Frequently Asked Questions
Adopt a Storm Drain
Waste:
- Pick up and dispose of pet waste properly.
- Do not leave bagged poop on trails. During rain events it will flow directly to nearest waterway.
- Do not put leaves, cut grass, and other yard waste in or near storms drains.
Vehicles:
- Fix vehicle leaks
- Dispose of used motor oil and other car fluids at your local service station or the Household Hazardous Waste Facility (512)974 -4343
- Wash your vehicle where soap and water flows into grass, not the street, or use a carwash.
Lawns:
- Use fewer fertilizers, pesticides, and weed killers in your yard
- Plant native plants that will not need as much water and fertilizers.
Trash:
Start a fun habit of picking up 3 pieces of trash per day. 75% of trash in waterways came from land. Large trash can block storm drains causing flooding. For removal of bulky trash call 3-1-1.
- Storm Drain Marking Volunteer Program
- Scoop the Poop Education
- Adopt A Creek https://keepaustinbeautiful.org/programs/adopt-a-creek/
- Sign up to receive a once a month email about volunteer opportunities in building Rainscapes, Grow Zones, Invasive Plants removal, and/or collecting aquatic macroinvertebrates here
- Report Pollution and Dumping to our Pollution Prevention Hotline (512)974-2550
Available anytime 24 hours a day 7 days a week
Austin Invasive Plants Management
The Austin City Council passed a resolution on April 8, 2010 directing the City Manager to develop an Invasive Species Management Plan to guide efforts to minimize the harmful environmental and economic impacts of invasive plant species on city-managed properties. Subsequent to that resolution an agreement with the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center led to creation of a working group with representatives from several City departments, Austin Parks Foundation, Keep Austin Beautiful, Texas Parks and Wildlife and the Austin Invasive Species Coalition. Over the course of ten consensus-based meetings, the Working Group developed strategic five-year goals based on a central framework of prevention, early detection-rapid response and long-term control at prioritized sites. The plan also includes recommendations for implementation including staffing, funding sources, centralized mapping and monitoring, and education and outreach. To improve the plan’s success, the working group has developed a preliminary list of priority invasive species and an invasive species resource manual with identification fact sheets and best management practices to control priority species.
The City of Austin Invasive Species Management Plan was developed in collaboration with multiple non-profits and departments.
Austin Energy
Austin Invasive Species Coalition – represented by American Youthworks Environmental Corps
Austin Parks Foundation
Austin Water Utility
Keep Austin Beautiful
Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
Parks and Recreation Department
Planning and Development Review
Texas Parks & Wildlife
Watershed Protection Department
When a species ends up in a new ecosystem, it is considered "introduced". Often, invasive species are spread by humans who do not realize that these plants, animals and insects are highly destructive.
This may happen, for example, when people plant garden ornamentals, range forage plants for cattle, or plants used for erosion control and habitat enhancement for wildlife. This can also occur when animals and insects are introduced to be used to control other organisms (particularly in agriculture).
Other species are introduced accidentally on imported nursery stock, fruits, and in ship ballast waters, on vehicles, in packing materials and shipping containers, through human-built canals, and from human travel. Dumping aquarium exotic fish and unwanted exotics into the water or wild are other common ways invasive species spread.
Barton Springs Salamander
Barton Springs Pool – Parthenia Spring
Parthenia Spring, the fourth largest spring in Texas, is fed by the Edwards Aquifer and discharges as part of Barton Creek. Before western colonization of the area, the Native Americans used the springs as healing grounds. Until it burned down at the end of the 19th century, a flour mill utilized part of the spring-fed creek. In 1917, Barton Spring was designated a city park. At the time, only manmade rock dams were built to create a pool for swimming, and after every flood, the dam would have to be rebuilt. In 1929, a permanent lower concrete dam was constructed, and the upper concrete dam followed only three years later creating Barton Springs Pool. A concrete tunnel beneath the north sidewalk of the pool bypasses all creek water from upstream of the pool (except during flood events), discharging the creek water into Barton Creek downstream of the lower pool dam. Although Barton Springs Salamanders inhabit Barton Springs Pool, it is open to the public year round with little to no human disturbance to the salamanders or their habitat.
Individual salamanders are usually observed around the main spring outflows, hidden within a 1 to 6" deep zone of gravel and cobble overlying a coarse sandy or bare limestone substrate. These areas are noticeably clear of fine silt or decomposed organic debris and appear to be kept clean by the briskly flowing spring water. Salamanders are also occasionally found around minor spring outlets within the limestone fissures.
In the late 1800’s, Old Mill Spring, also known as Zenobia Spring, was developed as a grist mill, and as a gathering place. The National Youth Administration began a project building a Sunken Garden surrounding Old Mill Spring in 1938. Rock walls were built around the spring and stone terraced steps were constructed within the spring leading out of the spring pool.
Upper Barton Spring is located upstream of Barton Springs Pool and is the only Barton Springs Salamander locality that is unaltered. It is an ephemeral spring that stops flowing when Barton Springs discharge is about 40 cubic feet/second. The salamanders retreat with the water level and are thought to live within the aquifer until the spring begins to flow again.
Creekside Restoration
A “Grow Zone” is an effort to halt mowing along streams and allow the growth of more dense, diverse riparian vegetation. This improves water quality, lessens erosion, increases wildlife habitat, and provides other ecosystem services. It is our hope that Austinites will embrace these changes and appreciate the benefits of natural stream corridors. If you or your group is interested in getting involved please check out the options under the FAQ “What can I do?”
Ecosystem function can be defined as all of the processes necessary to preserve and create goods or services valued by humans. Healthy functioning riparian zones:
- Improves the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain
- Prevents stream bank erosion
- Filters storm runoff, removing pollutants before they reach the creek
- Provides habitat and food for a diverse group of animals
- Provides shade that cools air and water temperatures
- Creates a greenbelt forest with diverse tree and plant communities for outdoor enthusiasts
- Reduces the City’s carbon footprint
Riparian zone restoration attempts to restore the natural process necessary to maintain a high level of ecosystem function. In general, the larger the riparian buffer the more ecosystem functions it can provide.
This image shows the various buffer widths associated with riparian zone function. Organic inputs into the stream are important sources of nutrients and habitat (width 15-25 ft). Stream stabilization is maintained by riparian vegetation (width 30-60 ft). Water quality is the ability of the vegetation to intercept runoff, retain sediments, remove pollutants, and promote groundwater recharge (width 20-100 ft). Flood control is the ability for the floodplain to intercept water and reduce peak flows (width 60- 500 ft). Riparian habitat is the ability of the buffer to support diverse vegetation and provide food and shelter for riparian and aquatic wildlife (width 100-1500 ft).
RIPARIAN ZONE RESTORATION METHODS
There are three generalized approaches to restoring a disturbed riparian environment:
(1) rely completely on passive (spontaneous succession)
(2) exclusively adopt active, technical measures
(3) or a combination of both passive and active techniques toward a target goal (Hobbs and Prach 2008). Passively restored sites exhibit robust biota better adapted to site conditions with increased natural value and wildlife habitat than do actively restored sites (Hobbs and Prach 2008).
Passive restoration requires minimal management and is more cost effective than alternative methods. However, passive restoration is often the slower approach and is more dependent on adjacent site conditions. When relying on spontaneous succession the vegetation community of adjacent sites, an approximate 100 meter distance from the disturbed site, is critical for successful restoration (Hobbs and Prach 2008). In general, passive restoration that relies on spontaneous succession should be employed when environmental disturbance is not very extreme (Figure 1) and no negative results (erosion, water contamination, negative aesthetic perception, etc…) are foreseen (Hobbs and Prach 2008). When site productivity and stress are extremely high or low, active (technical reclamation) may be necessary (Figure 1). The persistence of undesirable functional states is an indication that the system may be stuck and will require active intervention to move it to a more desirable state (Hobbs and Prach 2008). Understanding when passive versus active restoration approaches are warranted can increase chances of success and reduced project costs.
Passively restored sites exhibit robust biota better adapted to site conditions with increased natural value and wildlife habitat than do actively restored sites (Hobbs and Prach 2008). Passive restoration requires minimal management and is more cost effective than alternative methods. However, passive restoration is often the slower approach and is more dependent on adjacent site conditions. When relying on spontaneous succession the vegetation community of adjacent sites, an approximate 100 meter distance from the disturbed site, is critical for successful restoration (Hobbs and Prach 2008). In general, passive restoration that relies on spontaneous succession should be employed when environmental disturbance is not very extreme (Figure 1) and no negative results (erosion, water contamination, negative aesthetic perception, etc…) are foreseen (Hobbs and Prach 2008). When site productivity and stress are extremely high or low, active (technical reclamation) may be necessary (Figure 1). The persistence of undesirable functional states is an indication that the system may be stuck and will require active intervention to move it to a more desirable state (Hobbs and Prach 2008). Understanding when passive versus active restoration approaches are warranted can increase chances of success and reduced project costs.
Drainage Charge
The impervious cover data is generated using aerial photography collected every two years. Each pixel on the aerial photography represents 6 inches on the ground. The accuracy is suitable for defining the edges of buildings, patios, driveways and other types of impervious cover. This data was used to create impervious cover maps seen on the Find My Drainage Charge Map Tool. (For best results, use Internet Explorer 9 or higher, Firefox, Google Chrome or Safari.)
For properties developed or modified after the latest aerial photography, we use building permit data. Bills are typically adjusted based on the latest aerial photography in February during odd-numbered years.
The following information pertains specifically to the calculation and application of impervious cover for determining the drainage charge imposed by the City of Austin's Watershed Protection Department.
Impervious cover is any type of human-made surface that doesn’t absorb rainfall, including:
- Rooftops
- Patios
- Driveways, paved and unpaved
- Sidewalks
- Roadways
- Parking lots, paved and unpaved
- Some decks
Uncovered wooden decks and unpaved portions of driveways count as 50% impervious cover. If you have these features, we may be able to lower the impervious cover on your account, which will in turn lower your bill. Please call 512-494-9400 and ask about an administrative review of your drainage charge.
A more complete definition of impervious cover is found in Section 25-8-63 of the Austin City Code. While impervious cover has broader implications in terms of urban planning and land development regulations, this information focuses on its connection to the drainage charge. For more comprehensive information about impervious cover regulations beyond the drainage charge, please refer to the appropriate resources and guidelines provided by the City's Development Services Department.
The stormwater drainage charge is shown on your monthly utility bill in the Drainage Service section. It funds the City of Austin's drainage utility mission and is authorized by the Texas Local Government Code.
The drainage charge was first adopted in 1982, the year after the 1981 Memorial Day Flood, which killed 13 people and caused $35.5 million in damage.
The drainage charge pays for a wide variety of programs to help with flooding, erosion and water pollution across Austin. Many projects and programs are working quietly behind the scenes to protect lives, property and the environment. Crews clean trash and debris from Lady Bird Lake, maintain our drainage infrastructure, and respond to more than 3,000 service requests annually. Staff respond to the pollution hotline about environmental spills and emergencies 24-hours a day. They coordinate numerous projects to help reduce the risk of flooding and erosion. Many of the programs, services and projects listed on the Watershed Protection Department web site are funded in whole or in part by the drainage charge and would not be possible without the charge.
Some projects that are funded entirely or in part by the drainage charge include:
- ATXfloods and closing of flooded low water crossings
- Restoration of the Shoal Creek Peninsula along Lady Bird Lake
- Boggy Creek Greenbelt Streambank Restoration
- Combating hydrilla on Lake Austin
- Buyouts of flood-prone properties
Earth Camp
No, only Title I schools in the Austin Independent School District are eligible.
AISD 5th grade teachers that have been trained and attended a week of Earth Camp led by City staff may participate in Teacher-Led Earth Camp! To schedule, please email our Earth Camp coordinator.
The four Earth Camp Field Guides are available below for you to download. They require Adobe Acrobat Reader for viewing. If you are scheduled for Teacher-Led Earth Camp, an Assistant will bring the field trip materials. If you would like to purchase materials, reference the "Materials" PDF file.
Field Trip Guide Contents * required when leading Teacher-Led Earth Camp
Edwards Aquifer/Barton Springs
- * Sinkhole Lesson
- *Karst Watering Holes Lesson (420 kb)
- Cave PowerPoint Lesson (42 kb)
- Cave PowerPoint Presentation
Barton Springs
- * Barton Springs Tour Lesson (210 kb)
- * Tour Map
- * Splash! Exhibit Lesson (111 kb)
Scavenger Hunt *only print the Lesson for the Park you will visit
All Parks Scavenger Hunt Lesson
- Blunn Creek Game Sheet - English (557 kb)
- Blunn Creek Game Sheet - Spanish (528 kb)
- Blunn Creek Trail Map (522 kb)
- Bull Creek Game Sheet - English (485 kb)
- Bull Creek Game Sheet - Spanish (479 kb)
- Bull Creek Trail Map (4 mb)
- Walnut Creek Game Sheet - English (671 kb)
- Walnut Creek Game Sheet - Spanish (567 kb)
- Walnut Creek Trail Map (146 kb)
- Slaughter Creek Game Sheet - English (515 kb)
- Slaughter Creek Game Sheet - Spanish (510 kb)
- Slaughter Creek Trail Map (510 kb)
- Colorado River Game Sheet - English (649 kb)
- Colorado River Game Sheet - Spanish (561 kb)
- Colorado River Trail Map (3.2 mb)
- Creek Observation Data Sheet (146 kb)
- Flowers (3.8 mb)
- Ammonite (407 kb)
Green Classroom
- * Watershed Pollution Activity Lesson (173 kb)
- * Nine Square Puzzle Lesson (191 kb)
- * Soak In Run Off Lesson (181 kb)
- Green Gardening Lesson (194 kb)
Macroinvertebrate Activities
- Macroinvertebrate Test Lesson (997 kb)
- Bug Pollution Test-English (2.25 mb)
- Bug Pollution Test-Spanish (2.25 mb)
- Aquatic Bug Game (26kb)
Earth School
The Earth School presentation is typically one hour and 3o minutes per class (however, special accommodations may be made for a longer or shorter presentation). The more time we have scheduled with your students, the more in-depth educational opportunities we can provide.
Teacher Testimonials:
“I LOVE that the lessons are outside. It was nice to incorporate our school grounds and our watershed into the lessons.”
“Great presentations! The kids learned A LOT and had a blast doing it.”
“This is a very valuable lesson for the students. I love the hands-on activities. Students are engaged and work together to discover the knowledge. It ties in well with concepts taught in class. The presenter was wonderful. The students truly enjoyed the lesson.”
“Not only was the information relevant to the curriculum, but it was relevant to the lives of the scholars.”
“I loved all of the interactive activities. The kids were 100% engaged.”
If your school is not able to schedule all of the presentations in one day, you can schedule two consecutive days.
An Earth School teacher will bring all of the materials that students need. If you regularly incorporate an interactive science notebook into your classroom routine, you may wish to have students arrive to the presentation with their journals.
Registration forms are accepted throughout the school year, but the earlier you register the more likely you are to receive your choice dates.
Environmental Integrity Index
We have developed a watershed viewer, so it is easy to find out what watershed you live in and to find out its Environmental Integrity Index score.
Erosion Control and Stream Restoration
Rock riprap is a layer of loose rock used to protect soil from the erosive or scouring flows of water. Rock riprap is sometimes used for bank protection or bed stabilization in stream restoration projects where other erosion control techniques are not appropriate.
In order for the rock riprap to properly function, installing rock of good quality and the proper size gradation is important. Design criteria for rock riprap are listed in the Environmental Criteria Manual (ECM) Section 1.4.6. Rock riprap materials and construction methods are described in City of Austin Standard Specification 591S.
The Watershed Protection Department recommends a field gradation test method for use during construction projects to verify that the specified rock will be installed. The gradation test method is described in the following documents, and an example analysis worksheet is provided. However, engineers may use an alternate preferred method conforming to ECM Section 1.4.6.
Family Clean Creek Camp
No, we cannot accommodate younger children.
Yes, there is a high demand to attend camp so please be committed to attending the full week.
Various sites around Austin. Refer to directions.
Flood Early Warning System
Check the ATXfloods for road closures. NOAA All Hazards Weather Radio will alert you to flood warnings and evacuations. Also, local TV and radio stations often keep you posted during flooding conditions.
Yes, it is a Class B misdemeanor in Texas to drive around a barricade at a flooded road. This is the same as a DWI. If caught, you may be arrested, have your car impounded, spend up to 180 days in jail and/or be fined up to $2000. You may also be charged for the cost of your rescue.
ENS stands for Emergency Notification System. These areas have been identified by the City as being more likely to require evacuation due to flash flooding than other areas. The areas have been pre-entered into our emergency notification system to expedite automated phone calls in the event of an evacuation.
If a road is flooded, turn around and find an alternate route. Don’t risk drowning by trying to cross it. Most flood fatalities occur in vehicles.
The 100-year storm is an event that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. To put that in perspective, during the span of a 30-year mortgage, there is a 26% chance that a 100-year event will occur.
The amount of rainfall necessary to produce a 100-year storm is dependent both on the duration of the storm and what area it impacts. If the rain falls over the course of 3 hours, it takes over 7 inches for it to be classified as a 100-year rainfall. But if those same 7 inches fall over the course of 3 days, it would be considered a much smaller rainfall event. The standard 100-year design storm for the City of Austin has a duration of 24-hours and produces a total rainfall of over 12 inches. To learn more about rainfall return periods in Austin, see Section 2 of the Drainage Criteria Manual.
During a large storm, it is normal for the intensity to vary widely across the city. In September 2010, Tropical Storm Hermine produced rainfall totals approaching a 100-year storm over portions of the Bull Creek watershed. The flood events on October 30, 2015, and May 26, 2016, produced rainfall greater that 13 inches in eight hours in portions of the Onion Creek and Dry Creek East watersheds. However, other areas of Austin did not experience as severe a storm in these events. Keep in mind that even if a large storm has recently occurred, there is the same percent chance of an equally large storm occurring the following year.
In the right circumstances, almost any road can flood. The ones listed below are the ones that flood most frequently:
- W. 12th St. from Lamar to Shoal Creek Blvd.
- W. 32nd St. at Hemphill Park
- E. 38 1/2 St. between Grayson and Airport Blvd.
- Adelphi Ln. between Scribe Dr. and Waters Park Rd.
- E. Alpine Rd. between Willow Springs and Warehouse Row
- Burleson Rd. between U.S. 183 and FM 973
- Carson Creek Blvd. between Cool Shadow Dr. and Warrior Ln.
- Colton-Bluff Springs Rd. by Alum Rock Dr.
- Convict Hill Rd. between Flaming Oak Place and MoPAC
- David Moore Dr. north of Sweetwater River Dr.
- Delwau Ln. at Shelton Rd.
- W. Dittmar between Loganberry and S. Congress
- Joe Tanner Ln., near Hwy. 290
- Johnny Morris Rd. between FM 969 and Loyola Ln.
- Lakewood Dr., 6700 block
- W. Monroe St. between S. First and Roma St.
- McNeil Dr. between Camino and Burnet
- Nuckols Crossing at Teri Rd.
- Parkfield Dr. from Thornridge to Mearns Meadow
- Possum Trot between Inland Place and Quarry Rd.
- Old Bee Caves Road, near Hwy. 290
- Old San Antonio Rd. between FM 1626 and IH 35
- Old Spicewood Springs Road, between Loop 360 and Spicewood Springs Rd.
- O’Neal Ln., between MoPAC service road and Waters Park Rd.
- Posten Ln., 7900 block
- River Hills Rd., off Cuernavaca
- Rogge Ln. between Ridgemont and Delwood Dr.
- Rutland from Mearns Meadow to N. Lamar
- Spicewood Springs Road, between Loop 360 and Old Lampasas Trl.
- Springdale Rd. from Ferguson to Breeds Hill Dr.
- Wasson Rd. near S. Congress Ave.
- Waters Park Rd. between 183 and MoPAC
To find out if a road is flooded, check www.ATXfloods.com.
Floodplain Management
A drainage easement is a part of your property where the City has limited rights of access and/or use. Generally, you cannot make any improvements in a drainage easement. That means no fences, sheds, walls, trails or buildings. You should avoid planting trees or much landscaping as well.
A drainage easement has two possible purposes. It may be needed for the flow of storm water. For example, drainage ditches and creeks are typically within a drainage easement. In this case, anything that prevents the flow of water; that might catch debris; that might be washed away; or that might cause a dam-like effect is problematic.
Alternatively, the easement may be needed to access drainage infrastructure. In this case, anything that might make it difficult to drive a truck through or dig up an underground pipe is problematic.
Depending on how much rain there’s been, Austin’s creeks may be bone dry, gently flowing with water or a raging torrent. The floodplain is the area of land that is likely to be under water when the creek rushes over its banks. In a sense, the floodplain is the full extension of the creek.
The 100-year floodplain is the land that is predicted to flood during a 100-year storm, which has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. You may also hear the 100-year floodplain called the 1% annual chance floodplain or base flood. Areas within the 100-year floodplain may flood in much smaller storms as well. The 100-year floodplain is used by FEMA to administer the federal flood insurance program and the City of Austin to regulate development.
Groundwater
Groundwater tracing is a commonly used technique to understand water movement through karst aquifers like the Edwards. The dissolution of limestone occurs slowly over a long period of time and these opening are pathways or conduits for water to enter the aquifer and for groundwater to move through the aquifer. Tracing can use naturally occurring chemical in the water, introduced chemicals or dyes to track water movement. A tracer is typically introduced into the aquifer through a naturally occurring recharge feature and wells, springs and other water ways are monitored to detect the tracer.
A coordinated tracing program began in the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer in 1996. Since that time, over 30 traces have been conducted. A special project began in 1996 in conjunction with the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District (BS/EACD) called the Barton Springs Zone Dye Trace Study. Dye was injected into caves and sinkholes to map water movement in this segment. The goals were to trace the water going into the aquifer at various points in the recharge zone, measure flow rates, and determine which wells and springs the water would emerge from. Travel rates from recharge points to springs varied from 4 miles/day to 0.25 miles/day. Onion Creek is the largest contributor of the watersheds to Barton Springs under normal conditions, but a 2017 study shows that the Blanco River can be a significant source of recharge during drought conditions.
Grow Green
- Austin Resource Recovery
- Austin Energy: Green Building
- Austin Water Utility: Water Conservation and Wildlands
- Parks and Recreation Department: Urban Forestry, Wildlife Austin, Zilker Botanical Garden
- Development Services Department
- Watershed Protection Department: Grow Green
Hydrilla
- To minimize fragmentation and spreading of plants, avoid boating through dense hydrilla mats.
- Remove hydrilla from your boat's propeller and trailer before and after boating.
- Dispose of all plant fragments on shore: Because new plants can sprout from fragments, all plant material cut or collected MUST be removed from the lake. Throwing hydrilla back in the lake can result in a maximum fine of $2000 per plant.
- Follow City of Austin hydrilla disposal guidelines:
- Plants should be placed as far up on the shore as possible.
- Plant material stockpiled within 75' of the water's edge should be surrounded on the downslope side by silt fencing.
- Plant material pulled from the lake will contain small fish and other organisms, and will have an odor associated with it. The plants are mostly water, and piles will lose 90% of their bulk within 2-4 weeks. This material can be used to mulch flowerbeds or gardens.
- Learn more about Friends of Lake Austin (FOLA) - a citizen group dedicated to preserving and enhancing Lake Austin for those who live, work and play on the lake. They have been working to help fight the hydrilla infestation on Lake Austin and are taking an active role in the approved management plan
Hydrofiles
Contact Sara Heilman email or phone 512-974-3540. Our training kit contains 6 sets of the following kits: Dissolved oxygen, pH, TDS, nitrate, and E. coli. The kit may be checked out and we provide training for your students if required. You may also request one free complete test kit.
Water test kits are available for teachers and classes for educational use. General use kits may be requested through Keep Austin Beautiful
Salamanders
The Austin Blind Salamander is known only from Barton Springs. Unlike the Barton Springs Salamander, Austin Blind Salamanders are not typically seen near the surface. Austin Blind Salamanders occupy the habitat below the surface of the springs, where their unique adaptations likely give them a selective advantage in a world of total darkness and limited food. They have been found in all four of the springs collectively known as Barton Springs: Parthenia in Barton Springs Pool, Old Mill (Sunken Garden), Eliza and Upper Barton. Unfortunately, because their habitat is not readily accessible by humans, and they are only occasionally observed in the springs, very little is known about the natural history of this species.
Old Mill Spring (Sunken Garden) in Zilker Park is the site where the Austin Blind Salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) was first collected.
Interestingly, another large spring in Texas is also home to a pair of salamander species: San Marcos Springs in San Marcos (Hays Co.) has surface-dwelling San Marcos Salamanders (Eurycea nana) as well as the subterranean Texas Blind Salamanders (Eurycea rathbuni).
All three Eurycea salamanders that inhabit Austin springs are members of the family Plethodontidae, which is the largest family of salamanders. They are within the sub-family Spelerpinae, which includes four genera: Eurycea, Gyrinophilus, Pseudotriton, and Stereochilus. A total of thirteen species are now described from this group of (mostly) perennibranchiate salamanders that inhabit central Texas.
Very little was known about any of Austin’s endemic brook salamanders prior to the 1990s, even though they consisted of three very different species. Prior to discovery and formal description of each species, the majority of brook salamanders (genus Eurycea) found in spring-fed surface streams throughout the Edwards Plateau of central Texas (including the Jollyville Plateau) were considered Eurycea neotenes, the Texas Salamander. In the mid-1990’s, biologists undertook studies to understand the ecology (the relationships between the salamander and its environment) and evolutionary history (e.g., the genetic relationships between the salamander and other species) of this group of salamanders. Through those studies, biologists discovered that the Texas Salamander was, in fact, comprised of several genetically distinct species. The true range of the Texas Salamander is actually restricted to the springs and caves of Bexar, Comal, and Kendall Counties. Two of the newly discovered species were Austin’s own E. tonkawae, the Jollyville Plateau Salamander2, and E. sosorum, the Barton Springs Salamander1.
The primary reason so many different species across a relatively broad geographic range were considered conspecific (the same species) is that all of the Edwards Plateau species are very similar in appearance. Before the invention of methods to examine DNA and protein molecules, differences in physical appearance, or “morphology,” were the basis for distinguishing one species from another. At that time there was no evidence to classify the Edwards brook salamanders as separate species. Once scientists learned how to test molecules and use the results to identify and group species based on their genetic relationships (the science of molecular systematics), the unique genetic characteristics of each species of salamander became apparent, and each could be classified.
Of course there were some exceptions to this prior “lumping” of different species under one name. Most notably are the subterranean species, Austin Blind Salamander, Blanco Blind Salamander, and the Texas Blind Salamander, who exhibit very obvious and extreme differences in the morphology of their bodies and heads. For one, they are “blind,” or to be more specific, they lack an image forming eye. They also tend to have larger, shovel-shaped heads. These features are believed to confer an advantage for living in complete darkness, although scientists still debate the origin of troglomorphic characters as “regressive evolution” or resulting from natural selection. Before the discovery of the Austin Blind Salamander in Barton Springs, the members of this group were considered to be in a different genus altogether (Typhlomolge) because of their extreme morphology. But once again the molecular data2,3 allowed biologists to learn that these species are genetically similar enough to the other Edwards Plateau species to be included in the genus Eurycea.
A cladogram showing the evolutionary relationships of the central Texas Eurycea salamanders. Species that occur in Austin are highlighted in grey. Branch lengths do not reflect genetic distance or substitution rate. Note that none of the species in Austin are each other’s closest relatives; thus illustrating the complex and interesting evolutionary history of this group. From Chippindale et al. 2000 and Hillis et al. 2001.
Range map of all the central Texas Eurycea salamanders.
Most of what we know about the life history of Austin Eurycea is based on observations made of the salamanders while in captivity. While many of these observations are of the Barton Springs Salamander, some characteristics (such as courtship) are thought to be common to the whole group. Courtship behavior involves a series of steps called a “tail-straddling walk,” which is characteristic of the family (Plethodontidae) of salamanders to which central Texas Eurycea belong. In the “walk,” the female straddles the male’s tail and rubs her chin on the base of his tail as he walks slowly forward; he stops at times and undulates his tail, possibly dispersing pheromones or showing her the location of his spermatophore. He eventually deposits a spermatophore that she will pick up in her cloaca. The eggs will be fertilized as they pass through the oviduct as they are being laid. After courtship, the female may wait months or a year or more before she lays her eggs. It is not known whether multiple males sire a single clutch of eggs.
The female (white eggs are noticeable in her abdomen) follows the male, he undulates his tail, possibly showing her where he has deposited his spermatophore.
All three species are thought to lay their eggs in the aquifer below the surface (especially so for the Austin Blind, who rarely visits the surface). This is because only a few eggs have ever been found in the wild; those eggs were thought to have accidentally washed up on the surface of the spring. Egg-laying events have only been observed in captivity.
On average, a female lays 15 eggs in a clutch. The eggs are laid singly and this process can take 12 hours or more. The ova are white and are surrounded by several layers of a clear capsule that is permeable for gas exchange. The capsule protects the embryo and is sticky, which presumably allows the female to lay the eggs on rocks in flow.
This is a time lapse video of embryo development for the Barton Spring Salamander. Notice the development of the eyes, gills, front limbs, and the heart beating in the throat area. This individual developed the back limbs after hatching.
The eggs hatch in 3-4 weeks. Hatchlings are ~½” total length (snout to tip of tail), often without fully formed limbs. Juvenile salamanders become sexually mature at about 11 months (50mm total length) and grow to about 3 inches as adults. Salamanders can continue to reproduce to an age of at least eight years.
The salamanders are one-half inch in length when they hatch and grow to about 3 inches in total length as adults. They have a muscular tail used for swimming. They do not spend much time swimming in the water column, however, and instead walk along the substrate*. They have 4 toes on their front feet and 5 toes on their back feet. The color variation for the Barton Springs Salamander includes shades of pink, purple, brown, orange, red as well as white spots called iridophores. The Austin Blind Salamander is generally lavender or purple with white iridophores.
This is a cleared and stained specimen of E. sosorum. The “clearing” process makes proteins transparent while the “staining” stains all cartilage blue and bone red. This is a very useful technique to allow researchers to study the bone structure of an amphibian without destroying the connective tissue.
The Barton Springs and Jollyville Plateau salamanders have eyes with image-forming lenses to help them see predators and prey. In contrast, the Austin blind salamander only has eyespots that may help it detect light. It cannot see and does not need eyes in the darkness of the aquifer.
Notice the color variation between the individual Barton Springs Salamanders shown in the video of the animals in the wild (see section on Austin Blind).
Central Texas Eurycea are aquatic their entire lives. This video shows how aquatic salamanders respire. This close-up of an Austin Blind Salamander shows red blood cells rapidly moving through capillaries in the salamander’s external gills. In this process, the red blood cells pick up oxygen in the water and release carbon dioxide as they move through the gills, just like our lungs when we breathe air.
These photos were taken of the same individual Jollyville Plateau Salamander, but several months apart spanning a dry period. Notice the drastic difference in gill size. Salamander gills will change in size in response to their environment over time. Large bushy gills help in an oxygen-poor environment, such as when the springs go dry and they must retreat underground to follow the water table.
*substrate-the rocks and sediment on the bottom of the stream
Most of what we know about the ecology of Austin’s aquatic salamanders is from studies conducted by the City of Austin on the more easily accessible surface populations. Their diet, like most salamanders, is entirely carnivorous. Based on field observations, fecal content analysis, and new radio-isotope data, they eat a variety of prey that is likely based on both what is available and what fits in their mouth. This includes a variety of snails (Gastropoda), seed shrimp (Ostracoda), copepods (Copepoda), amphipods, insects (such as midge, mayfly, and damselfly larvae, aquatic beetles, etc.), flatworms (Planaria), segmented worms (Annelida), and others.
Amphipods in Eliza Spring.
Barton Springs Salamander eating Amphipods
Predatory Fish
Relationships between the salamanders and their predators are not well understood. Some evidence suggests freshwater sunfish and basses opportunistically feed on salamanders. In the past, many salamander habitats were too shallow to harbor these fish species. Now these fishes have more available permanent and stable habitat in salamander streams because of direct and indirect stream channel modification by humans (e.g. dams creating Barton Springs Pool). Predatory fish presence may hinder dispersal where unnatural intermittent pools intercept the stream pathways that were once more shallow riffles or runs. Recent evidence clearly shows that chemical cues from predatory fish can negatively affect salamander activity.
Crayfish are common in both shallow and deep waters and can be found in nearly every salamander habitat. Crayfish are generalist predators, eating a variety of things from fish and tadpoles to plants and detritus, and have been observed feeding on juvenile Barton Springs Salamanders.
So, it is not unlikely that they are also a common Jollyville Plateau Salamander predator. Interestingly, the burrows created by crayfish may be beneficial in some ways to Jollyville Plateau Salamanders. One theory is that crayfish burrows may act as a path for salamanders to retreat through dense sediment and gravel to reach subsurface waters during dry periods.
Other large invertebrates have been observed feeding on salamanders. Giant water bugs (Lethocerus uhleri) are large ambush predators (up to 65mm) and have been seen at several monitoring sites preying on salamanders, ranid tadpoles, and mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis).
Damselfly larvae of the genus Archilestes are long and slender ambush predators that prey on very small juveniles if given the opportunity.
Cannibalism has also been documented in this species. Adults have been observed regurgitating the remains of juvenile salamanders when captured. This in part helps to explain why juveniles are often found in areas where adults are not, such as in very shallow water on the edge of the stream.
Unlike the surface populations, cave-dwelling Jollyville Plateau Salamanders are the top predators of that ecosystem. The downside, however, is that prey availability is much lower. Because all troglobitic organisms live in total darkness, there are no primary producers, so they must rely on nutrient input from the surface. The salamanders likely feed on available troglobitic and troglophilic (can live inside and outside caves) crustaceans and insects and potentially accidental prey washed into the caves during rain events.
Because the Barton Springs Salamander and the Austin Blind Salamander are federally endangered species, the City of Austin must have a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to continue the operation of Barton Springs as a recreation area. The permit is issued under the Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) and is referred to as an incidental take permit. The City’s first incidental take permit was issued in 1998 and would have expired in October 2013.
The federal permit is based on conservation measures described in a Habitat Conservation Plan. The Barton Springs Habitat Conservation Plan details the actions the City will conduct that adversely affect the Barton Springs Salamander and the Austin Blind Salamander and their habitats, and how the impact of those actions will be reduced or compensated to protect both species. The plan can only cover actions by the City in and around Barton Springs that may affect the Barton Springs Salamander or the Austin Blind Salamander and does not involve any actions associated with the federally threatened Jollyville Plateau Salamander in northwest Austin or actions outside of the City's jurisdiction in the contributing zone of the Edwards Aquifer.
City salamander biologists revised and expanded the Habitat Conservation Plan for Barton Springs in July 2013 after a 2-year process involving citizen input and extensive coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The current incidental take permit from the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service was issued in September 2013 and will expire in 2033.
You can download a copy of the City’s incidental take permit and associated habitat conservation plan here.
Scoop the Poop
Yes – by City Ordinances, animal owners and handlers must pick up after pets.
§ 3-4-6 DEFECATION BY A DOG OR CAT. "An owner or handler shall promptly remove and sanitarily dispose of feces left on public or private property by a dog or cat being handled by the person, other than property owned by the owner or handler of the dog or cat.” Potential fine: Up to $500.
§ 15-6-112 - ACCUMULATIONS AND DEPOSIT OF WASTE PROHIBITED. (A) A person commits an offense if the person deposits, causes to be deposited, or permits to accumulate any dry or wet solid waste upon any public or private premises within the city in such a manner as to emit noxious or offensive odors or to become unsanitary or injurious to public health or safety.
§ 3-2-11 - ENCLOSURE REQUIRED. (A)(3) maintained in a sanitary condition that does not allow flies to breed or cause an odor offensive to an adjacent residence or business
Stormwater Management
Using physical and biological treatment mechanisms, biofiltration uses an organic filtration media with vegetation to remove pollutants. As with sedimentation/filtration systems, runoff is first diverted into a sedimentation basin, where particulate pollutants are removed via gravity settling. This is followed by filtration through an 18" layer of vegetated media.
Biofiltration systems are considered to provide a level of treatment equivalent to sedimentation/filtration, and also provide extended detention that enhances baseflow and reduces stream erosion. Biofiltration systems are not allowed in Barton Springs Zone (BSZ) watersheds as a stand-alone water quality control, as they are not capable of achieving a non-degradation level of treatment.
Because of the vegetation, biofiltration systems can be aesthetic amenities and may be eligible for landscape credit (unlike sedimentation/filtration systems). To ensure proper management of the pond system, filtration media, and vegetation, an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan is required.
The current design criteria is similar to that for sedimentation/filtration systems, and two design alternatives are available. In “full” sedimentation/filtration systems the entire water quality volume is held in the sedimentation basin, which then slowly discharges runoff to the filtration basin via a perforated riser pipe. The alternative “partial” sedimentation/filtration design foregoes the perforated riser pipe, and distributes the water quality volume between the filtration basin and a sediment chamber, the latter separated from the filtration bed by a vegetated hedgerow. The “full” design is required when the City of Austin is responsible for maintenance.
Design guidelines for biofiltration can be found in Section 1.6.7.C of the Environmental Criteria Manual. For information on the biofiltration media, go to biofiltration media guidance. Also available is a list of potential suppliers.
Below is a list Biofiltration Media Suppliers that we are aware of.
Organics "By Gosh"
Sherry Williams
Wholesale Bulk
Account Executive
512-872-1434
Organics "By Gosh"
2040 FM 969
Elgin, TX 78621
sherry@organicsbygosh.com
- Non-Structural Controls are Best Management Practices (BMPs) that do not involve a structured, or engineered solution. They include such measures as education, site planning, and stormwater management regulations. Because it is usually easier and more effective to prevent pollution before it occurs, non structural BMPs are very cost-effective. These measures limit or eliminate pollutants before they end up in the stormwater.
- Non-structural controls include: non-required vegetation, vegetated filter disconnect, integrated pest management, and regulations.
Porous Pavement includes a load-bearing, durable concrete surface together with an underlying layered structure that temporarily stores water prior to infiltration. Porous Pavement is a water quality control best management practice (BMP) using the storage within the underlying structure or sub-base to provide groundwater recharge and to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff.
To ensure proper functioning of porous pavement, no off-site runoff is allowed and proper subgrade conditions must exist.
Porous pavement is currently only allowed for pedestrian use and not for parking lots, stormwater hot spots, or areas where land use or activities generate highly contaminated runoff. Since porous pavement is an infiltration practice, it should not be applied at stormwater hot spots due to the potential for ground water contamination.
Environmental Criteria Manual 1.6.7.E of the Environmental Criteria Manual
Rooftops can generate large volumes of runoff which, when discharged to paved surfaces and landscaped areas, can generate large pollutant loads. Rainwater harvesting systems can capture this runoff before it is discharged, thus preventing pollution while also putting the captured water to beneficial use, such as landscape irrigation or cooling water.
Rainwater harvesting is eligible for water quality credit only for commercial development. The amount of credit will depend on the size (water quality volume) and drawdown time of the system. Rainwater harvesting systems can provide equivalent treatment to a sedimentation/filtration system, or be designed to meet a non-degradation level of treatment required in Barton Springs Zone watersheds. An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan is required if the captured rainwater is applied to vegetation.
Design guidelines for rainwater harvesting can be found in Section 1.6.7.D of the Environmental Criteria Manual.
The Water Conservation staff of the City of Austin Water Utility is available to provide input on how to achieve cost-efficient design and equipment selection that will also help reduce water and wastewater costs.
Under the SOS regulations, certain watersheds in Austin allow no increase in pollutant load to receiving streams. Retention irrigation ponds capture stormwater in a holding pond and use the captured volume for irrigation of the surrounding landscaped areas rather than allowing direct release to receiving streams. There is virtually no discharge of runoff off-site and it mimics the undeveloped watershed conditions by allowing infiltration of smaller rainfalls. Retention irrigation systems have excellent pollutant removal efficiency.
Environmental Criteria Manual 1.6.9 (Guidance for Compliance with Technical Requirements of the SOS Ordinance)
Sedimentation/Filtration systems are the primary stormwater treatment device used in Austin. Runoff is first diverted into a sedimentation basin, where particulate pollutants are removed via gravity settling, followed by filtration through an 18” layer of sand. These systems can achieve removal rates of 40-90% for suspended solids, heavy metals, and organics. Properly operating systems will typically capture 90% or more of all runoff from the contributing drainage area, and release it at a slow rate that enhances baseflow and reduces stream erosion.
Sedimentation/filtration systems are not allowed in Barton Springs Zone (BSZ)watersheds as a stand-alone water quality control, as they are not capable of achieving a non-degradation level of treatment.
Two design variations are allowed in Austin. In “full” sedimentation/filtration systems the entire water quality volume is held in the sedimentation basin, which then slowly discharges runoff to the filtration basin via a perforated riser pipe. The alternative “partial” sedimentation/filtration design foregoes the perforated riser pipe, and distributes the water quality volume between the filtration basin and a sediment chamber. The latter is then separated from the filtration bed by a gabion wall or other porous structure. The “full” design is required when the City of Austin is responsible for maintenance.
Design guidelines for full and partial sedimentation/filtration ponds are provided in Section 1.6.5.of the Environmental Criteria Manual (see 1.6.5.A for “full” systems and 1.6.5.B for “partial” systems).
A vegetative filter strip is an innovative water quality control in which runoff is routed as sheet flow through a mildly sloped, well-vegetated area, thus promoting infiltration, sediment deposition, and filtration of pollutants. Because of the need to maintain sheet flow, filter strips are typically used to treat small drainage areas, or areas with low impervious cover. These treatment systems can be used in both Barton Springs Zone (BSZ) and non-BSZ watersheds, but those in BSZ watersheds must be larger. To maintain the proper functioning of these systems the vegetation must not be cut too short (minimum 3” for turfgrass and 18” for bunchgrass), grass clippings must be removed out of the filter strip, and an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan is required. Design guidelines for vegetated filter strips are provided in the Environmental Criteria Manual (Section 1.6.7 Alternative Water Quality Controls)
