2007 Federal Register, 72 FR 71039; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

[Federal Register: December 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 239)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71039-71054]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13de07-25]

[[Page 71039]]

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

Part VI

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List the Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae)
as Endangered With Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

[[Page 71040]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea
tonkawae) as Endangered With Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the Jollyville Plateau
salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) as endangered and to designate critical
habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
After review of all available scientific and commercial information, we
find that listing the Jollyville Plateau salamander as threatened or
endangered is warranted. Currently, however, listing of the Jollyville
Plateau salamander is precluded by higher priority actions to amend the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon
publication of this 12-month petition finding, we will add Jollyville
Plateau salamander to our candidate species list. We will develop a
proposed rule to list this species as our priorities allow. We will
make any determination on critical habitat during development of the
proposed listing rule.

DATES: We made the finding announced in this document on December 13,
2007.

ADDRESSES: The supporting file for this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Austin
Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711
Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758. The finding is available via
the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. Please submit any new

information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above address or via electronic mail (e-mail) at
fw2_jps@fws.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor,
Austin Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 512-
490-0057; or by facsimile at 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:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating that listing may be warranted, we make a finding
within 12 months of the date of our receipt of the petition on whether
the petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c)
warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the
petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine
whether any species is threatened or endangered. Such 12-month findings
are to be published promptly in the Federal Register. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the
requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as though
resubmitted on the date of such finding, and we must make a subsequent
finding within 12 months.

Previous Federal Action

On June 13, 2005, we received a petition, dated June 10, 2005, from
Save Our Springs Alliance (SOSA), requesting that the Jollyville
Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) be listed as an endangered
species in accordance with section 4 of the Act.
Action on this petition was precluded by court orders and
settlement agreements for other listing actions that required all of
our listing funds for fiscal year 2005 and a substantial portion of our
listing funds for fiscal year 2006. On September 29, 2005, we received
a 60-day notice of intent to sue from SOSA for failing to make a timely
90-day finding. On December 1, 2005, we sent a letter to SOSA informing
them that we would not likely make a petition finding during fiscal
year 2006 due to higher priority actions.
Subsequently, in fiscal year 2006, funding became available to act
on the petition. We began working on the 90-day finding at that time.
On August 10, 2006, SOSA filed a complaint against the Service for
failure to issue a 90-day petition finding under section 4 of the Act
for the Jollyville Plateau salamander. In our December 11, 2006, motion
for summary judgment, we informed the court that based on current
funding and workload projections, we believed that we could complete a
90-day finding by February 6, 2007, and if we determined that the
petition provided substantial scientific or commercial information, we
could make a 12-month warranted or not warranted finding by December 1,
2007. On February 13, 2007, we published a 90-day petition finding (72
FR 6699) in which we concluded that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted. This notice
constitutes the 12-month finding on the June 10, 2005, petition to list
the Jollyville Plateau salamander as endangered.

Taxonomy and Species Description

The Jollyville Plateau salamander was recently described as Eurycea
tonkawae by Chippendale, et al. (2000, pp. 1-48), based on morphology
and mitochondrial DNA tests. The Jollyville Plateau salamander is a
neotenic (does not transform into a terrestrial form) member of the
family Plethodontidae. As neotenic salamanders, they retain external
gills and inhabit aquatic habitats (springs, spring-runs, and wet
caves) throughout their lives (City of Austin (COA) 2001, p. 3). Water
for the salamanders is provided by infiltration of surface water
through the soil into the aquifer which discharges from springs as
groundwater (Schram 1995, p. 91). Juvenile Jollyville Plateau
salamanders are less than 1.5 inches (3.8 centimeters); adults are
typically 1.5 to 2 inches ( 3.8-5 centimeters) long (COA 2001a, p. 5).
Those salamanders occurring in spring habitat have large, well-
developed eyes; wide, yellowish heads; blunt, rounded snouts; dark
greenish-brown bodies; and bright yellowish-orange tails (Chippendale,
et al. 2000, pp. 33-34). Some cave forms of Jollyville Plateau
salamanders exhibit cave-associated morphologies, such as eye
reduction, flattening of the head, and dullness or loss of color
(Chippendale, et al. 2000, p. 37).
Genetic analysis suggests that Jollyville Plateau salamanders
occurring in caves may actually be separate species from the surface-
dwelling forms, but more study is needed to confirm this, because
sample sizes from the caves were small (Chippendale, et al. 2000, pp.
36-37). For the purposes of this finding, we are considering all of the
Jollyville Plateau salamanders described in Chippendale, et al. (2000,
pp. 32-37) as one species.

Distribution

The Jollyville Plateau salamander occurs in the Jollyville Plateau
and Brushy Creek areas of the Edwards Plateau in Travis and Williamson
Counties, Texas (Chippendale, et al. 2000, pp. 35-36; Bowles, et al.
2006, p. 112; Sweet 1982, p. 433). Upon classification as a species,
Jollyville Plateau salamanders were known from Brushy Creek and, within
the Jollyville Plateau, from Bull Creek, Cypress Creek,

[[Page 71041]]

Long Hollow Creek, Shoal Creek, and Walnut Creek drainages
(Chippendale, et al. 2000, p. 36). Since it was described, the
Jollyville Plateau salamander has been documented within the Lake Creek
watershed (COA 2006, p. 1).
Cave dwelling Jollyville Plateau salamanders are known from 1 cave
in the Cypress Creek drainage and 12 caves in the Buttercup Creek cave
system in the Brushy Creek drainage (Chippendale, et al. 2000, p. 49;
Russell 1993, p. 21; Service 1999, p. 6; HNTB 2005, p. 60). While the
entrances to these caves are located within particular watersheds, the
subsurface waters could move in a different direction from the surface
waters. For example, dyes injected into three of the Buttercup Creek
caves later surfaced at one spring (proving subsurface connection of
these caves) to the south in the Long Hollow Creek drainage (Hauwert
and Warton 1997, pp. 11, 13), rather than to the east where Brushy
Creek flows. No further subsurface flow studies have been completed in
caves inhabited by Jollyville Plateau salamanders.

Habitat

The Jollyville Plateau salamander's spring-fed tributary habitat is
typically characterized by a depth of less than 1 foot (0.3 meters) of
cool, well oxygenated water (COA 2001a, p. 128; Bowles, et al. 2006, p.
118) supplied by the underlying Edwards Aquifer (Cole, et al. 1995, p.
33). Jollyville Plateau salamanders are typically found near springs or
seep outflows, and are thought to require constant temperatures (Sweet
1982, pp. 433-434; Bowles, et al. 2006, p. 117). Salamander densities
are higher in pools and riffles and in areas with rubble, cobble, or
boulder substrates rather than on solid bedrock (COA 2001a, p. 128;
Bowles, et al. 2006, pp. 114-116).
Surface-dwelling Jollyville Plateau salamanders also occur in
subsurface habitat within the underground aquifer (COA 2001a, p. 65;
Bowles, et al. 2006, p. 118). While no one has physically observed
these salamanders in the aquifer, there are observations that support
this behavior. For example, City of Austin biologists have observed
Jollyville Plateau salamanders at spring sites where the springs and
associated spring runs had previously ceased flowing, particularly
during the 2006 drought, and the surrounding area dried (COA 2006, pp.
5-6). Additionally, City of Austin biologists have noted low counts for
small juveniles followed by high counts for large (presumably older)
juveniles at several monitoring sites, indicating small juveniles spent
time within the subsurface habitat (COA 2001a, pp. 65-66).

Biology

Jollyville Plateau salamander breeding events have not been
observed. Eggs have also not been observed in or around springs or in
spring runs, indicating egg laying and early development likely occurs
in the subsurface aquifer (COA 2001a, p. 4). Bowles, et al. (2006, p.
114) observed gravid females (those with eggs visible through the
abdominal wall) between November and February and noted the number of
juvenile salamanders was higher from March to August. In an effort to
learn more about the reproductive biology of Jollyville Plateau
salamander, the City of Austin collected salamanders from the wild to
start a captive breeding program (COA 2006, pp. 17-18).
Eurycea species in Texas have been found to eat a variety of
benthic macroinvertebrates (insects in their larval stage that are
found at the bottom of a body of water), such as amphipods and
chironomid larvae (midges) (COA 2001a, pp. 5-6). These small
invertebrates are also dependant on aquatic habitats for their survival
(Price, et al. 1999, p. 2).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth procedures for adding species to
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. In making this
finding, we summarize below information regarding the status and
threats to this species in relation to the five factors in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. In making our 12-month finding, we considered all
scientific and commercial information in our files, including
information received during the comment period that ended April 16,
2006 (72 FR 6699).
This status review found threats to the Jollyville Plateau
salamander related to Factors A, C, and D. The primary threat to the
species is from habitat modification (Factor A) in the form of
declining water quality due to the effects of current and future urban
development. Other less significant threats to the species' habitat
include declining water quantity in groundwater aquifers that support
spring flows, direct habitat alterations from human disturbance, and
habitat modification from nonnative feral pig activity. Some threats
exist from predation by fish and infections of chytrid fungus on
salamander appendages (Factor C), but neither of these threats appears
to result in a substantial negative response by the species overall. In
addition, State regulations and local ordinances intended to protect
water quality integrity are not currently adequate to prevent habitat
degradation in the aquatic environments occupied by the salamander
(Factor D).

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

Habitat modification, in the form of degraded water quality, is the
primary threat to the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The range of the
salamander is largely within the urban environment of the Austin,
Texas, metropolitan area (Cole 1995, p. 28; COA 2006, pp. 45-50). Urban
development upstream of salamander habitat provides sources of various
pollutants from construction and maintenance of residential and
commercial structures and associated roads and pipelines. These sources
contribute pollutants such as sediments, fertilizers, pesticides, and
petroleum products into salamander habitat. During rainstorms, water
runs off these urban areas, mobilizing and transporting pollutants into
the aquatic habitat of the Jollyville Plateau salamander decreasing
water quality. Degraded water quality has been linked to deformities in
salamanders in some locations (COA 2006, p. 26) and declines in
abundance and lower densities of salamanders in some locations with
developed watersheds, compared to areas that are undeveloped.
Water quality degradation in salamander habitat has been cited as a
substantial concern in several studies (Chippendale, et al. 2000, p.
36; Bowles, et al. 2006, pp. 118-119; COA 2006, pp. 45-50). The
majority of the discussion under factor A will focus on evaluating the
nature and extent of decreased water quality and its correlation to the
level of urban development, the primary source of this threat.
Additionally, we will address the possible threat due to declining
water quantity (loss of spring flows) in Jollyville Plateau salamander
habitat. Although lack of water quantity is a concern, there is not
sufficient information currently available to determine how significant
the threat to the salamander from spring flow losses may be, other than
this threat likely exacerbates threats from degraded water quality.
Other minor threats to habitat include direct alteration from human
disturbance and activities by non-native feral hogs (Sus scrofa).

[[Page 71042]]

City of Austin Monitoring Data

We relied heavily on data provided by the City of Austin in this
status review of the Jollyville Plateau salamander. The City of Austin
has been monitoring this species' abundance at many locations since
1996. At the same time, the City of Austin has been measuring various
water quality and flow parameters within the salamander's habitats. In
June 2001, they published a comprehensive report of the initial results
of their monitoring efforts between 1996 and 1999 (COA 2001a). The City
of Austin continued to collect information on the Jollyville Plateau
salamander and its habitat and produced other interim reports.
Following publication of our 90-day finding for the salamander, the
City of Austin completed a report that summarized monitoring efforts
from 1996 through 2006 (COA 2006).
We particularly focused on the results of the data collected by the
City of Austin on salamander abundance and water quality at long-term
monitoring sites. We found this dataset robust in evaluating the
abundance of salamanders based on visual counts at nine locations
representative of the salamander's range. Overall, the dataset
contained 357 independent counts of salamanders between December 1996
and January 2007 (10 years). The results show that 4 of the 9 sites had
statistically significant declines in salamander abundance over the
last 10 years (COA 2006, p. 4). The average number of salamanders
counted at these 4 sites declined from 27 salamanders counted during
surveys from 1996 to 1999 to an average of 4 salamanders counted during
surveys from 2004 to 2007. The City reports that these declines are
related to degraded water quality from urban development in the
contributing watersheds of the monitoring sites (COA 2006, p. 48).
Quantifying the nature and extent of the impacts from urban development
was a key part of this status review because it characterizes the
extent and magnitude of the primary threats to Jollyville Plateau
salamander.

Source of Water

Jollyville Plateau salamanders are dependent upon a constant supply
of clean water from the northern segment of the Edwards Aquifer (COA
2001a, p. 3). This segment of the Edwards Aquifer extends from the
Colorado River in Travis County north to the Lampasas River in southern
Bell County (TWD 2003, p. 3). Water quality at springs that provide
habitat for Jollyville Plateau salamanders is influenced by both
groundwater and surface water interdependently. Surface water can
directly supply water to salamander habitats during storm water runoff
and also serves as the source for recharge to groundwater aquifers that
later discharge to the surface through springs. The northern segment of
the Edwards Aquifer where these salamanders occur is not well-studied
compared to other parts of the Edwards Aquifer (TWDB (Texas Water
Development Board) 2003, p. 1) and, therefore, the recharge areas and
flow paths have not been thoroughly described.
Groundwater recharge in the Jollyville Plateau area is described as
occurring primarily by filtration of water through the surface soils
(rather than through larger, more direct faults and fissures as in
other segments of the Edwards Aquifer) (Schram 1995, p. 91). This
recharge mechanism was predicted to result in urbanization impacts to
water quality over long-term periods (as opposed to short-term
responses as in other segments of the Edwards Aquifer), depending on
the extent and type of development patterns that occur in the area
(Schram 1995, p. 91). Our analysis of threats to habitat focuses on the
status of urban development and, therefore, the potential sources for
pollutants, in the surface watersheds that drain into stream segments
where salamanders occur. The base flow issuing from springs in these
stream segments (that is, the portion of stream flow not directly
resulting from storm water runoff) is supported by aquifer-dependent
spring flows. Groundwater in this area can move in directions
independent of surface water flows (Hauwert and Warton 1997, pp. 11,
13). Although specific aquifer sources and recharge areas for the
groundwater are not well documented, information available has shown
that both groundwater (based on analysis of water from immediate spring
discharge) (COA 2001a, pp. 54-56) and surface water (based on
observations of increased sedimentation) (COA 2006, pp. 37, 45-47) are
affected by urban development.

Urban Development as a Source of Pollutants

The range of the Jollyville Plateau salamander is limited to
northwest Travis County and southwest Williamson County, Texas, an area
of rapid human population growth. For example, the population of the
City of Austin grew from 251,808 people in 1970 to 656,562 people in
2000. By 2007, the population had grown to 735,088 people (COA 2007a,
p. 1). This represents a 192 percent increase over the 37-year period.
Within the range of the areas that contribute storm water runoff to
salamander habitats, urban development has included residential and
commercial structures, golf courses, and the associated roads and
utility pipelines (Cole 1995, p. 28; COA 2001a, pp.10-12).
As development increases (see Extent of Development in the
Foreseeable Future below) more opportunities exist for the chronic,
long-term introduction of non-point source pollutants into the
environments. For example, the ongoing application of pesticides and
fertilizers to lawns is a constant source of pollutants (Menzer and
Nelson 1980, pp. 663, 637-652). Petroleum products are also inherent
components of urban environments from automobile operation and
maintenance (Van Metre, et al. 2000, p. 4069). During rain events,
these chemical pollutants, which accumulate in soils and on impervious
surfaces (such as roofs, parking lots, and roads) during dry periods,
are transported by water downstream into areas where salamanders occur.
This process can occur either through direct surface water runoff or
through infiltration into groundwater that later discharges through
springs (Schram 1995, p. 91). Elevated mobilization of sediment (soils
of sand, silt, or clay) also occurs as a result of increased velocity
of water running off impervious surfaces in the urban environment
(Schram 1995, p. 88; Arnold and Gibbons 1996, pp. 244-245). Increased
rates of storm water runoff causes erosion by scouring in headwater
areas and sediment deposition in downstream channels (Booth 1991, pp.
93, 102-105; Schram 1995, p. 88).
Acute short-term increases in pollutants, particularly sediments,
can occur during construction of new development. When vegetation is
removed and rain falls on unprotected soils, large discharges of
suspended sediments result and can have immediate effects of increased
sedimentation in downstream drainage channels (Schueler 1987, p. 1.4;
COA 2003, p. 24).
A number of point-sources of pollutants exist in the range of the
salamander and result in accidental discharges from utility structures
such as storage tanks or pipelines (particularly gas and sewer lines).
Leaking underground storage tanks have been documented as a problem
within the salamander's range (COA 2001a, p. 16). Sewage spills from
pipelines have been documented in watersheds supporting the salamander
(COA 2001a, pp. 16, 21, 74). As an example, during this status review,
a sewage line overflowed an estimated 50,000 gallons

[[Page 71043]]

(190,000 liters) of raw sewage into the Stillhouse Hollow drainage area
of Bull Creek (COA 2007b, pp. 1-3). The location of the spill was a
short distance downstream of currently known salamander locations, and
no salamanders were thought to be affected.

Water Quality Degradation and Jollyville Plateau Salamander Responses

As early as 1995, water quality deterioration, including increases
in nutrient levels as a product of urban development, was cited for the
Bull Creek watershed, where half of the drainage areas with Jollyville
Plateau salamanders occur (Schram 1995, p. 87). The pollutants
considered most problematic in Jollyville Plateau salamander habitats
(discussed in more detail below) include sediments, ions (such as
chlorides and sulfates) and dissolved solids (as measured by
conductivity), nutrients (particularly nitrates and ammonia), and
petroleum compounds (primarily polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons). Other
pollutants such as heavy metals are also possible sources causing water
quality degradation from urban runoff, but have not been documented as
elevated in the salamander's habitat.
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 pollutants may interfere with
a salamander's ability to develop, grow, or reproduce (Burton and
Ingersoll 1994, pp. 120, 125). In addition, macroinvertebrates, such as
small freshwater crustaceans, that the Jollyville Plateau salamander
feeds on are especially sensitive to water pollution (Phipps, et al.
1995, p. 282; Miller, et al. 2007, p. 74). Studies in the Bull Creek
watershed found a loss of some sensitive macroinvertebrate species,
potentially due to nutrient enrichment and sediment accumulation (COA
2001b, p. 15).
Excess sedimentation is a form of water pollution found in
Jollyville Plateau salamander habitats (COA 2006, p. 46). Sediments are
mixtures of silt, sand, clay, and organic debris that are washed into
streams or aquifers during storm events either as deposited sediment
layers or suspended sediments (Ford and Williams 1989, p. 537; Mahler
and Lynch 1999, p. 13). Sediment derived from soil erosion has been
cited by Menzer and Nelson (1980, p. 632) as the greatest single source
of pollution of surface waters by volume. Due to high organic carbon
content, sediments eroded from contaminated soil surfaces can
concentrate and transport contaminants (Mahler and Lynch 1999, p. 1).
Sediment can affect aquatic organisms in a number of ways. Sediments
suspended in water can clog gill structures, which impairs breathing of
aquatic organisms, and can 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 will physically reduce
the amount of available habitat and protective cover for aquatic
organisms, by filling in the interstitial spaces of the larger
substrates (such as gravel and rocks) surrounding the spring outlets
that offer protective cover and an abundant supply of well-oxygenated
water for respiration. As an example, a California study found that
densities of two salamander species were significantly lower in streams
that experienced a large infusion of sediment from road construction
after a storm event. The vulnerability of the 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).
The loss of interstitial spaces in stream substrates can be measured as
the percent embeddedness. Embeddedness reflects the degree to which
rocks (which provide cover for salamanders) are surrounded or covered
by fine sediment. Increased sedimentation from urban development is a
major water quality threat to the Jollyville Plateau salamander because
it fills interstitial spaces and eliminates resting places and also
reduces habitat of its prey base (small aquatic invertebrates) (COA
2006, p. 34).
Excess sedimentation may have contributed to declines in Jollyville
Plateau salamander populations in the past. The City of Austin
monitoring found that, as sediment deposition increased at several
monitoring sites, salamander abundances significantly decreased (COA
2001a, pp. 101, 126). As an example, the City of Austin found that
sediment deposition and embeddedness estimates have increased
significantly along one of the long-term monitoring sites as a result
of recent construction activities upstream (COA 2006, p. 34). This site
has had significant declines in salamander abundance, based on 10 years
of monitoring, and the City of Austin attributes this decline to the
increases in sedimentation (COA 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 habitats.
One practical measure of water quality in freshwater springs, such
as those where the Jollyville Plateau salamanders occur, is
conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of the electrical conductivity
in water and is used to approximate salinity in terrestrial and aquatic
environments. Water salinity reflects the concentration of dissolved
inorganic solids (that is, salts such as chlorides or sulfates) in
water that can affect the internal water balance in aquatic organisms.
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 as fertilizers and pesticides (Menzer and Nelson
1980, p. 633).
Conductivity measurements by the City of Austin between 1997 and
2006 found that conductivity measurements averaged between 550 and 650
[mu]S/cm (microsiemens per centimeter) at rural springs with low or no
development and averaged between 900 and 1000 [mu]S/cm at monitoring
sites in watersheds with urban development (COA 2006, p. 37). These
results indicate that developed watersheds contribute to higher levels
of water pollution in habitats of the Jollyville Plateau salamander.
High conductivity has been associated with declining salamander
abundance. For example, 3 of the 4 sites with statistically
significantly declining salamander abundance over the last 10 years are
cited as having high conductivity readings (COA 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). However, developed sites also had a higher proportion of bedrock
substrate, which is not used by salamanders and may have also
contributed to the results of lower salamanders in this study. 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 the statistically significant declines in salamander
abundance at City of Austin long-term monitoring sites (COA 2006, p.
46).

[[Page 71044]]

Excessive nutrient input to Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat
is another form of pollution. Sources of nutrients (which are elements
or compounds, such as phosphorus or nitrogen, that fuel abnormally high
organic growth in aquatic ecosystems) in water include human and animal
wastes, municipal sewage treatment systems, decaying plant material,
and fertilizers used on croplands (Garner and Mahler, p. 29). Excessive
nutrient levels typically cause algal blooms that ultimately die back
and cause progressive decreases in dissolved oxygen concentration in
the water from decomposition (Schueler 1987, pp. 1.5-1.6). Increased
nitrate levels, which are often associated with fertilizer use, have
been known to affect amphibians by altering feeding activity and by
causing disequilibrium and physical abnormalities (Marco, et al. 1999,
p. 2837). Elevated nutrient levels, particularly nitrogen in the forms
of nitrates and ammonia, have been documented by the City of Austin in
both surface water (COA 2006, p. 37) and groundwater (COA 2001a, pp.
54-56) at several salamander locations with high levels of development.
Water quality monitoring in streams occupied by the Jollyville
Plateau salamander has shown that, overall, streams with developed
watersheds have statistically significant higher levels of pollutants
compared with rural watersheds (COA 2001a, p. 59). The City of Austin
defines rural sites as streams draining watersheds with less than 10
percent impervious cover (impervious cover defined below in the Current
Impervious Cover Analysis section); developed sites had impervious
cover greater than 10 percent (COA 2001a, p. 12). Similar analysis of
samples from seven springs also found water quality measures of
pollutants in groundwater significantly higher in developed sites
compared to rural sites (COA 2001a, pp. 54-56). Developed tributary
streams also experienced significantly lower mean adult and juvenile
Jollyville Plateau salamander abundances per square meter of wetted
surface when compared to undeveloped tributary streams (COA 2001a, p.
99).
An assessment of water quality trends also found that measures of
sodium had significant increases between 1997 and 2006 at one site and
significant increases in conductivity measurements at three other sites
(COA 2006, p. 29). The drainage areas to each of these sites have high
levels of urban development (COA 2001a, pp. 29-33; COA 2006, pp. 3,
46).
Poor water quality, particularly elevated nitrates, may also be a
cause of morphological deformities in individual Jollyville Plateau
salamanders. The City of Austin has documented very high levels of
nitrates (averaging over 6 mg/L with some samples exceeding 10 mg/L)
and high conductivity at two monitoring sites in the Stillhouse Hollow
drainage area (COA 2006, pp. 26, 37). For comparison, nitrate levels in
undeveloped Edwards Aquifer springs (watersheds without high levels of
urbanization) are typically close to 1 mg/L (milligram per liter) (COA
2006, p. 26). Salamanders observed at the Stillhouse Hollow monitoring
sites have shown high incidences of deformities, such as curved spines,
missing eyes, missing limbs or digits, and eye injuries (COA 2006, p.
26). The Stillhouse Hollow location was also cited as having the
highest observation of dead salamanders (COA 2001a, p. 88). Although no
statistical correlations were found between the number of deformities
and nitrate concentrations (COA 2006, p. 26), environmental toxins are
the suspected cause of salamander deformities (COA 2006, p. 25).
Nitrate toxicity studies have indicated that salamanders and other
amphibians are sensitive to these pollutants (Marco, et al. 1999, p.
2837).
In an effort to reduce the high nitrate levels within the
Stillhouse Hollow drainage, City of Austin staff have been working with
community residents upstream of Stillhouse Hollow and Barrow Springs in
efforts to improve water quality at the spring (COA 2007c, p. 38). The
goal of the conservation program, which started in 2001, is to educate
more than 250 residents on environmentally appropriate fertilizer use.
While the program has resulted in changes to fertilizer use in the
targeted community, there have been no changes in water quality
detected to date as a result of these efforts (COA 2007c, p. 40).
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are another form of aquatic
pollution that may be affecting Jollyville Plateau salamanders, their
habitat, or their prey. PAHs can originate from petroleum products,
such as oil or grease, or from atmospheric deposition from the
byproducts of combustion (for example, vehicular combustion). These
pollutants are widespread and can contaminate water supplies through
sewage effluents, urban and highway runoff, and chronic leakage or
acute spills of petroleum and petroleum products (Van Metre, et al.
2000, p. 4067, Albers 2003, p. 345). 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). PAH exposure can cause impaired
reproduction, reduced growth and development, and tumors or cancer in
species of amphibians, reptiles, and other organisms (Albers 2003, p.
354). PAHs are also known to cause death, reduced survival, altered
physiological function, inhibited reproduction, and changes in species
populations and community composition of freshwater invertebrates
(Albers 2003, p. 352).
Limited sampling by the City of Austin has detected PAHs at
concentrations of concern at three sites in the range of the Jollyville
Plateau salamander. Most notable, were the elevated levels of nine
different PAH compounds at the Spicewood Springs site in the Shoal
Creek drainage area (COA 2005, pp. 16-17). This is also one of the
sites where salamanders have shown a significant decline in abundance
during the City of Austin long-term monitoring studies (COA 2006, p.
47).
In summary, the best available information indicates that habitat
destruction, in the form of water quality degradation, is occurring in
the majority of the range of the Jollyville Plateau salamander, as
evidenced by elevated levels of sedimentation, ions, nutrients, and
PAHs documented in salamander habitats. The primary threat from water
quality stressors is, therefore, at a significant level of exposure and
is imminent because detrimental effects are already being manifested.
Probable negative responses by Jollyville Plateau salamanders to
habitat degradation from water quality declines include mortalities and
deformities of individual salamanders at several sites and significant
declines in abundance at four monitoring sites over the last 10 years.
In addition, sedimentation results in physical loss of available
habitat and changes macroinvertebrate communities, which are the prey
(food sources) for the salamander. These habitat modifications are most
likely the result of urban development in the drainage areas where
salamanders occur. Overall, the information available provides
compelling evidence that urban development has led to decreases in
water quality caused by higher levels of aquatic pollutants and
increased sedimentation in habitats of Jollyville Plateau salamanders.
Such habitat destruction or modification (in the form of decreased
water quality) has shown to significantly lower salamander abundance.

Extent of Existing and Future Development

We used two quantitative measures to assess the extent of urban
development

[[Page 71045]]

within areas draining to stream segments where Jollyville Plateau
salamanders are known to occur. This analysis provided a tool for
assessing the scope (geographic extent), immediacy (potential future
effects), and the intensity (strength of stressor) of the habitat
stressors that originate from urban development (the source of water
quality threats). For this status review, we assumed that, as the
amount of urban development increases, as quantified by these two
measurements, the extent (that is the scope, immediacy, and intensity)
of the source of water quality threats also increases.
The first measure is the estimated percent of impervious cover and
the second is the overall percent of land area that is currently
developed, undeveloped, or open space (these terms are defined below).
Impervious cover is any surface material, such as roads, rooftops,
sidewalks, patios, paved surfaces, or compacted soil, that prevents
water from filtering into the soil (Arnold and Gibbons 1996, p. 244).
Developed areas are land tracts that have structures already built on
the property including, for example, tracts with land use designations
of residential, commercial, industrial, civic (public), utilities, and
roads. Undeveloped tracts were those that have not been dedicated as
open space, and have not yet had any construction on the land. Open
space includes lands set aside for either low-use recreation (some
recreational parks are included) or as wildlife preserves.
To calculate impervious cover and land use, the City of Austin
delineated the surface drainage area flowing into 20 distinct stream
segments with all currently known salamander localities. Then, for each
of these drainage areas, they calculated the percent of impervious
cover using the area of the building and transportation footprints. For
the land use calculations, they determined which parcels fell into each
of 15 categories (Single-Family Residential, Mobile Home, Large-Lot
Single-Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential, Commercial,
Office, Industrial, Civic, Open Space, Golf Course, Transportation,
Streets and Roads, Utilities, Undeveloped, and Water) based upon land
usages. We summarized these data by calculating the total area of the
parcels designated as ``undeveloped'' and ``open space'' and adding all
the other categories together, with the exception of ``water'', to
create our ``developed'' category. ``Water'' was only found in one
polygon in the Walnut Creek watershed and was not added to any land use
category.
Current Impervious Cover Analysis. We evaluated the current (2006
and 2007) levels of impervious cover in the areas that drain to
salamander locations, which include undeveloped tracts and open spaces
in the calculation. Once natural 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). Citing a
number of other studies, Bowles, et al. (2006, p. 111) state that
impervious cover in watersheds elevates the frequency and intensity of
storm flows (water draining watersheds immediately following rain
events) and reduces baseflow (flows from spring flows not directly
influenced by rain events) in receiving streams, increases erosion and
down cutting (lowering the elevation of stream channels by moving
substrates downstream), and contributes nutrient and toxic pollutant
loads. Also, Schueler (1994, p. 104) found that sites receiving runoff
from high impervious cover drainage areas had sensitive aquatic
macroinvertebrate species replaced by species more tolerant of
pollution and hydrologic stress (high rate of changes in discharges
over short periods of time).
Various levels of impervious cover within watersheds have been
cited as having detrimental effects to water quality within streams.
The threshold of measurable degradation of stream habitat and loss of
biotic integrity consistently occurs with 6 to 15 percent impervious
cover in contributing watersheds (Bowles, et al. 2006, p. 111; Miller,
et al. 2007, p. 74). A review of relevant literature by Schueler (1994,
p. 100-102) indicates that stream degradation occurs at impervious
cover of 10 to 20 percent, a sharp drop in habitat quality is found at
10 to 15 percent impervious cover, and watersheds above 15 percent are
consistently classified as poor, relative to biological condition.
Schueler (1994, p. 102) also concluded that even when water quality
protection practices are widely applied, 35 to 60 percent impervious
cover exceeds a threshold beyond which we cannot maintain
predevelopment water quality.
The 20 drainage areas within the range of the Jollyville Plateau
salamander have impervious cover estimates ranging from 0 percent to 45
percent. For the purposes of our analysis, we categorized each of the
20 drainage areas (based on overall drainage areas, which incorporate
undeveloped tracts and open spaces) as either low (less than 6 percent
impervious cover), moderate (between 6 and 15 percent impervious
cover), high (between 16 and 34 percent impervious cover), or very high
(35 percent impervious cover or greater) to assess the intensity of
development. Five of the areas had overall low levels of impervious
cover (less than six percent). Eight areas had moderate levels of
impervious cover (6 to 15 percent). Five areas had high levels of
impervious cover (16 to 34 percent). Two drainage areas had very high
levels of impervious cover (35 percent or greater). We expect the
levels of impervious cover to increase as undeveloped areas are
developed in the future (discussed in more detail below in the Extent
of Development in the Foreseeable Future section). In summary, based on
the best available information we found that 15 of the 20 drainage
areas evaluated have levels of impervious cover (greater than 5
percent) that may be detrimental to salamander habitats. Therefore, the
Jollyville Plateau salamander has a significant level of exposure to
threats from water quality degradation originating in urban development
because a majority of populations are potentially affected.
Current Land Use Analysis. We also evaluated the extent of the
potential pollution sources from urban areas affecting Jollyville
Plateau salamander habitat by quantifying the land use designation in
all upstream areas that drain to stream segments where salamanders have
been documented to occur. Overall, we found that the 20 drainage areas
upstream of salamander locations encompass 15,485 ac (6,267 ha),
ranging in size from 44 to 2,063 ac (18 to 835 ha). Of the overall
total, 8,464 ac (3,425 ha) (55 percent) are already developed, 2,432 ac
(984 ha) (16 percent) are currently undeveloped, and 4,586 ac (1,856
ha) are dedicated as open space (30 percent).
A substantial portion of the land area categorized as open space is
protected as part of the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP). The BCP
is managed as mitigation lands by the City of Austin, Travis County, or
others under the authority of an Endangered Species Act Section
10(a)(1)(B) permit and Habitat Conservation Plan for the protection of
endangered birds and karst invertebrates. Of the 4,586 acres (ac)
(1,856 hectares (ha)) in the drainage areas designated as open space,
an estimated 3,999 ac (1,618 ha) (87 percent) is within areas managed
under the BCP. Although the permit that created the BCP did not include
the Jollyville Plateau salamander, the BCP land management strategies
provide strong protections for salamander habitats on lands within the
preserve. Water quality in salamander sites

[[Page 71046]]

located within the BCP, however, is influenced by land use practices
upstream and outside the BCP preserves. For example, important
headwater areas in Tributaries 5 and 6 of Bull Creek (where significant
declines in salamander abundance have been found) have affected
habitats downstream (COA 2006, p. 45).
One of the drainage areas that have been severely impacted by older
urban development (in place more than 20 years) is the Walnut Creek
drainage. In this drainage area, 88 percent of the watershed is
developed and 7 percent is open space. Overall, it has a very high
level of impervious cover (36 percent). Only one small spring pool has
been found in the past to have salamanders within this drainage area
and the location is within a small recreational park. Despite several
recent survey efforts, salamanders have not been observed there since
2005, and the species may be extirpated from this drainage area (COA
2006, p. 47). This site is likely an example of the extirpation of a
Jollyville Plateau salamander population as a result of the long-term
impacts of a highly urbanized watershed.
Development in Drainage Areas at Monitoring Sites. We also did
these analyses specifically for the nine long-term monitoring sites.
For some sites, this required evaluating a subset of the drainage area
of the stream segment so as to include only areas that are upstream of
the monitoring site. We found that the drainage areas of the long-term
monitoring sites with declining salamander abundance had high rates of
impervious cover. Of the four long-term monitoring sites where the City
of Austin documented declines in salamander abundance (discussed in
more detail above in the City of Austin Monitoring Data section), one
site was in a watershed with very high levels of impervious cover, two
sites were in watersheds with high levels of impervious cover, and one
site was in a watershed with moderate levels of impervious cover. Of
these four sites, the drainage areas were 97 percent, 83 percent, 80
percent, and 46 percent developed. Three of these sites each had 12
percent or less of their drainage areas in open space. These data
support the general conclusion that sites with declining salamander
abundances have highly developed watersheds.
One exception is the monitoring site at Tributary 5 of the Bull
Creek Watershed, which has declining abundance, but only moderate
levels of impervious cover and only 46 percent of the drainage area
developed. Tributary 5 is within the BCP (described above in the
Current Land Use Analysis section). However, this site has substantial
development (461 ac, 187 ha) within the headwaters of the drainage area
to this monitoring site, and excessive sedimentation has been observed
here (discussed in more detail above in the City of Austin Monitoring
Data section). Since 1997, this site also has seen increases in recent
development as the reported estimated impervious cover has increased
from between 5 and 11 percent (COA 2001a, p. 33) to a current estimate
of 13 percent.
One of the nine long-term monitoring sites (Wheless site in Long
Hollow drainage area) had increasing salamander abundance over the 10
years of study. The drainage area for this site has no development and
97 percent of the area is within protected lands of the BCP, including
the headwaters. These results provide correlated evidence that poor
water quality resulting from the high levels of urban development
result in a decline in abundance of the Jollyville Plateau salamander
at specific locations. Therefore, as the intensity of the source of
threats to habitat (how water quality resulting from urban development)
increases, a negative response by the salamander at the population is
apparent.
We also compared the mean number of salamanders counted during
recent monitoring surveys (between 2004 and 2006) at the long-term
monitoring sites (unpublished data provided by the City of Austin) with
the current level of development within the drainage areas (percent
developed). Although the sample efforts among sites were not
standardized, the comparison showed a trend that, as the percent of
development increased in drainage areas, the mean number of Jollyville
Plateau salamanders counted decreased. This correlation indicates that
as development levels increase, the actual abundance of salamanders
decreases. Urban development results in low water quality and increased
sedimentation, which negatively impacts salamander abundance. This
again supports the conclusion that the intensity of urban development
is inversely related to the population response of the Jollyville
Plateau salamander. A similar correlation was documented for a species
of Eurycea salamander in North Carolina. As impervious cover increased
in drainage areas, salamander abundances in streams significantly
decreased (Miller, et al. 2007, p. 79).
Treatment of Cave Locations and Brushy Creek. For the impervious
cover and land use analysis described above, we did not include the
caves occupied by Jollyville Plateau salamanders from the Buttercup
Creek and Cluck Creek drainage areas in the City of Cedar Park as part
of the 20 drainage areas. Instead, we analyzed these drainage areas
separately because all of the salamander locations in the Buttercup
Creek and Cluck Creek drainage areas are within caves (and are the cave
form of the species, as described above in the Background section). We
do not have specific information on the extent to which surface
drainage areas contribute waters to these salamander cave locations;
subsurface water within the caves is likely originating from other
surface drainage basins. The Buttercup Creek drainage area (where caves
occur that contain salamanders) encompasses 689 ac (279 ha) and has 10
percent impervious cover and is 37 percent developed, 18 percent
undeveloped, and 45 percent open space. The Cluck Creek drainage area
(also where caves occur that contain salamanders) encompasses 248 ac
(100 ha) and has 16 percent impervious cover and is 53 percent
developed, 27 percent undeveloped, and 20 percent open space. The urban
development in the drainage areas around these cave locations is at
moderate to high levels and, depending on hydrogeology of subsurface
flows, could be affecting water quality in the aquatic habitats in the
caves.
We also separately evaluated one Jollyville Plateau salamander
location along Brushy Creek located approximately 1.5 miles (2.4
kilometers) east of Interstate Highway 35. This location is
approximately 5 miles (8 kilometers) northeast of the nearest other
known salamander location. We are not aware of any surveys for
salamanders for most of the Brushy Creek drainage (which encompasses
over 38,000 ac (15,000 ha)) and additional locations could be
discovered with future surveys (Hillis 2007, p. 1). Salamanders from
the one site along Brushy Creek mainstem were included in the taxonomic
study describing the species. Genetic studies confirmed that
salamanders from this location were Jollyville Plateau salamanders
(Chippendale, et al. 2000, p. 49). This known salamander habitat is
isolated at one spring site on private property near an existing office
complex (Chippendale, et al. 2000, p. 36). The location appears to be
about 200 feet (61 meters) from the Brushy Creek channel at a spring
outflow along a steep bank (Hillis 2007, p.1). We do not know if the
salamander occurs in other parts of Brushy Creek itself, and,
therefore, we do not know if the species would be

[[Page 71047]]

affected by upstream development in the Brushy Creek watershed.
We treated the Brushy Creek drainage area separately because of the
uncertainties of the status of the salamander in this drainage area,
and because the size of the drainage is more than twice that of all the
other areas combined and would inaccurately skew the results. The
Brushy Creek drainage area had an estimated impervious cover of 15
percent. Current land use analysis showed the Brushy Creek drainage
area has 46 percent developed, 48 percent undeveloped, and 6 percent
open space. This drainage area is currently moderately impacted by
development and, with such a small area of open space and large
undeveloped area, it is likely to be more heavily impacted by urban
development in the foreseeable future.
Conclusion on Existing and Future Development. Based on our
assessments of impervious cover and current land use, the level of
development in a drainage area (the primary source of water quality
degradation and sedimentation loading) can be indicative of the
abundance and trend of Jollyville Plateau salamander populations within
the receiving streams downstream. The scope of the threat to water
quality from urbanization (based on the geographic extent) is
considered moderate because it occurs in multiple watersheds. The
strength and the exposure of the threat source are considered moderate
to high because a majority of the drainage areas are already impacted
by urban development. We also used this information and relationship of
land use data to predict the future extent of the threats to salamander
habitat from urban development.

Extent of Development in the Foreseeable Future

The amount of developed land within the areas draining to
salamander habitat is expected to increase in the foreseeable future,
which as we explain below, we consider to be 20 years. We expect the
majority of currently undeveloped areas that are not preserved as open
space (total of 2,432 ac (984 ha)) to be developed as residential or
commercial structures within the next 20 years. This expectation is
based on the rapid human population projections for the Austin
metropolitan area. For example, the 2007 population estimates for the
City of Austin and the Austin MSA (metropolitan statistical area, which
includes Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties) are
724,111 and 1,501,522, respectively. By 2025 (the year nearest 20 years
out from present for which population data are available), the
population projections for the same two areas are 1,041,401 and
2,603,682, respectively (COA 2007a, p. 1). Between 2007 and 2025, these
forecasts represent a 44 percent increase in the City of Austin and a
73 percent increase in the human population in the Austin MSA. The area
in northwest Austin where salamander habitat occurs has limited lands
on which to build additional structures to accommodate expected growth.
Therefore, based on high expected growth and limited areas to build, we
assume for the purposes of this status review that the remaining
undeveloped lands in drainage areas of salamander habitat that are not
located within open space preserves are likely to be developed within
the next 20 years.
Using this assumption, we combined the developed and undeveloped
categories of land use and calculated the total amount of development
(current and future) in each area draining into the 20 stream segments
with salamanders. To characterize the scope of development within each
area, we grouped the drainages into four levels of development (both
current and future): 0 to 25 percent, 26 to 50 percent, 51 to 75
percent, and greater than 76 percent developed. This provided us with
an estimate of the maximum level of future development that can be
expected. We found that 11 of the 20 drainage areas are likely to have
greater than 76 percent of their land area developed. There are likely
to be three drainage areas with 51 to 75 percent developed, four
drainage areas with 26 to 50 percent developed, and two drainage areas
with 0 to 25 percent developed. Because the majority of drainage areas
are likely to be over 75 percent developed, these results support the
conclusion that threats to Jollyville Plateau salamander habitats from
urbanization are likely to increase in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion on Habitat Threats From Water Quality Degradation

Based on these results, we conclude that the level of impervious
cover and overall land use are reasonable indicators of the intensity
and exposure of water quality threats to salamander habitat. The
intensity (strength of stressor) of the threat and level of exposure
are considered high because a majority of the drainage areas with
salamanders currently have levels of urban development (based on
impervious cover rates and proportion of developed lands) that have
been shown to cause negative responses by salamanders.

Water Quantity and Spring Flow Declines

The northern segment of the Edwards Aquifer is the primary supply
of water for Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat (Cole 1995, p. 33).
In general, the aquifer has been described as localized, small, and
highly susceptible to pollution, drying, or draining (Chippendale, et
al. 2000, p. 36). The portion of the Edwards Aquifer underlying the
Jollyville Plateau is relatively shallow, with a high elevation, thus
being likely to not sustain spring flows during periods of drought
(Cole 1995, pp. 26-27). Increased urbanization in the watershed has
been cited as one factor, in combination with drought, causing declines
in spring flows (COA 2006, pp. 46-47). This could occur because of the
inability of the 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 flows and decreasing groundwater recharge (Miller, et al.
2007, p. 74).
We found no specific evidence that aquifer declines or spring flow
losses have occurred as a result of urbanization or the direct use of
aquifer water by pumping (TWDB 2003, p. 32). Predictions of future
groundwater use in this area suggest a large drop in pumping as
municipalities convert from groundwater to surface water supplies (TWDB
2003, p. 65). However, field studies have shown that a number of
springs that support Jollyville Plateau salamanders have already gone
dry periodically and that spring waters resurface following rain events
(COA 2006, p. 46-47).
Although water quantity decreases and spring flow declines are
cited as a threat to the Jollyville Plateau salamander (Bowles, et al.
2006, p. 111), we did not find evidence that salamander habitats and
populations are being substantially affected by lack of sufficient
water quantity. Jollyville Plateau salamanders apparently spend some
part of their life history in underground aquatic habitats and have the
ability to retreat underground when surface flows decline. For example,
one of the City of Austin monitoring sites where the salamanders are
most abundant undergoes periods where there is no surface water for
habitat by the salamander (COA 2006, p. 47). Drying spring habitats can
result in stranding salamanders, resulting in death of individuals (COA
2006, p. 16).

[[Page 71048]]

In summary, the intensity and exposure of water quality threats
posed by potential declining aquifer levels and loss of spring flow to
the Jollyville Plateau salamander appear to be relatively low. This is
because the aquifer is not currently used to a large extent as a water
source for human use, and it is unlikely that it will be in the future.
Also, we do not have substantial evidence that declining water quality
is resulting in a negative response by the salamander. However,
continued future development, which increases runoff and decreases
aquifer recharge, and the potential use of water from the northern
segment of the Edwards Aquifer may cause significant threats to the
species' existence in the future.

Minor Habitat Threats

Frequent human visitation associated with some habitat of the
Jollyville Plateau salamander may negatively affect the species and its
habitat. Documentation from the City of Austin of disturbed vegetation,
vandalism, and the destruction of travertine deposits (fragile rock
formations formed by deposit of calcium carbonate on stream bottoms) by
foot traffic has been documented at one of their salamander monitoring
sites in the Bull Creek watershed (COA 2001a, p. 21) and may result in
direct destruction of small amounts of the salamander's habitat. This
threat is of low magnitude because the negative impacts occur
infrequently and at limited locations.
Feral hogs have become abundant in some areas where the Jollyville
Plateau salamander occurs. Feral hogs can negatively impact salamander
habitat by physically wallowing in spring heads and destroying
interstitial spaces and increasing sedimentation downstream (COA 2006,
p. 34). The City of Austin has addressed this threat in some areas by
constructing enclosure fences around known salamander locations (COA
2006, p. 46). Feral hogs are a low magnitude threat (low intensity and
localized scope) to the salamander.

Conclusion on Threats to Habitat

The Jollyville Plateau salamander is threatened due to modification
of the species' habitat (Factor A), both presently and into the
foreseeable future. The presence of significant urban development in a
majority of watersheds draining water to salamander locations has
resulted in the deterioration of the water quality in salamander
habitats characterized by an increase in sedimentation and pollutant
loading. This water quality decline has resulted in the physical loss
of salamander habitat from sedimentation, changes in the composition of
its macroinvertebrate prey base, death and deformities of individual
salamanders, and the overall decline in abundance of the salamanders
over time in areas with urban watersheds.

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

We are not aware of any information regarding overutilization of
Jollyville Plateau salamanders for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes and do not consider this a
significant factor affecting this species (i.e., a threat) now or in
the foreseeable future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

City of Austin 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.) or sunfish (Lepomis
spp.) (COA 2001a, p. 102). Predation of a Jollyville Plateau salamander
by a centrarchid fish was observed during a May 2006, field survey (COA
2006, p. 38). However, Bowles, et al. (2006, pp. 117-118) rarely
observed these predators in Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat.
Jollyville Plateau 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). We have
no data to indicate whether predation of the Jollyville Plateau
salamander may increase in the future or is considered a significant
factor affecting the species and therefore a threat.
Chytridiomycosis (Chytrid fungus) is a fungal disease that is
responsible for killing amphibians world wide (Daszak, et al. 2000, p.
445). The chytrid fungus has been documented on the feet of Jollyville
Plateau salamanders (COA 2006, pp. 22-23). However, for unknown
reasons, the salamanders are not displaying signs of infection (COA
2006, p. 23); individuals held in captivity tested positive for seven
months, but never displayed symptoms (COA 2006, p. 23). We have no data
to indicate whether impacts from this disease may increase or decrease
in the future, and therefore, whether it is a significant factor
affecting the species (i.e., a threat).
While predation and disease may be affecting Jollyville Plateau
salamanders, neither factor is at a level that we consider to be
threatening the continued existence of the salamanders now or in the
foreseeable future.

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The Jollyville Plateau salamander is not listed on the Texas State
List of Threatened or Endangered Species (TPWD 2006, pp. 2-3).
Therefore it is receiving no direct protection from the State.
Under authority of the Texas Administrative Code (Title 30, Chapter
213), the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) regulates
activities having the potential for polluting the Edwards Aquifer and
hydrologically connected surface streams. However, less than half of
the known Jollyville Plateau salamander locations occur within those
portions of the Edwards Aquifer regulated by TCEQ; therefore, many do
not benefit from these protections (TCEQ 2001, p. 1). For those
Jollyville salamander locations that are covered by the TCEQ
regulations, the regulations do not address land use, impervious cover
limitations, non-point source pollution, or application of fertilizers
and pesticides over the recharge zone (30 TAC 213.3). We are unaware of
any water quality ordinances more restrictive than TCEQ in Williamson
County or in Travis County outside the City of Austin.
The City of Austin's water quality ordinances (City of Austin Code,
Title 25, Chapter 8) provide some water quality regulatory protection
to the salamander's habitat within Travis County; however, based on
water quality monitoring, they are not effective at reducing nutrient
levels (see discussion in Factor A). In addition, Title 7, Chapter 245
of the Texas Local Government Code permits ``grandfathering'' of State
regulations. Grandfathering allows developments to be exempted from new
requirements for water quality controls and impervious cover limits if
the developments were planned prior to the implementation of such
regulations. However, these developments are still obligated to comply
with regulations that were applicable at the time when project
applications for development were first filed (Title 7, Chapter 245 of
the Texas Local Government Code p. 1). Unpublished data provided by
City of Austin indicates that up to 26 percent of undeveloped areas
within watersheds draining to Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat may
be exempted from current water quality control requirements due to
``grandfathering'' legislation.

[[Page 71049]]

The BCP offers some water quality benefits to the Jollyville
Plateau salamander in portions of the Bull Creek, Brushy Creek, Cypress
Creek, and Long Hollow Creek drainages through preservation of open
space (Service 1996a, pp. 2-28, 2-29). However, eight of the nine City
of Austin monitoring sites occupied by the Jollyville Plateau
salamander within the BCP are being affected or have been affected by
water quality degradation occurring upstream and outside of the
preserved tracts (see Factor A for discussion) (COA 2006, p. 29, 34,
37, 49; COA 1999, pp. 6-11; Travis County 2007, p. 4). Additionally,
Jollyville Plateau salamanders are not a covered species under the
section 10(a)(1)(B) permit under which the preserves were established
(Service 1996b, pp. 1-10). Therefore, they receive no specific
protections under the BCP permit, such as mitigation to offset impacts
from development.
Data indicate that water quality degradation in streams occupied by
Jollyville Plateau salamanders continues to occur despite the existence
of current regulatory mechanisms in place to protect water quality (COA
2006, p. 29). Therefore, we consider the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms to be a threat to the Jollyville Plateau
salamander now and in the foreseeable future.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species'
Continued Existence

We are not aware of any information regarding other natural or
manmade factors affecting the Jollyville Plateau salamanders' continued
existence. Therefore, we have determined that there are no other
natural or manmade factors significantly affecting this species now or
in the foreseeable future that constitutes a threat to the Jollyville
Plateau salamander.

Finding

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by this species. We reviewed the petition, available published
and unpublished scientific and commercial information, and information
submitted to us during the public comment period following the
publication of our 90-day petition finding. This 12-month finding
reflects and incorporates information we received during the public
comment period, or obtained through consultation, literature research,
and field visits, and responds to significant issues identified. We
also consulted with recognized Jollyville Plateau salamander experts.
On the basis of this review, we find that the listing of the Jollyville
Plateau salamander is warranted, due to threats associated with habitat
modification from urban development causing water quality degradation,
and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. However, listing
of the Jollyville Plateau salamander is precluded at this time by
pending proposals for other species with higher listing priorities and
actions.
The threats to the Jollyville Plateau salamander support a finding
that the species warrants listing as threatened or endangered
throughout its range. The primary factor leading to our finding are
threats described above under Factor A. The source of the habitat
threats are from substantial levels of urban development that has
occurred on a majority of watersheds draining to salamander habitats.
For example 55 percent of the land draining to salamander habitat is
already developed. This urbanization produces pollutants that have
caused demonstrable declines in the water quality where salamanders
live. The immediacy of the threats is high because impervious cover and
developed areas are chronic sources for water quality degradation that
are currently occurring and are likely to increase with future urban
development in the salamander's range. The threat intensity (that is
the strength of the water quality degradation stressor) is moderate
because actual measures of significant water quality problems are in
limited portions of the salamander's range. The level of exposure of
the threat is found to be high, based on urbanization in a majority of
the species' range. These water quality impacts alter physical aquatic
habitats and the food sources of the salamander, producing negative
population responses. Negative responses by the salamander have been
documented at both the individual level (mortalities and deformities)
and the population level (significant declines in abundance over the
last 10 years). We find the overall negative response by the salamander
to be at a moderate level because deformities and deaths of salamanders
have been limited in scope to a few localities and only one location
may have experienced an extirpation. Otherwise, the current range of
the salamander changed little from the known historic range. On balance
of these facts, we find the overall level of threat from habitat
modifications to be moderate.
The other factor we found to be contributing to the warranted
status of the Jollyville Plateau salamander is that State (TCEQ) and
local (City of Austin and BCP) regulations have not been adequate to
prevent or minimize impacts to salamanders (Factor D). This is
evidenced by data gathered at monitoring sites in developing drainage
areas with the species.
Since this finding is warranted but precluded, we do not need to
specifically determine whether it is appropriate to perform a
``significant portion of the range'' analysis for this species.
However, due to the restricted nature of the Jollyville Plateau
salamander's range, we generally consider all of the remaining range to
be significant for the conservation of this species. Because of a small
and restricted population distribution, and because of threats
described above, the Jollyville Plateau salamander warrants listing as
threatened or endangered throughout its entire range. We will make a
determination on the status of the species as threatened or endangered,
during the proposed listing rule process.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in
relation to the resources that are available and competing demands for
those resources. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors
dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed
listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is
warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants or to change the status
of a species from threatened to endangered; annual determinations on
prior ``warranted but precluded'' petition findings as required under
section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; proposed and final rules designating
critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, and program
management functions (including preparing and allocating budgets,
responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public
outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The work involved in
preparing various listing documents can be extensive and may include,
but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and
commercial data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for
our decisions; writing

[[Page 71050]]

and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating
public comments and peer review comments on proposed rules and
incorporating relevant information into final rules. The number of
listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is
influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more
complex actions generally are more costly. For example, during the past
several years, the cost (excluding publication costs) for preparing a
12-month finding, without a proposed rule, has ranged from
approximately $11,000 for one species with a restricted range and
involving a relatively uncomplicated analysis to $305,000 for another
species that is wide-ranging and involving a complex analysis.
We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds which may be
expended for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly
appropriated for that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was
designed to prevent funds appropriated for other functions under the
Act (e.g., Recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for
other Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions
(see House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
Recognizing that designation of critical habitat for species
already listed would consume most of the overall Listing Program
appropriation, Congress also put a critical habitat subcap in place in
FY 2002 and has retained it each subsequent year to ensure that some
funds are available for other work in the Listing Program: ``The
critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is
available to address other listing activities'' (House Report No. 107-
103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19, 2001). In FY 2002 and each
year until FY 2006, the Service has had to use virtually the entire
critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated designations of
critical habitat, and consequently none of the critical habitat subcap
funds have been available for other listing activities. In FY 2007, we
were able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations for high-priority candidate species; we
expect to also be able to do this in FY 2008.
Thus, through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the
amount of funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat
designations, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the
amount of money available for other listing activities. Therefore, the
funds in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-
mandated critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on
our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
Congress also recognized that the availability of resources was the
key element in deciding whether, when making a 12-month petition
finding, we would prepare and issue a listing proposal or make a
``warranted but precluded'' finding for a given species. The Conference
Report accompanying P.L. 97-304, which established the current
statutory deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states (in
a discussion on 90-day petition findings that by its own terms also
covers 12-month findings) that the deadlines were ``not intended to
allow the Secretary to delay commencing the rulemaking process for any
reason other than that the existence of pending or imminent proposals
to list species subject to a greater degree of threat would make
allocation of resources to such a petition [i.e., for a lower-ranking
species] unwise.''
In FY 2008, expeditious progress is that amount of work that can be
achieved with $5,131,000, which is the amount of money we have for the
Listing Program at this time. Since Congress has yet to approve a
Listing Program appropriation for FY 2008, we are working under a
Continuing Resolution. We are using the FY 2006 enacted budget amount
($5,131,000) for the Listing Program that is not within the critical
habitat subcap. Our process is to make our determinations of preclusion
on a nationwide basis to ensure that the species most in need of
listing will be addressed first and also because we allocate our
listing budget on a nationwide basis. The $5,131,000 for listing
activities (that is, the portion of the Listing Program funding not
related to critical habitat designations for species that already are
listed) will be used to fund work in the following categories:
Compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements
requiring that petition findings or listing determinations be completed
by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions with
absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related,
administrative, and program management functions; and high-priority
listing actions. The allocations for each specific listing action are
identified in the Service's FY 2008 Draft Allocation Table (part of our
administrative record). We are working on completing our allocation at
this time. More funds are anticipated to be available in FY 2008 than
in previous years to work on listing actions that are not the subject
of court orders or court-approved settlement agreements.
Our decision that a proposed rule to list the Jollyville Plateau
salamander is warranted but precluded includes consideration of its
listing priority. In accordance with guidance we published on September
21, 1983, we assign an LPN to each candidate species (48 FR 43098).
Such a priority ranking guidance system is required under section
4(h)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(h)(3)). Using this guidance, we
assign each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of
threats (high vs. moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or
non-imminent), and taxonomic status of the species, in order of
priority (monotypic genus (i.e., a species that is the sole member of a
genus), species, subspecies, distinct population segment, or
significant portion of the range). The lower the listing priority
number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN
of 1 would have the highest listing priority).
We currently have more than 120 species with an LPN of 2.
Therefore, we further rank the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by
using the following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union
for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list
status/rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat
rank (provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than
50 individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the
highest IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank
(G1), the highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats),
and currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4
populations, comprise a list of approximately 40 candidate species
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have the highest priority to
receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. Note, to
be more efficient in our listing process, as we work on proposed rules
for these species in the next several years, we are preparing multi-
species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species with
lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats
as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, available staff resources
are also a factor in determining high-priority species provided with
funding. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened
species to

[[Page 71051]]

endangered are lower priority, since the listing of the species already
affords the protection of the Act and implementing regulations. We
assigned the Jollyville Plateau salamander an LPN of 8, based on our
finding that the species faces threats of moderate magnitude that are
imminent, and on its taxonomic status as a species (see Finding
section).
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add or remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. (We note that we do not discuss
specific actions taken on progress towards removing species from the
Lists because that work is conducted using appropriations for our
Recovery program, a separately budgeted component of the Endangered
Species Program. As explained above in our description of the statutory
cap on Listing Program funds, the Recovery Program funds and actions
supported by them cannot be considered in determining expeditious
progress made in the Listing Program.) As with our ``precluded''
finding, expeditious progress in adding qualified species to the Lists
is a function of the resources available and the competing demands for
those funds. Our expeditious progress in FY 2007 in the Listing
Program, up to the date of making this finding for the Jollyville
Plateau salamander, included preparing and publishing the following
determinations:

FY 2007 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/11/2006........ Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to List Final withdrawal, 71 FR 59700-59711
the Cow Head Tui Chub (Gila biocolor Threats eliminated.
vaccaceps) as Endangered.
10/11/2006........ Revised 12-Month Finding for the Beaver Notice of 12-month 71 FR 59711-59714
Cave Beetle (Pseudanophthalmus major). petition finding,
Not warranted.
11/14/2006........ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Notice of 12-month 71 FR 66292-66298
Island Marble Butterfly (Euchloe petition finding,
ausonides insulanus) as Threatened or Not warranted.
Endangered.
11/14/2006........ 90-Day Finding for a Petition to List the Notice of 90-day 71 FR 66298-66301
Kennebec River Population of Anadromous petition finding,
Atlantic Salmon as Part of the Endangered Substantial.
Gulf Of Maine Distinct Population Segment.
11/21/2006........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 90-day 71 FR 67318-67325
Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse as petition finding,
Threatened or Endangered. Not substantial.
12/5/2006......... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 90-day 71 FR 70483-70492
Tricolored Blackbird as Threatened or petition finding,
Endangered. Not substantial.
12/6/2006......... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month 71 FR 70717-70733
Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) as petition finding,
Threatened with Critical Habitat. Not warranted.
12/6/2006......... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 90-day 71 FR 70715-70717
Upper Tidal Potomac River Population of Petition Finding,
the Northern Water Snake (Nerodia Not substantial.
sipedon) as an Endangered Distinct
Population Segment.
12/14/2006........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to Remove the Notice of 5-year 71 FR 75215-75220
Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus From the List Review, Initiation.
of Endangered and Threatened Plants; 90- Notice of 90-day
Day Finding on a Petition To List the petition finding,
Pariette Cactus as Threatened or Not substantial.
Endangered. Notice of 90-day
petition finding,
Substantial.
12/19/2006........ Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Notice of withdrawal, 71 FR 76023-76035
Penstemon grahamii (Graham's beardtongue) More abundant than
as Threatened With Critical Habitat. believed, or
diminished threats.
12/19/2006........ 90-Day Finding on Petitions to List the Notice of 90-day 71 FR 76057-76079
Mono Basin Area Population of the Greater petition finding,
Sage-Grouse as Threatened or Endangered. Not substantial.
1/9/2007.......... 12-Month Petition Finding and Proposed Notice of 12-month 72 FR 1063-1099
Rule To List the Polar Bear (Ursus petition finding,
maritimus) as Threatened Throughout Its Warranted.
Range; Proposed Rule. Proposed Listing,
Threatened.
1/10/2007......... Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Clarification of 72 FR 1186-1189
Plants; Clarification of Significant findings.
Portion of the Range for the Contiguous
United States Distinct Population Segment
of the Canada Lynx.
1/12/2007......... Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List Notice of withdrawal, 72 FR 1621-1644
Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot More abundant than
Peppergrass). believed, or
diminished threats.
2/2/2007.......... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month 72 FR 4967-4997
American Eel as Threatened or Endangered. petition finding,
Not warranted.
2/13/2007......... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 90-day 72 FR 6699-6703
Jollyville Plateau Salamander as petition finding,
Endangered. Substantial.
2/13/2007......... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 90-day 72 FR 6703-6707
San Felipe Gambusia as Threatened or petition finding,
Endangered. Not substantial.
2/14/2007......... 90-Day Finding on A Petition to List Notice 90-day 72 FR 6998-7005
Astragalus debequaeus (DeBeque milk petition finding,
vetch) as Threatened or Endangered. Not substantial.
2/21/2007......... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Reclassify Notice of 5-year 72 FR 7843-7852
the Utah Prairie Dog From Threatened to Review, Initiation.
Endangered and Initiation of a 5-Year Notice of 90-day
Review. petition finding,
Not substantial.
3/8/2007.......... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 90-day 72 FR 10477-10480
Monongahela River Basin Population of the petition finding,
Longnose Sucker as Endangered. Not substantial.
03/29/2007........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice 90-day 72 FR 14750-14759
Siskiyou Mountains Salamander and Scott petition finding,
Bar Salamander as Threatened or Substantial.
Endangered.
04/24/2007........ Revised 12-Month Finding for Upper Notice of 12-month 72 FR 20305-20314
Missouri River Distinct Population petition finding,
Segment of Fluvial Arctic Grayling. Not warranted.

[[Page 71052]]

05/02/2007........ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Notice of 12-month 72 FR 24253-24263
Sand Mountain Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes petition finding,
pallescens ssp. arenamontana) as Not warranted.
Threatened or Endangered with Critical
Habitat.
05/22/2007........ Status of the Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout.. Notice of Review..... 72 FR 28864-28665
05/30/2007........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 90-day 72 FR 29933-29941
Mt. Charleston Blue Butterfly as petition finding,
Threatened or Endangered. Substantial.
06/05/2007........ 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of Review..... 72 FR 31048-31049
Wolverine as Threatened or Endangered.
06/06/2007........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 90-day 72 FR 31256-31264
Yellow-Billed Loon as Threatened or Petition Finding,
Endangered. Substantial.
06/13/2007........ 12-Month Finding for a Petition To List Notice of 12-month 72 FR 32589-32605
the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout as petition finding,
Threatened or Endangered. Not warranted.
06/25/2007........ 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of amended 12- 72 FR 34657-34661
Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment month petition
of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana finding, Warranted
muscosa). but Precluded.
07/05/2007........ 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 12-month 72 FR 36635-36646
Casey's June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) as petition finding,
Endangered With Critical Habitat. Warranted but
precluded.
08/15/2007........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of 90-day 72 FR 45717-45722
Yellowstone National Park Bison Herd as Petition Finding,
Endangered. Not-substantial.
08/16/2007........ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 90-day 72 FR 46023-46030
Astragalus anserinus (Goose Creek milk Petition Finding,
vetch) as Threatened or Endangered. Substantial.
8/28/2007......... 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Notice of Review..... 72 FR 49245-49246
Gunnison's Prairie Dog as Threatened or
Endangered.
9/11/2007......... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 90-day 72 FR 51766-51770
Kenk's Amphipod, Virginia Well Amphipod, Petition Finding,
and the Copepod Acanthocyclops Not-substantial.
columbiensis as Endangered.
9/18/2007......... 12-month Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 12-month 72 FR 53211-53222
Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette petition finding for
cactus) as an Endangered or Threatened uplisting, Warranted
Species; Taxonomic Change From but precluded.
Sclerocactus glaucus to Sclerocactus
brevispinus, S. glaucus, and S.
wetlandicus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In FY 2007, we provided funds to work on proposed listing
determinations for the following high-priority species: 3 southeastern
aquatic species (Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough
hornsnail), 2 Oahu plants (Doryopteris takeuchii, Melicope hiiakae), 31
Kauai species (Kauai creeper, Drosophila attigua, Astelia waialealae,
Canavalia napaliensis, Chamaesyce eleanoriae, Chamaesyce remyi var.
kauaiensis, Chamaesyce remyi var. remyi, Charpentiera densiflora,
Cyanea eleeleensis, Cyanea kuhihewa, Cyrtandra oenobarba, Dubautia
imbricata ssp. imbricata, Dubautia plantaginea ssp. magnifolia,
Dubautia waialealae, Geranium kauaiense, Keysseria erici, Keysseria
helenae, Labordia helleri, Labordia pumila, Lysimachia daphnoides,
Melicope degeneri, Melicope paniculata, Melicope puberula, Myrsine
mezii, Pittosporum napaliense, Platydesma rostrata, Pritchardia hardyi,
Psychotria grandiflora, Psychotria hobdyi, Schiedea attenuata,
Stenogyne kealiae), 4 Hawaiian damselflies (Megalagrion nesiotes,
Megalagrion leptodemas, Megalagrion oceanicum, Megalagrion pacificum),
and one Hawaiian plant (Phyllostegia hispida (no common name)). In FY
2008, we are continuing to work on these listing proposals. In
addition, we are continuing to work on several other determinations
listed below, which we funded in FY 2007 and are scheduled to complete
in FY 2008.

Actions Funded in FY 2007 That Have Yet To Be Completed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolverine...................................... 12-month petition finding (remand).
Western sage grouse............................ 90-day petition finding (remand).
Rio Grande cutthroat trout..................... Candidate assessment (remand).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions With Statutory Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polar bear..................................... Final listing determination.
Ozark chinquapin............................... 90-day petition finding.
Tucson shovel-nosed snake...................... 90-day petition finding.
Gopher tortoise--Florida population............ 90-day petition finding.
Sacramento valley tiger beetle................. 90-day petition finding.
Eagle lake trout............................... 90-day petition finding.
Smooth billed ani.............................. 90-day petition finding.
Mojave ground squirrel......................... 90-day petition finding.
Gopher Tortoise--eastern population............ 90-day petition finding.
Bay Springs salamander......................... 90-day petition finding.

[[Page 71053]]

Tehachapi slender salamander................... 90-day petition finding.
Coaster brook trout............................ 90-day petition finding.
Mojave fringe-toed lizard...................... 90-day petition finding.
Evening primrose............................... 90-day petition finding.
Palm Springs pocket mouse...................... 90-day petition finding.
Northern leopard frog.......................... 90-day petition finding.
Shrike, Island loggerhead...................... 90-day petition finding.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy owl................... 90-day petition finding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our expeditious progress so far in FY 2008 in the Listing Program,
includes preparing and publishing the following:

FY 2008 Completed Listing Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions FR pages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/09/2007.................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Black- Notice of 90-day Petition 72 FR 57278-57283.
Footed Albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) as Finding, Substantial.
Threatened or Endangered.
10/09/2007.................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Giant Notice of 90-day Petition 72 FR 57273-57276.
Palouse Earthworm as Threatened or Endangered. Finding, Not substantial.
10/23/2007.................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Mountain Notice of 90-day Petition 72 FR 59983-59989.
Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) in the Big Lost Finding, Not substantial.
River, ID, as Threatened or Endangered.
10/23/2007.................... 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Summer- Notice of 90-day Petition 72 FR 59979-59983.
Run Kokanee Population in Issaquah Creek, WA, as Finding, Not substantial.
Threatened or Endangered.
11/08/2007.................... Response to Court on Significant Portion of the Response to Court............ 72 FR 63123-63140.
Range, and Evaluation of Distinct Population
Segments, for the Queen Charlotte Goshawk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions,
which we anticipate will be funded in FY 2008, pending final
appropriation. These actions are listed below. We are conducting work
on those actions in the top section of the table under a deadline set
by a court. Actions in the middle section of the table are being
conducted to meet statutory timelines, that is, timelines required
under the Act. Actions in the bottom section of the table are high
priority listing actions, which include at least one or more species
with an LPN of 2, available staff resources, and when appropriate,
species with a lower priority if they overlap geographically or have
the same threats as the species with the high priority.

Actions anticipated to be funded in FY 2008 that have yet to be completed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonneville cutthroat trout........................ 12-month petition finding (remand).
Pygmy rabbit...................................... 90-day petition finding (remand).
Gunnison's prairie dog............................ 12-month petition finding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions with Statutory Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polar bear........................................ Final listing determination.
3 Southeastern aquatic species.................... Final listing.
Phyllostegia hispida.............................. Final listing.
Yellow-billed loon................................ 12-month petition finding.
Black-footed albatross............................ 12-month petition finding.
Mount Charleston blue butterfly................... 12-month petition finding.
Goose Creek milk-vetch............................ 12-month petition finding.
White-tailed prairie dog.......................... 12-month petition finding.
Mono Basin sage grouse (vol. remand).............. 90-day petition finding.
Ashy storm petrel................................. 90-day petition finding.
Longfin smelt--San Fran. Bay population........... 90-day petition finding.
Black-tailed prairie dog.......................... 90-day petition finding.
Lynx (include New Mexico in listing).............. 90-day petition finding.
Wyoming pocket gopher............................. 90-day petition finding.
Llanero coqui..................................... 90-day petition finding.
Least chub........................................ 90-day petition finding.

[[Page 71054]]

American pika..................................... 90-day petition finding.
Dusky tree vole................................... 90-day petition finding.
Sacramento Mts. checkerspot butterfly............. 90-day petition finding.
Kokanee--Lake Sammamish population................ 90-day petition finding.
206 species....................................... 90-day petition finding.
475 Southwestern species.......................... 90-day petition finding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Priority Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31 Kauai species \1\.............................. Proposed listing.
8 packages of high-priority candidate species..... Proposed listing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds used for this listing action were also provided in FY 2007.

We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.

Conclusion

We will add Jollyville Plateau salamander to the list of candidate
species upon publication of this notice of 12-month finding on a
petition. We request that interested parties submit any new information
on status and threats for this species. Natural history and
distribution information in particular will help us monitor and focus
habitat conservation of this species. Should an emergency situation
develop with this or any candidate species, we will act to provide
immediate protection, if warranted.
We intend that any proposed listing action for Jollyville Plateau
salamander will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue
to accept additional information and comments from all concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this finding.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited is available on request
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services
Office (see ADDRESSES).

Author(s)

The primary author of this document is U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authority

The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.).

Dated: November 28, 2007.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7-23757 Filed 12-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P