm.), leading to a variety of impacts to the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders and their surface habitats. For example, a low water 
crossing on a tributary of Bull Creek occupied by the Jollyville 
Plateau salamander resulted in sediment build-up above the impoundment 
and a scour hole below the impoundment that supported predaceous fish 
(Bendik 2011b, COA, pers. comm.). As a result, Jollyville Plateau 
salamanders were not found in this degraded habitat after the 
impoundment was constructed. When the crossing was removed in October 
2008, the sediment build-up was removed, the scour hole was filled, and 
Jollyville Plateau salamanders were later observed (Bendik 2011b, COA, 
pers. comm.).
    Impoundments have also impacted some of the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders' surface habitats. Two sites for the Georgetown salamander 
(Cobb Spring and Shadow Canyon) have spring openings that are 
surrounded at least in part by brick and mortar impoundments (White 
2011, SWCA, pers. comm.; Booker 2011, Service, pers. comm.), presumably 
to collect the spring water for cattle. San Gabriel Springs is also 
impounded with a substrate of aquarium gravel (Booker 2011, Service, 
pers. comm.). However, the future threat of impoundments at occupied 
Georgetown salamander sites has been reduced through the City of

[[Page 10276]]

Georgetown's water quality ordinance. The ordinance established a 984-
ft (300-m) buffer zone within which the construction of impoundments 
would not be permitted. In addition, all springs within the City of 
Georgetown or its ETJ will be protected by a 164-ft (50-m) buffer zone. 
Two sites for the Salado salamander (Cistern Springs and Lazy Days Fish 
Farm) have been modified by impoundments.
    The threat of physical modification of surface habitat from 
impoundments by itself may not be likely to cause significant 
population declines, but it could negatively impact the Salado 
salamander in combination with other threats and contribute to 
significant declines in the population size or habitat quality. We 
consider impoundments to be an ongoing threat of moderate impact to the 
Salado salamander and their surface habitats that will continue in the 
future. Due to the City of Georgetown's water quality ordinance, we do 
not expect additional Georgetown salamander sites to be impounded in 
the future.

Flooding

    Flooding as a result of rainfall events can considerably alter the 
substrate and hydrology of salamander habitat, negatively impacting 
salamander populations and behavior (Rudolph 1978, p. 155). Extreme 
flood events have occurred in the Georgetown and Salado salamanders' 
surface habitats (Pierce 2011a, p. 10; TPWD 2011, p. 6; Turner 2009, p. 
11; O'Donnell et al. 2005, p. 15). A flood in September 2010 modified 
surface habitat for the Georgetown salamander in at least two sites 
(Swinbank Spring and Twin Springs) (Pierce 2011a, p. 10). The 
stormwater runoff caused erosion, scouring of the streambed channel, 
the loss of large rocks, and the creation of several deep pools. 
Georgetown salamander densities dropped dramatically in the days 
following the flood (Pierce 2011a, p. 11). At Twin Springs, Georgetown 
salamander densities increased some during the winter following the 
flood and again within 2 weeks after habitat restoration took place 
(returning large rocks to the spring run) in the spring of 2011 (Pierce 
2011a, p. 11). Likewise, three storm events in 2009 and 2010 deposited 
sediment and other material on top of spring openings at Salado Spring 
(TPWD 2011, p. 6). The increased flow rate from flooding causes 
unusually high dissolved oxygen concentrations, which may exert direct 
or indirect, sub-lethal effects (reduced reproduction or foraging 
success) on salamanders (Turner 2009, p. 11).
    Salamanders also may be flushed from the surface habitat by strong 
flows during flooding, which can result in death by predation or by 
physical trauma, as has been observed in other aquatic salamander 
species (Baumgartner et al. 1999, p. 36; Sih et al. 1992, p. 1,429). 
Bowles et al. (2006, p. 117) observed no Jollyville Plateau salamanders 
in riffle habitat at one site during high water velocities and 
hypothesized that individual salamanders were either flushed downstream 
or retreated to the subsurface. Rudolph (1978, p. 158) observed that 
severe floods could reduce populations of five different species of 
aquatic salamanders by 50 to 100 percent.
    Flooding can alter the surface salamander habitat by deepening 
stream channels, which may increase habitat for predaceous fish. Much 
of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders' surface habitat is 
characterized by shallow water depth (COA 2001, p. 128; Pierce 2011a, 
p. 3). However, deep pools are sometimes formed within stream channels 
from the scouring of floods. As water depth increases, the deeper pools 
support more predaceous fish populations. However, several central 
Texas Eurycea species are able to survive in deep water environments in 
the presence of many predators. Examples include the San Marcos 
salamander in Spring Lake, Eurycea species in Landa Lake, and the 
Barton Springs salamander in Barton Springs Pool. All of these sites 
have vegetative cover, which may allow salamanders to avoid predation. 
Anti-predator behaviors may allow these species to co-exist with 
predaceous fish, but the effectiveness of these behaviors may be 
species-specific (reviewed in Pierce and Wall 2011, pp. 18-19), and 
many of the shallow surface habitats of the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders do not have much vegetative cover.
    The threat of physical modification of surface habitat from 
flooding by itself may not be likely to cause significant population 
declines, but it could negatively impact the species in combination 
with other threats and contribute to significant declines in the 
population size or habitat quality. We consider this to be a threat of 
moderate impact to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders that will 
likely increase in the future as urbanization and impervious cover 
increases within the surface watersheds of these species, causing more 
frequent and more intense flash flooding (see discussion in the 
``Urbanization'' section under ``Water Quantity Degradation'' above).

Feral Hogs

    Feral hogs are another source of physical habitat disturbance to 
Georgetown and Salado salamander surface sites. There are between 1.8 
and 3.4 million feral hogs in Texas, and the feral hog population in 
Texas is projected to increase 18 to 21 percent every year (Texas A&M 
University (TAMU) 2011, p. 2). Feral hogs prefer to live around moist 
areas, including riparian areas near streams, where they can dig into 
the soft ground for food and wallow in mud to keep cool (Mapson 2004, 
pp. 11, 14-15). Feral hogs disrupt these ecosystems by decreasing plant 
species diversity, increasing invasive species abundance, increasing 
soil nitrogen, and exposing bare ground (TAMU 2012, p. 4). Feral hogs 
negatively impact surface salamander habitat by digging and wallowing 
in spring heads, which increases sedimentation downstream (O'Donnell et 
al. 2006, pp. 34, 46). This activity can also result in direct 
mortality of amphibians (Bull 2009, p. 243).
    Feral hogs have become abundant in some areas where the Georgetown 
and Salado salamanders occur. Evidence of hogs has been observed near 
one Georgetown salamander site (Cobbs Spring) (Booker 2011, Service, 
pers. comm.). The landowner of Cobbs Spring is actively trapping feral 
hogs (Booker 2011, Service, pers. comm.), but the effectiveness of this 
management has not been assessed. Feral hogs are also present in the 
area of several Salado salamander sites. At least one private landowner 
has fenced off three spring sites known to be occupied by the Salado 
salamander (Cistern, Hog Hollow, and Solana Springs) (Glen 2012, 
Sedgwick LLP, pers. comm.), which likely provides protection from feral 
hogs at these sites.
    The threat of physical modification of surface habitat from feral 
hogs by itself may not be likely to cause significant population 
declines, but it could negatively impact the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders in combination with other threats and contribute to 
significant declines in the population size or habitat quality. We 
consider physical modification of surface habitat from feral hogs to be 
an ongoing threat of moderate impact to the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders that will likely continue in the future as the feral hog 
population increases.

Livestock

    Similar to feral hogs, livestock can negatively impact surface 
salamander habitat by disturbing the substrate and increasing 
sedimentation in the spring

[[Page 10277]]

run where salamanders are often found. Poorly managed livestock grazing 
results in changes in vegetation (from grass-dominated to brush-
dominated), which leads to increased erosion of the soil profile along 
stream banks (COA 1995, p. 3-59) and sediment in salamander habitat. 
Evidence of trampling and grazing in riparian areas from cattle was 
found at one Georgetown salamander site (Shadow Canyon) (White 2011, 
SWCA, pers. comm.), and cattle are present on at least one other 
Georgetown salamander site (Cobbs Spring). Cattle are also present on 
lands where four Salado salamander sites occur (Gluesenkamp 2011c, 
TPWD, pers. comm.; Texas Section Society for Range Management 2011, p. 
2). However, a private landowner has fenced three spring sites where 
Salado salamanders are known to occur (Cistern, Hog Hollow, and Cistern 
Springs), which likely provide the salamander and its habitat 
protection from the threat of livestock at these locations (Glen 2012, 
Sedgwick LLP, pers. comm.).
    We assessed the risk of exposure of the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders to the threat of physical habitat modification from 
livestock by examining 2012 Google Earth aerial imagery. Because 
livestock are so common across the landscape, we assumed that where 
present, these animals have access to spring sites unless they are 
fenced out. For our assessment, we assumed that unless we could 
identify the presence of fencing or unless the site is located in a 
densely urbanized area, livestock have access and present a threat of 
physical habitat modification to as many as 9 of the 15 Georgetown 
salamander surface sites and 1 of the 7 Salado salamander sites.
    There is some management of livestock occurring that reduces the 
magnitude of negative impacts. An 8,126-ac (3,288-ha) property in Bell 
County with at least three Salado salamander sites (Cistern, Hog 
Hollow, and Solana Springs) has limited its cattle rotation to a 
maximum of 450 head (Texas Section Society for Range Management 2011, 
p. 2), which is considered a moderate stocking rate. In addition, the 
landowner of Cobbs Spring (a Georgetown salamander site) is in the 
process of phasing out cattle on the property (Boyd 2011, Williamson 
County Conservation Foundation, pers. comm.).
    The threat of physical modification of surface habitat from 
livestock by itself may not be likely to cause significant population 
declines, but it could negatively impact the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders in combination with other threats and contribute to 
significant declines in the population size or habitat quality, 
particularly with repeated or continuous exposure. We consider 
livestock to be an ongoing threat of moderate impact to the Georgetown 
salamander because 9 of its 15 surface sites are likely affected. On 
the other hand, because only 1 of the 7 Salado salamander surface sites 
is exposed to livestock, we do not consider this to be a threat to the 
Salado salamander now or in the future.

Other Human Activities

    Some of the Georgetown and Salado salamander sites have been 
directly modified by human-related activities. In the summer of 2008, a 
spring opening at a Salado salamander site was covered with gravel 
(Service 2010, p. 6). Although we received anecdotal information that 
at least one salamander was observed at the site after the gravel was 
dumped at Big Boiling Springs, the Service has no detailed information 
on how the Salado salamander was affected by this action. Heavy 
machinery is currently used in the riparian area of Big Boiling and 
Lil' Bubbly Springs to clear out vegetation and maintain a grassy lawn 
to the water's edge (Gluesenkamp 2011a, c, TPWD, pers. comm.), which 
has led to erosion problems during flood events (TPWD 2011, p. 6). The 
modification of springs for recreation or other purposes degrades 
natural riparian areas, which are important for controlling erosion and 
attenuating floodwaters in aquatic habitats.
    Other recent human activities at Big Boiling Spring include pumping 
water from the spring opening, contouring the substrate of the spring 
environment, and covering spring openings with gravel (TPWD 2011, p. 
4). In the fall of 2011, the outflow channels and edges of Big Boiling 
and Lil' Bubbly Springs were reconstructed with large limestone blocks 
and mortar. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a 
cease and desist order to the Salado Chamber of Commerce in October 
2011, for unauthorized discharge of dredged or fill material that 
occurred in this area (Brooks 2011, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, pers. 
comm.). This order was issued in relation to the need for a section 404 
permit under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). Also in 
October 2011, a TPWD game warden issued a citation to the Salado 
Chamber of Commerce due to the need for a sand and gravel permit from 
the TPWD for these activities being conducted within TPWD's 
jurisdiction (Heger 2012a, TPWD, pers. comm.). The citation was issued 
because the Salado Chamber of Commerce had been directed by the game 
warden to stop work within TPWD's jurisdiction until they obtained a 
permit, which the Salado Chamber of Commerce did temporarily, but work 
started again despite the game warden's directive (Heger 2012a, TPWD, 
pers. comm.). A sand and gravel permit was obtained on March 21, 2012. 
The spring run modifications were already completed by this date, but 
further modifications in the springs were prohibited by the permit. 
Additional work on the bank of Salado Creek upstream of the springs was 
permitted and completed (Heger 2012b, TPWD, pers. comm.).
    At the complex of springs occupied by the Georgetown salamander 
within San Gabriel River Park, a thick bed of nonnative aquarium gravel 
has been placed in the spring runs (TPWD 2011, p. 9). This gravel is 
too small to serve as cover habitat and does not form the interstitial 
spaces required for Georgetown salamanders. Georgetown salamanders have 
not been observed here since 1991 (Chippindale et al. 2000, p. 40; 
Pierce 2011b, Southwestern University, pers. comm.). Aquarium gravel 
dumping has not been documented at any other Georgetown salamander 
sites. The City of Georgetown's water quality ordinance establishes a 
262-ft (80-m) no-disturbance zone around occupied sites within which 
only limited activities such as maintenance of existing improvements, 
scientific monitoring, and fences will be permitted. In addition, the 
ordinance establishes a no-disturbance zone that extends 164 ft (50 m) 
around all springs within the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone in 
Georgetown and its ETJ. These measures will reduce the threat of 
habitat modification as the result of human activities. Additionally, 
for the Georgetown salamander, the Adaptive Management Working Group is 
charged specifically with reviewing Georgetown salamander monitoring 
data and new research over time and recommending improvements to the 
ordinance that may be necessary to ensure that it achieves its stated 
purposes. This Adaptive Management Working Group, which includes 
representatives of the Service and TPWD, will also review and make 
recommendations on the approval of any variances to the ordinance.
    Frequent human visitation of sites occupied by the Georgetown and 
Salado salamanders may negatively affect the species and their 
habitats. The COA has documented disturbed vegetation, vandalism, and 
the destruction of travertine deposits (fragile rock formations formed 
by deposit of calcium carbonate on stream bottoms) by

[[Page 10278]]

pedestrian traffic at one of their Jollyville Plateau salamander 
monitoring sites in the Bull Creek watershed (COA 2001, p. 21), and it 
may have resulted in direct destruction of small amounts of the 
salamander's habitat. Eliza Spring and Sunken Garden Spring, locations 
for both the Barton Springs and Austin blind salamanders, also 
experience vandalism despite the presence of fencing and signage (Dries 
2011, COA, pers. comm.). Frequent human visitation can reduce the 
amount of cover available for salamander breeding, feeding, and 
sheltering. We are aware of impacts from recreational use at one 
Georgetown salamander site (San Gabriel Springs) and two Salado 
salamander sites (Big Boiling and Lil Bubbly Springs) (TPWD 2011, pp. 
6, 9). However, as the human population is projected to increase by 377 
percent in the range of the Georgetown salamander and by 128 percent in 
the range of the Salado salamander by 2050, we expect more Georgetown 
and Salado salamander sites will be negatively affected from frequent 
human visitation.
    The threat of physical modification of surface habitat from human 
visitation, recreation, and alteration is not significantly affecting 
the Georgetown and Salado salamanders now. However, we consider this 
will be a threat of moderate impact in the future as the human 
population increases in Williamson and Bell Counties.

Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Range

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

[[Page 10279]]

watershed for the three Salado salamander sites is contained within the 
Solana Ranch property boundary, and only 3 percent of the surface 
watershed for the one Salado salamander site (Robertson Spring) is 
contained within the Robertson Ranch property boundary. The efforts by 
these landowners represent an important step toward the conservation of 
the Salado salamander.
    The remaining area of the surface watersheds and the recharge zone 
for these springs is not contained within the properties and is not 
protected from future development. Considering the projected growth 
rates expected in Bell County (from 310,235 in 2010 to 707,840 in 2050, 
a 128 percent increase over the 40-year period; Texas State Data Center 
2012, p. 353), these four Salado salamander spring sites are still at 
threat from the detrimental effects of urbanization that could occur 
outside of these properties. Although the pattern of existing 
infrastructure suggests that much of the urbanization will occur along 
IH-35 and downstream of the three Solana Ranch springs, the threat of 
development and urbanization continues into the future because more 
than 75 percent of the surface watershed for these sites is located 
outside the boundaries of these properties. There are no long-term, 
binding conservation plans currently in place for either of these 
properties as the conservation easement for Solana Ranch has not been 
finalized. In addition, the regulations in place in Bell County are not 
adequate to protect water quality within occupied watersheds or within 
the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone.
    Although these conservation efforts likely contribute water quality 
benefits to surface flow, surface habitats can be influenced by land 
use throughout the recharge zone of the aquifer that supplies its 
spring flow. Furthermore, the surface areas influencing subsurface 
water quality (that is draining the surface and flowing to the 
subsurface habitat) is not clearly delineated for many of the sites 
(springs or caves) for the Georgetown and Salado salamanders. Because 
we are not able to precisely assess additional pathways for negative 
impacts to the Georgetown and Salado salamanders to occur, many of 
their sites may be affected by threats that cannot be mitigated through 
the conservation efforts that are currently ongoing.
Conclusion of Factor A
    Degradation of habitat, in the form of reduced water quality and 
quantity and disturbance of spring sites (physical modification of 
surface habitat), is the primary threat to the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders. This threat may affect only the surface habitat, only the 
subsurface habitat, or both habitat types. In consideration of the 
stressors currently impacting the salamander species and their habitats 
along with their risk of exposure to potential sources of this threat, 
we find the threat of habitat destruction and modification within the 
ranges of the Georgetown and Salado salamanders to be of low severity 
now, but will become significant in the future as the human population 
is projected to increase by 377 percent in the range of the Georgetown 
salamander and by 128 percent in the range of the Salado salamander by 
2050.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    There is little available information regarding overutilization of 
the Georgetown and Salado salamanders for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes, although we are aware that some 
individuals of these species have been collected from their natural 
habitat for a variety of purposes. Collecting individuals from 
populations that are already small enough to experience reduced 
reproduction and survival due to inbreeding depression or become 
extirpated due to environmental or demographic stochasticity and other 
catastrophic events (see the discussion on small population sizes under 
Factor E--Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence below) can pose a risk to the continued existence of these 
populations. Additionally, there are no regulations currently in place 
to prevent or restrict the collections of salamanders from their 
habitat in the wild for scientific or other purposes, and we know of no 
plans within the scientific community to limit the amount or frequency 
of collections at known salamander locations. We recognize the 
importance of collecting for scientific purposes; such as for research, 
captive assurance programs, taxonomic analyses, and museum collections. 
However, removing individuals from small, localized populations in the 
wild, without any proposed plans or regulations to restrict these 
activities, could increase the population's vulnerability and decrease 
its resiliency and ability to withstand stochastic events.
    Currently, we do not consider overutilization from collecting 
salamanders in the wild to be a threat by itself, but it may contribute 
to significant population declines, and could negatively impact the 
Georgetown and Salado salamanders in combination with other threats.

C. Disease or Predation

    Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus) is a fungal disease that is 
responsible for killing amphibians worldwide (Daszak et al. 2000, p. 
445). The chytrid fungus has been documented on the feet of Jollyville 
Plateau salamanders from 15 different sites in the wild (O'Donnell et 
al. 2006, pp. 22-23; Gaertner et al. 2009, pp. 22-23) and on Austin 
blind salamanders in captivity (Chamberlain 2011, COA, pers. comm.). 
However, the Austin blind and Jollyville Plateau salamanders did not 
display any noticeable health effects (O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 23). 
We do not consider chytridiomycosis to be a threat to the Georgetown 
and Salado salamanders at this time. The best available information 
does not indicate that impacts from this disease on the Georgetown or 
Salado salamander may increase or decrease in the future, and 
therefore, we conclude that this disease is not a threat to either 
species.
    Regarding predation, COA biologists found Jollyville Plateau 
salamander abundances were negatively correlated with the abundance of 
predatory centrarchid fish (carnivorous freshwater fish belonging to 
the sunfish family), such as black bass (Micropterus spp.) and sunfish 
(Lepomis spp.) (COA 2001, p. 102). Predation of a Jollyville Plateau 
salamander by a centrarchid fish was observed during a May 2006 field 
survey (O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 38). The Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders have been observed retreating into gravel substrate after 
cover was moved, suggesting these salamanders display anti-predation 
behavior (Bowles et al. 2006, p. 117). Studies have found that San 
Marcos salamanders (Eurycea nana) and Barton Springs salamanders both 
have the ability to recognize and show anti-predator response to the 
chemical cues of introduced and native centrarchid fish predators (Epp 
and Gabor 2008, p. 612; DeSantis et al. 2013, p. 294). However, the 
best available information does not indicate that predation of the 
Georgetown and Salado salamanders is significantly limiting these 
species.
    In summary, while disease and predation may be affecting 
individuals of these salamander species, these are not significant 
factors affecting the species. Neither disease nor predation is 
occurring at a level that we consider to be a threat to the Georgetown 
and Salado salamanders now or in the future.

[[Page 10280]]

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

[[Page 10281]]

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

[[Page 10282]]

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

[[Page 10283]]

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

[[Page 10284]]

mechanisms to be an ongoing threat to the Georgetown and Salado 
salamanders now and in the future.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence

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

[[Page 10285]]

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

Cumulative Effects From Factors A Through E

    Some of the threats discussed in this finding could work in concert 
with one another to cumulatively create situations that impact the 
Georgetown

[[Page 10286]]

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

Determination

Standard for Review

    Section 4 of the Act, and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 
4(b)(1)(a), the Secretary is to make endangered or threatened 
determinations required by subsection 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a 
review of the status of the species and after taking into account 
conservation efforts by States or foreign nations. The standards for 
determining whether a species is endangered or threatened are provided 
in section 3 of the Act. An endangered species is any species that is 
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range.'' A threatened species is any species that is ``likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' Per section 4(a)(1) of the 
Act, in reviewing the status of the species to determine if it meets 
the definitions of endangered or threatened, we determine whether any 
species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any 
of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction,

[[Page 10287]]

modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence.
    We evaluated whether the Georgetown and Salado salamanders are in 
danger of extinction now (that is, an endangered species) or are likely 
to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future (that is, a 
threatened species). The foreseeable future refers to the extent to 
which the Secretary can reasonably rely on predictions about the future 
in making determinations about the future conservation status of the 
species. A key statutory difference between a threatened species and an 
endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of 
extinction, either now (endangered species) or in the foreseeable 
future (threatened species).

Listing Status Determination for the Georgetown Salamander

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

[[Page 10288]]

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

[[Page 10289]]

populations. The threat of urbanization indicates that most of the 
Georgetown salamander populations are currently at an elevated risk of 
extirpation, or will be at an elevated risk in the future. These 
impacts are expected to increase in severity and scope as urbanization 
within the range of the species increases. Also, the combined result of 
increased impacts to habitat quality and inadequate regulatory 
mechanisms leads us to the conclusion that Georgetown salamanders will 
likely be in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. As 
Georgetown salamander populations become more degraded, isolated, or 
extirpated by urbanization, the species will lose resiliency and be at 
an elevated risk from climate change impacts, small population sizes, 
and catastrophic events, such as drought, floods, and hazardous 
material spills. These events will affect all known extant populations, 
putting the Georgetown salamander at a high risk of extinction. 
Therefore, because the resiliency of populations is expected to 
decrease in the foreseeable future, the Georgetown salamander will be 
in danger of extinction throughout all of its range in the foreseeable 
future, and appropriately meets the definition of a threatened species 
(that is, in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future).
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The threats to the survival of this 
species occur throughout its range and are not restricted to any 
particular significant portion of its range. Accordingly, our 
assessments and determinations apply to this species throughout its 
entire range.
    In conclusion, as described above, the Georgetown salamander is 
subject to significant current and ongoing threats now and will be 
subject to more severe threats in the future. After a review of the 
best available scientific information as it relates to the status of 
the species and the five listing factors, we find the Georgetown 
salamander is not currently in danger of extinction, but will be in 
danger of extinction in the future. Therefore, on the basis of the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we list the Georgetown 
salamander as a threatened species in accordance with section 3(6) of 
the Act. We find that an endangered species status is not appropriate 
for the Georgetown salamander because the species is not in danger of 
extinction at this time. While some threats to the Georgetown 
salamander are occurring now, the impacts from these threats are not 
yet at a level that puts this species in danger of extinction now. 
However, with future urbanization and the added effects of climate 
change, we expect habitat degradation and Georgetown salamander count 
declines to continue into the future to the point where the species 
will then be in danger of extinction.

Listing Status Determination for the Salado Salamander

    In the proposed rule (77 FR 50768, August 22, 2012), the Salado 
salamander species was proposed as endangered, rather than threatened, 
because at that time, we determined the threats to be imminent, and 
their potential impacts to the species would be catastrophic given the 
very limited range of the species. For this final determination, we 
took into account data that were made available after the proposed rule 
published, information provided by commenters on the proposed rule, and 
further discussions within the Service to determine whether the Salado 
salamander should be classified as endangered or threatened. Based on 
our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, 
we conclude that the Salado salamander is likely to become in danger of 
extinction in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range and, 
therefore, meets the definition of a threatened species. This finding, 
explained below, is based on our conclusions that few (seven) Salado 
salamander sites exist (some of these sites are close to each other and 
likely part of the same population), some populations have begun to 
experience impacts from threats to its habitat, and these threats are 
expected to increase in the future. As the threats increase, we expect 
Salado salamander populations to decline and be extirpated, reducing 
the overall representation and redundancy across the species range and 
increasing the species risk of extinction. We find the Salado 
salamander will be at an elevated risk of extinction in the future. We, 
therefore, find that the Salado salamander warrants a threatened 
species listing status determination.
    There is a limited amount of data on Salado salamander populations 
and how these populations respond to stressors. There are no population 
estimates for any of the seven known Salado salamander populations, and 
salamanders are very rarely seen at four of the seven sites. In 
addition, no studies have used controlled experiments to understand how 
environmental changes might affect Salado salamander individuals. To 
deal with this uncertainty and evaluate threats to the Salado 
salamander that are occurring now or in the future, we used information 
on substitute species, which is an accepted practice in aquatic 
ecotoxicology and conservation biology (Caro et al. 2005, p. 1823; 
Wenger 2008, p. 1,565). In instances where information was not 
available for the Salado salamander specifically, we have provided 
references for studies conducted on similarly related species, such as 
the Jollyville Plateau salamander and Barton Springs salamander, which 
occur within the central Texas area, and other salamander species that 
occur in other parts of the United States. We concluded that these were 
appropriate comparisons to make based on the following similarities 
between the species: (1) a clear systematic (evolutionary) relationship 
(for example, members of the Family Plethodontidae); (2) shared life 
history attributes (for example, the lack of metamorphosis into a 
terrestrial form); (3) similar morphology and physiology (for example, 
the lack of lungs for respiration and sensitivity to environmental 
conditions); and (4) similar habitat and ecological requirements (for 
example, dependence on aquatic habitat in or near springs with a rocky 
or gravel substrate).
    Present and future degradation of habitat (Factor A) is the primary 
threat to the Salado salamander. This threat primarily occurs in the 
form of reduced water quality from introduced and concentrated 
contaminants, increased sedimentation, and altered stream flow regimes. 
Reduced water quality from increased conductivity, PAHs, pesticides, 
and nutrients have all been shown to have detrimental impacts on 
salamander density, growth, and behavior (Marco et al. 1999, p. 2,837; 
Albers 2003, p. 352; Rohr et al. 2003, p. 2,391; Bowles et al. 2006, 
pp. 117-118; O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 37; Reylea 2009, p. 370; 
Sparling et al. 2009, p. 28; Bommarito et al. 2010, pp. 1,151-1,152). 
Sedimentation causes the amount of available foraging habitat and 
protective cover for salamanders to be reduced (Welsh and Ollivier 
1998, p. 1,128), reducing salamander abundance (Turner 2003, p. 24; 
O'Donnell et al. 2006, p. 34). Sharp declines and increases in stream 
flow have also been shown to reduce salamander abundance (Petranka and 
Sih 1986, p. 732; Sih et al. 1992, p. 1,429; Baumgartner et al. 1999, 
p. 36; Miller et al. 2007, pp. 82-83; Price et al. 2012b, p. 319). In 
the absence of species-specific information, we conclude that Salado 
salamanders respond negatively to these stressors

[[Page 10290]]

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

[[Page 10291]]

within the Village of Salado. Therefore, the existing regulatory 
mechanisms are not adequate to protect this species and its habitat 
now, nor do we anticipate them to sufficiently protect this species in 
the future.
    Other natural or manmade factors (Factor E) affecting all Salado 
salamander populations include UV-B radiation, small population sizes, 
stochastic events (such as floods or droughts), and synergistic and 
additive interactions among the stressors mentioned above. Because of 
how rare Salado salamanders are at most sites (Gluesenkamp 2011a, b, 
TPWD, pers. comm.; TPWD 2011a, pp. 1-3), we assume that population 
sizes are very small. Factors such as small population size, in 
combination with the threats summarized above, make Salado salamander 
populations less resilient and more vulnerable to population 
extirpations in the foreseeable future.
    Because of the fact-specific nature of listing determinations, 
there is no single metric for determining if a species is ``in danger 
of extinction'' now. In the case of the Salado salamander, the best 
available information indicates that habitat degradation will result in 
significant impacts on salamander populations. The threat of 
urbanization indicates that most of the Salado salamander populations 
are currently at an elevated risk of extirpation, or will be at an 
elevated risk in the future. These impacts are expected to increase in 
severity and scope as urbanization within the range of the species 
increases. Also, the combined result of increased impacts to habitat 
quality and inadequate regulatory mechanisms leads us to the conclusion 
that Salado salamanders will likely be in danger of extinction within 
the foreseeable future. As Salado salamander populations become more 
degraded, isolated, or extirpated by urbanization, the species will 
lose resiliency and be at an elevated risk from climate change impacts, 
small population sizes, and catastrophic events (for example, drought, 
floods, hazardous material spills). These events will affect all known 
extant populations, putting the Salado salamander at a high risk of 
extinction. Therefore, because the resiliency of populations is 
expected to decrease in the foreseeable future, the Salado salamander 
will be danger of extinction throughout all of its range in the future, 
and it appropriately meets the definition of a threatened species (that 
is, in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future).
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The threats to the survival of this 
species occur throughout its range and are not restricted to any 
particular significant portion of its range. Accordingly, our 
assessments and determinations apply to this species throughout its 
entire range.
    In conclusion, the Salado salamander is subject to significant 
current and ongoing threats now and will be subject to more severe 
threats in the future. After a review of the best available scientific 
information as it relates to the status of the species and the five 
listing factors, we find the Salado salamander is not in danger of 
extinction now, but will be in danger of extinction in the foreseeable 
future. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we list the Salado salamander as a threatened 
species, in accordance with section 3(6) of the Act. We find that an 
endangered species status is not appropriate for the Salado salamander 
because the species is not in danger of extinction now. While some 
threats to the Salado salamander are occurring now, the impacts from 
these threats are not yet at a level that puts this species in danger 
of extinction at this time. However, with future urbanization and the 
added effects of climate change, we expect habitat degradation and 
Salado salamander count declines to continue into the foreseeable 
future to the point where the species will then be in danger of 
extinction.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation by Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
states and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed 
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
decline in the species' status by addressing the threats to its 
survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed 
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and 
functioning components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five 
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be 
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. 
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate 
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of 
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (comprising species 
experts, Federal and state agencies, non-governmental organizations, 
and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When 
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final 
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, states, tribes, non-governmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (for example, restoration of native vegetation), research, 
captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, state, tribal, and other 
lands.
    Once these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, state 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the

[[Page 10292]]

Act, the State of Texas will be eligible for Federal funds to implement 
management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the 
Georgetown and Salado salamanders. Information on our grant programs 
that are available to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management, construction, and any other activities 
with the possibility of altering aquatic habitats, groundwater flow 
paths, and natural flow regimes within the ranges of the Georgetown and 
Salado salamanders. Such consultations could be triggered through the 
issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the Army Corps of 
Engineers or other actions by the Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and 
Bureau of Reclamation; construction and maintenance of roads or 
highways by the Federal Highway Administration; landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the Department of Defense; 
and construction and management of gas pipelines and power line rights-
of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any 
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take 
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship 
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. 
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also 
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such 
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to 
agents of the Service and state conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered wildlife, and at 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened 
wildlife. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued 
for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in 
connection with otherwise lawful activities.

Required Determinations

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on state or 
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency 
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, 
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244).

Data Quality Act

    In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study, 
experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act 
(Pub. L. 106-554).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available 
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the 
Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES).

Author(s)

    The primary author of this document is staff from the Austin 
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) with support from the 
Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Salamander, 
Georgetown'' and ``Salamander, Salado'' in alphabetical order under 
Amphibians to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 10293]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Species                                                           Vertebrate
----------------------------------------------------------------                           population where                 When     Critical   Special
                                                                      Historic range         endangered or      Status     listed    habitat     rules
             Common name                    Scientific name                                   threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
              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