DOCSLIB.ORG

Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the False Spike and Texas Fawnsfoot in the Brazos River Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the False Spike and Texas Fawnsfoot in the Brazos River Basin Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the False Spike and Texas Fawnsfoot in the Brazos River Basin Developed Cooperatively by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Southwest Region and Brazos River Authority 2020 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 BENEFITS OF THIS AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 2 NET CONSERVATION BENEFIT ........................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 4 Species Status Assessment (SSA) .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 AUTHORITY ................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 COVERED SPECIES ......................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 FALSE SPIKE ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 TEXAS FAWNSFOOT .............................................................................................................................................. 9 4.0 THREATS ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 DEGRADATION, LOSS, AND FRAGMENTATION OF HABITAT .......................................................................................... 11 4.2 WATER QUANTITY .............................................................................................................................................. 11 4.3 WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................ 12 4.4 RUNOFF AND EROSION ........................................................................................................................................ 13 4.5 BARRIERS TO DISPERSAL ...................................................................................................................................... 13 4.6 OVERUTILIZATION ............................................................................................................................................... 13 4.7 EXOTIC SPECIES .................................................................................................................................................. 14 4.8 CLIMATE CHANGE............................................................................................................................................... 14 5.0 COVERED AREA ........................................................................................................................................... 15 6.0 CONSERVATION STRATEGY ......................................................................................................................... 16 7.0 CONSERVATION ZONES .............................................................................................................................. 23 8.0 HYDROLOGIC MODELING ............................................................................................................................ 30 9.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES........................................................................................................................ 35 9.1 DISTRIBUTIONAL FRESHWATER MUSSEL SURVEYS AND HYDROLOGIC MODELING ............................................................ 35 9.1.1 Freshwater Mussel Surveys to Fill Data Gaps ...................................................................................... 35 9.1.2 Additional Hydrologic Modeling .......................................................................................................... 35 9.2 COMMUNICATION / EDUCATION / OUTREACH ......................................................................................................... 35 9.2.1 Coordinate with Agencies through Interagency Workgroup ............................................................... 35 9.2.2 Increase Awareness of Freshwater Mussels and Foster Community Engagement .............................. 36 9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS PROTECTION ................................................................................................................... 36 9.3.1 Environmental Flow Management ...................................................................................................... 36 9.3.2 Allen’s Creek Reservoir Management to Support Environmental Flows .............................................. 37 9.3.3 Evaluate Controlled Releases to Minimize Erosion .............................................................................. 39 9.4 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION ........................................................................................................................... 40 9.5 APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................................. 40 9.5.1 Development of a Habitat Quantification Tool .................................................................................... 41 9.5.2 Development of Environmental Flow Methodologies Specific to Freshwater Mussels ........................ 41 9.5.3 Evaluate Reintroduction Techniques and Opportunities ...................................................................... 41 9.5.4 Analyze Physiological Tolerances of Covered Species .......................................................................... 42 9.5.5 Groundwater-Surface Water Interaction Studies ................................................................................ 42 9.6 LONG-TERM MONITORING ................................................................................................................................... 43 9.6.1 Key Mussel Populations ....................................................................................................................... 43 9.6.2 Host Fish Populations ........................................................................................................................... 44 i 9.6.3 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 44 9.6.4 Substrate and Channel Morphology .................................................................................................... 46 9.6.5 Invasive Species Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 47 9.7 SHORT-TERM REFUGIA AND CAPTIVE PROPAGATION ................................................................................................. 47 9.7.1 Contingency Plan for Short-term Refugia ............................................................................................ 47 9.7.2 Captive Propagation ............................................................................................................................ 48 10.0 IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE ...................................................................................................................... 48 11.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING .................................................................................................................. 50 12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 51 13.0 CHANGED AND UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES ......................................................................................... 53 13.1 CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES .................................................................................................................................. 53 13.2 UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES ............................................................................................................................... 55 14.0 COVERED ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................. 56 14.1 CCAA RELATED CONSERVATION, RESEARCH, AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES .................................................................... 56 14.2 EXISTING BRA WATER SUPPLY AND DELIVERY ......................................................................................................... 57 15.0 INCIDENTAL TAKE ....................................................................................................................................... 58 LEVEL AND TYPE OF TAKE AND IMPACTS ........................................................................................................................... 60 16.0 REGULATORY ASSURANCES ........................................................................................................................ 61 17.0 AGREEMENT TERM, RESPONSIBILITIES, AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION ................................................ 61 17.1 AGREEMENT TERM ............................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SPECIAL PROJECTS the Brazos River
    SPECIAL PROJECTS The Brazos River Authority’s (BRA) public outreach activites include involving our stakeholders in planning water quality and watershed protection activities in the Brazos Basin as well as education and outreach programs. Brazos River Basin Clean Rivers Program Steering Committee The size and diversity of issues across the Brazos River Watershed presents a challenge for the large group of stakeholders in our basin. The Brazos River Clean Rivers Program (CRP) Steering Committee participants represent diverse interests that are represented by government agencies, municipalities, industry, agriculture, organized local stakeholder groups, individuals, and environmental groups. The BRA holds an annual meeting that provides the Steering Committee with an opportunity to hear results of water quality monitoring and CRP special studies and gives them a forum where they may voice opinions, make recommendations and interact with other stakeholder participants and BRA staff. Steering Committee members also participate by providing input into planning water quality monitoring activities, prioritizing problems within the basin for prospective CRP special studies, identifying problem areas and developing actions to address potential problem areas in the basin. How to get involved with the Brazos Basin CRP? BRA promotes communication and participation from the general public. If you are interested in serving on the Brazos River Basin CRP Steering Committee, send an email addressed to [email protected]. Please indicate what topics you are interested in and provide an email address so that you can receive electronic notices of meetings and reports. In addition, the information you provide will help us to develop more effective meetings and provide direction to the program.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Disaster Final Report
    The Senate Interim Committee on Natural Resources Interim Report to the 78th Legislature Natural Disasters August 2002 Senate Interim Committee on Natural Resources Report to the 78th Legislature Analysis of State Natural Disaster Efforts TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS............................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 4 INTERIM CHARGE.................................................................................................................. 5 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................ 6 STATE’S ABILITY TO RESPOND TO NATURAL DISASTERS......................................... 9 DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.................................................................... 9 HURRICANES.......................................................................................................................... 11 TROPICAL STORMS............................................................................................................... 17 COASTAL FLOODING............................................................................................................ 20 RIVER BASIN FLOODING..................................................................................................... 21 FLOOD LIABILITY.................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pages 99-108
    Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 23:99–108, 2020 Ó Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 2020 REGULAR ARTICLE USE OF MORPHOMETRIC ANALYSES AND DNA BARCODING TO DISTINGUISH TRUNCILLA DONACIFORMIS AND TRUNCILLA TRUNCATA (BIVALVIA: UNIONIDAE) Tyler W. Beyett1, Kelly McNichols-O’Rourke2, Todd J. Morris2, and David T. Zanatta*1,3 1 Department of Biology, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI 48859 2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 867 Lakeshore Rd. Burlington, ON L7S 1A1 Canada 3 Institute for Great Lakes Research, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI 48859 ABSTRACT Closely related unionid species often overlap in shell shape and can be difficult to accurately identify in the field. Ambiguity in identification can have serious impacts on conservation efforts and population surveys of threatened and endangered species. Truncilla donaciformis and Truncilla truncata are sister species that overlap in their distributions and frequently co-occur in central North America. Because T. donaciformis is endangered in Canada and imperiled in some US jurisdictions, co-occurrence with the morphologically similar T. truncata means that misidentification could seriously impact status assessments and recovery efforts. The objectives of this study were to (1) establish species identifications of specimens using DNA barcoding (COI), (2) determine how well traditional morphometrics and geometric morphometrics accurately discriminate between the two species, and (3) determine the accuracy of field identifications relative to molecular and morphometric identifications. Truncilla specimens from four rivers in southern Ontario were photographed and visceral mass swabs were taken. Positive identifications of all specimens were obtained through DNA barcoding and comparison with sequences from GenBank.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2011
    Ellipsaria Vol. 13 - No. 4 December 2011 Newsletter of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Volume 13 – Number 4 December 2011 FMCS 2012 WORKSHOP: Incorporating Environmental Flows, 2012 Workshop 1 Climate Change, and Ecosystem Services into Freshwater Mussel Society News 2 Conservation and Management April 19 & 20, 2012 Holiday Inn- Athens, Georgia Announcements 5 The FMCS 2012 Workshop will be held on April 19 and 20, 2012, at the Holiday Inn, 197 E. Broad Street, in Athens, Georgia, USA. The topic of the workshop is Recent “Incorporating Environmental Flows, Climate Change, and Publications 8 Ecosystem Services into Freshwater Mussel Conservation and Management”. Morning and afternoon sessions on Thursday will address science, policy, and legal issues Upcoming related to establishing and maintaining environmental flow recommendations for mussels. The session on Friday Meetings 8 morning will consider how to incorporate climate change into freshwater mussel conservation; talks will range from an overview of national and regional activities to local case Contributed studies. The Friday afternoon session will cover the Articles 9 emerging science of “Ecosystem Services” and how this can be used in estimating the value of mussel conservation. There will be a combined student poster FMCS Officers 47 session and social on Thursday evening. A block of rooms will be available at the Holiday Inn, Athens at the government rate of $91 per night. In FMCS Committees 48 addition, there are numerous other hotels in the vicinity. More information on Athens can be found at: http://www.visitathensga.com/ Parting Shot 49 Registration and more details about the workshop will be available by mid-December on the FMCS website (http://molluskconservation.org/index.html).
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Management Program 2013-2018 Appendix A
    Appendix A 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) As required under Sections 303(d) and 304(a) of the federal Clean Water Act, this list identifies the water bodies in or bordering Texas for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards, and for which the associated pollutants are suitable for measurement by maximum daily load. In addition, the TCEQ also develops a schedule identifying Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that will be initiated in the next two years for priority impaired waters. Issuance of permits to discharge into 303(d)-listed water bodies is described in the TCEQ regulatory guidance document Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (January 2003, RG-194). Impairments are limited to the geographic area described by the Assessment Unit and identified with a six or seven-digit AU_ID. A TMDL for each impaired parameter will be developed to allocate pollutant loads from contributing sources that affect the parameter of concern in each Assessment Unit. The TMDL will be identified and counted using a six or seven-digit AU_ID. Water Quality permits that are issued before a TMDL is approved will not increase pollutant loading that would contribute to the impairment identified for the Assessment Unit. Explanation of Column Headings SegID and Name: The unique identifier (SegID), segment name, and location of the water body. The SegID may be one of two types of numbers. The first type is a classified segment number (4 digits, e.g., 0218), as defined in Appendix A of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS).
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Page 1 Chapter 292 - Special Requirements for Certain Districts and Authorities
    Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Page 1 Chapter 292 - Special Requirements for Certain Districts and Authorities SUBCHAPTER A: GENERAL PROVISIONS §292.1, §292.2 Effective November 28, 2002 §292.1. Objective and Scope of Rules. (a) The commission has the continuing right of supervision of districts and authorities created under Article III, §52 and Article XVI, §59 of the Texas Constitution. The authorities identified in Texas Water Code (TWC), §9.010, shall report to the Texas Water Advisory Council as specified in TWC, §9.011. This chapter shall govern the administrative policies of the following districts: (1) Angelina and Neches River Authority; (2) Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Counties Water Control and Improvement District Number 1; (3) Brazos River Authority; (4) Canadian River Municipal Water Authority; (5) Central Colorado River Authority; (6) Colorado River Municipal Water District; (7) Dallas County Utility and Reclamation District; (8) Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority; (9) Gulf Coast Water Authority; (10) Lavaca-Navidad River Authority; (11) Lower Colorado River Authority; (12) Lower Neches Valley Authority; (13) Mackenzie Municipal Water Authority; (14) North Central Texas Municipal Water Authority; (15) North Harris County Regional Water Authority; (16) North Texas Municipal Water District; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Page 2 Chapter 292 - Special Requirements for Certain Districts and Authorities (17) Northeast Texas Municipal Water District; (18) Nueces River Authority; (19) Red River Authority of Texas; (20) Sabine River Authority; (21) San Antonio River Authority; (22) San Jacinto River Authority; (23) Sulphur River Basin Authority; (24) Sulphur River Municipal Water District; (25) Tarrant Regional Water District, a Water Control and Improvement District; (26) Titus County Fresh Water Supply District Number 1; (27) Trinity River Authority of Texas; (28) Upper Colorado River Authority; (29) Upper Guadalupe River Authority; (30) Upper Neches River Municipal Water Authority; and (31) West Central Texas Municipal Water District.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment for Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement for the Houston Toad in Texas
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROGRAMMATIC SAFE HARBOR AGREEMENT FOR THE HOUSTON TOAD IN TEXAS Between Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ……………………………………….. 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………….. 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION …………………………………….. 1 1.3 NEED FOR TAKING THE PROPOSED ACTION …………………………….. 1 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ………………………………………………………………. 2 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ………………………………………………. 2 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 10(a)(1)(A) ENHANCEMENT OF SURVIVAL PERMIT AND APPROVAL OF A RANGEWIDE PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT (PROPOSED ACTION)........... 3 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………………………… 5 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ……………………………………………….. 5 3.1 VEGETATION …………………………………………………………………... 6 3.2 WILDLIFE ………………………………………………………………………. 7 3.3 LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES ………………………… 8 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES …………………………………………………….. 12 3.5 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ………………………………………… 13 Austin County ……………………………………………………………………. 13 Bastrop County …………………………………………………………………... 13 Burleson County …………………………………………………………………. 13 Colorado County …………………………………………………………………. 14 Lavaca County …………………………………………………………………… 14 Lee County ……………………………………………………………………….. 14 Leon County ……………………………………………………………………… 14 Milam County ……………………………………………………………………. 15 Robertson County ………………………………………………………………... 15 3.6 WETLANDS
    [Show full text]
  • Lampasas River Watershed Final Report
    Texas Water Resources Institute TR-442 April 2013 Bacterial Source Tracking to Support the Development and Implementation of Watershed Protection Plans for the Lampasas and Leon Rivers Lampasas River Watershed Final Report L. Gregory, E. Casarez, J. Truesdale, G. Di Giovanni, R. Owen, J. Wolfe Bacterial Source Tracking to Support the Development and Implementation of Watershed Protection Plans for the Lampasas and Leon Rivers Lampasas River Watershed Final Report Funding provided through a Texas State General Revenue Grant from the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board TSSWCB Project 10-51 Authored By: Lucas Gregory1, Elizabeth Casarez2, Joy Truesdale2, George Di Giovanni2, Tony Owen3, and June Wolfe3 1Texas A&M AgriLife Research– Texas Water Resource Institute 2University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health El Paso Regional Campus 3Texas A&M AgriLife Research - Blackland Research and Extension Center Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report 442 April 2013 Table of Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... iii Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................... iv Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... v Figures ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife & Watershed Planning
    Wildlife & Watershed Planning Kevin Wagner, PhD WPPs & TMDLs Addressing Non-Domesticated Species (Wildlife) Wildlife Measures in 10 of 11 EPA Accepted WPPs Attoyac Bayou Buck Creek Cypress Creek Geronimo & Alligator Creeks Lake Granbury Lampasas River Leon River Plum Creek Upper Cibolo Creek Upper San Antonio River Wildlife Measures Included in TMDL Implementation Plans Copano Bay Dickinson Bayou Gilleland Creek Guadalupe River above Canyon Texas BST Studies To Date 5-Way Split (averages based on findings in 10 watersheds) Non-Avian Avian Wildlife Wildlife 32% 18% Pets Unidentified 5% 11% All Livestock Human 24% 10% Mean Background Levels in Runoff Fecal Coliform E. coli Site (#/100 mL) (cfu/100 mL) Reference Ungrazed pasture 10,000 Robbins et al. 1972 Ungrazed pasture 6,600 Doran et al. 1981 Control plots 6,800 Guzman et al. 2010 Pasture destocked >2 mos. 1,000-10,000 Collins et al. 2005 Ungrazed pasture 6,200-11,000 Wagner et al. 2012 Pasture destocked >2 wks. 2,200-6,000 Wagner et al. 2012 Impacts of Migratory Wildlife E. coli concentrations at ungrazed site BB1 (2009-2010) Date BB1 BB2 BB3 300,000 3/13/09 140 3/25/09 1,200 250,000 3/26/09 1,000 7,200 /100 mL) 3/27/09 2,000 200,000 cfu 4/17/09 1,155 980 450 4/18/09 4,400 2,225 2,100 150,000 4/28/09 7,600 12,200 24,000 100,000 10/4/09 57,000 5,114 3,065 Concentration ( 10/9/09 36,000 24,043 15,000 coli 50,000 10/13/09 42,851 23,826 5,591 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Projects in Texas (2000 - 2012)
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation - Projects in Texas (2000 - 2012) Award NFWF NFWF Non- Grantee NFWF Total Project Fiscal EZG# Project Title Grantee Project Description Federal Federal Matching Location Award Funds Year Funds Funds Funds Short Grass Prairie Protect, restore and enhance shortgrass prairie, LPC Conservation in The Nature habitat, and playas in the southeastern New Mexico and 2013 34736 $60,000 $60,000 $50,000 $110,000 New Mexico; Texas New Mexico and Conservancy Texas focal area and implement public education and Texas outreach activities. Aerial Survey Western The Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group will Assessment of Association of Fish use the newly developed range-wide aerial survey to Colorado; Kansas; New 2013 35249 $125,000 $125,000 $250,000 $375,000 Lesser Prairie and Wildlife assess Farm Bill Programs for each of the 15X15 km Mexico; Oklahoma; Texas Chicken (LPC) Agencies survey blocks. Assess the abundance of Guadalupe Bass in the San Antonio River basin and re-introduce the species on the San Antonio River Upper San Antonio River in Texas. Project, which Basin Guadalupe San Antonio River supports the goals of the Southeast Aquatic Resources 2012 31188 Bass Assessment $44,201 $44,201 $300,000 $344,201 Texas Authority Partnership as part of the National Fish Habitat Action and Re- Plan, will restore aquatic and riparian habitats, expand of introduction (TX) the range and distribution of Guadalupe Bass, and improve the biotic integrity of the San Antonio River. Continue to reduce the gaps in knowledge of American Texas American Gulf Coast Bird Oystercatcher population status and breeding 2012 30267 Oystercatcher $134,975 $67,487 $67,487 $134,989 $269,964 Texas Observatory parameters, and begin implementation of conservation Conservation strategies on the Texas Gulf Coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4
    Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4 COL Application Part 3 - Environmental Report CHAPTER 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OPERATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OPERATION ........................................................ 5.0-1 5.1 LAND-USE IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 5.1-1 5.1.1 THE SITE AND VICINITY ..................................................................................... 5.1-1 5.1.1.1 The Site........................................................................................................... 5.1-1 5.1.1.2 The Vicinity...................................................................................................... 5.1-2 5.1.2 TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AND OFF-SITE AREAS..................................... 5.1-2 5.1.3 HISTORIC PROPERTIES..................................................................................... 5.1-3 5.1.3.1 Site and Vicinity............................................................................................... 5.1-3 5.1.3.1.1 Prehistoric Archaeological Sites...................................................................... 5.1-4 5.1.3.1.2 Historical Period Archaeological Sites............................................................. 5.1-4 5.1.3.1.3 Historic Sites ................................................................................................... 5.1-4 5.1.3.1.4 Historic Cemeteries........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • List of State Agencies and Higher Education Institutions
    List of State Agencies and Institutions of Higher Education (List may not be all inclusive) Abilene State Supported Living Center Civil Commitment Office, Texas Fire Protection, Commission on Accountancy, Board of Public Clarendon College Forest Service, Texas Administrative Hearings, Office of Coastal Bend College Frank Phillips College Affordable Housing Corporation College of the Mainland Funeral Service Commission Aging and Disability Services, Dept. of Collin County Community College Galveston College Agriculture, Department of Competitive Government, Council on Geoscientists, Board of Professional AgriLife Extension Service, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Governor, Office of the AgriLife Research, Texas Consumer Credit Commissioner, Office of Grayson County College Alamo Community College District Corpus Christi State Supported Groundwater Protection Committee Alcoholic Beverage Commission County and District Retirement System Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Alvin Community College Court Administration, Office of Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority Amarillo College Credit Union Department Headwaters Groundwater Conservation Anatomical Board Criminal Appeals, Court of Health and Human Services Commission Angelina and Neches River Authority Criminal Justice, Department of Health Professions Council Angelina College Dallas County Community College Health Services, Department of State Angelo State University Deaf, School for the High Plains Underground Water Conserv. Animal Health Commission Del Mar College Higher Education Coordinating
    [Show full text]