DOCSLIB.ORG

Recommended Water Quality for Federally Listed Species in Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Recommended Water Quality for Federally Listed Species in Texas U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Region 2 Environmental Contaminants Program RECOMMENDED WATER QUALITY FOR FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES IN TEXAS USFWS Technical Report by J. Allen White, Craig M. Giggleman, and Patrick J. Connor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite No. 200 Austin, Texas 78758 October 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Transmittal Memorandum…………………………………….…………………………………......i List of Tables and Appendices……………………………………………………………………....v Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………..…………..…vi Section 1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………...………………………………….……1 2 SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………………....2 3 REGULATORY INFORMATION…………………………………………………………....5 3.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973………………………………………………………….5 3.1.1 ESA consultations with Federal agencies ……………………………………….……6 3.1.2 ESA permit actions involving the private sector and state or local governments…...……8 3.1.3 Critical habitat…………………………………………….………………………8 3.2 State-Listed Species in Texas……………………………………………………………..9 3.3 Regulatory Authorities for Water Quality in Texas……………….………………………13 4 WATER CATEGORIES AND WATER QUALITY FOR HABITATS OF FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES IN TEXAS…..…………………………………..………………………17 4.1 Water Categories….……………………………………………………………….……17 4.2 Water Quality in Aquatic Habitats of Listed Species…………….…………….……...…..27 4.3 Recommended Water Quality for Water Categories with Listed Species…………….…….30 5 GENERAL CRITERIA AND PROCESSES…………………………………………..……...32 5.1 Bioaccumulation………………………………………….…………………….….…...32 5.2 Biochemical Oxygen Demand……………………………………………………….…..33 5.3 Biological Integrity……………………………………………………………………...34 5.4 Critical Low Flow………………………………………………………………………35 5.5 Debris………………………………………………………………………………………….36 ii 5.6 Dissolved Oxygen and Aquatic Life Uses ……………………………………..………...37 5.7 Indicator Bacteria…………………………………………………………….………...38 5.8 Nutrients………………………………………………………………………….……39 5.9 pH……………………………………………………………………………….…….40 5.10 Salinity………………………………………………………………………….……42 5.11 Sediment……………………………………………………………………………...44 5.12 Supersaturation…………….………………………………………………………….46 5.13 Temperature………………………………………………………………………......48 5.14 Turbidity……………………………………………………………………………...49 6 CRITERIA FOR TOXIC MATERIALS…………………………………….……………….55 6.1 Ammonia……………………………………………………………….……………...55 6.2 Chlorine………………………………………………………………….…………….56 6.3 Metals………………………………………………………………….………………57 6.3.1 Mercury…………………………………………………………….…………..…58 6.3.2 Selenium………………………………………………………………………..…59 6.4 Pesticides………………………………………………………………………………61 6.5 Petroleum Hydrocarbons………………………………………………………………..63 6.6 Pharmaceuticals and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants…………………………...64 6.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Dioxins, and Furans…………………………………………64 6.8 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons……………………………………………………..65 6.9 Radiological Substances………………………………………………………………..66 6.10 Soaps and Detergents......……………………………………………………………..67 7 ANTIDEGRADATION………………………………………………………………….…72 7.1 Mixing Zones and Zones of Initial Dilution ……………………………………….……73 iii 7.2 Total Maximum Daily Loads….……………………………………………………..…74 7.3 Use Designations and Use Attainability Analyses………………………………………..75 8 IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES IN TEXAS……………………………………………………………….……77 8.1 Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System………………………………………..….77 8.1.1 Biomonitoring……………………………………………………………………..79 8.1.2 Concentrated animal feeding operations.…….………………………………...……80 8.1.3 TPDES permits and net ecological benefits for federally listed species….……………82 8.2 Site-Specific Uses and Criteria for Waters with Federally Listed Species…….……………83 9 LITERATURE CITED………………………………………………..……………….……85 iv LIST OF TABLES AND APPENDICES Table 1. General locations and primary constituent elements of critical habitat that has been designated or proposed for aquatic and aquatic-dependent listed species in Texas…………..10 Table 2. Water categories and respective aquatic habitat, habitat threats or issues, and water quality regulations for aquatic and aquatic-dependent species listed in Texas………………………18 Table 3. Aquatic life uses and general criteria for aquatic and aquatic-dependent species listed in Texas……………………………………………………………………………..…...51 Table 4. TSWQS criteria and recommendations for toxic materials in Texas waters with aquatic and aquatic-dependent listed species……………..……………………….…………….…68 Appendix A. Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) potentially required by the Safe Drinking Water Act in Category 1 and 2 waters……………………………………………….100 Appendix B. Ecological benchmarks for sediment in Table 3-3 of TCEQ’s “Guidance for Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments at Remediation Sites in Texas” (RG-263, December 2001 revised)………….…….…………………………..……..102 Appendix C. ESA consultations on water quality for federally listed species in Texas....................…105 Cover photo: Texas wild-rice, courtesy of Paula Power v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank the following reviewers for contributing to this report: Tom Stehn, Joel Lusk, Bill Seawell, Nathan Allan, Omar Bocanegra, Clare Lee, Allison Arnold, Dawn Whitehead, Carrie Thompson, Paige Najvar, Joe Skorupa, George Noguchi, Tom Brandt, Randy Gibson, Joe Fries, Lynn Wellman, and Jim Dwyer of USFWS; Donna Shaver of U.S. National Park Service; Ray Mathews of Texas Water Development Board; Gary Garrett, Gordon Linam, Tim Jurgenson, Patricia Radloff, Jackie Poole, and Robert Howells of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; Phillip Jennings, Diane Evans, Ken Williams, Kilty Baskin, Kay Schwab, and Mike Schaub of Region 6 EPA; Bruce Moring and Kent Becher of U.S. Geological Survey; Martha Turner, Lisa O’Donnell, Laurie Dries, David Johns, and Ed Peacock of the City of Austin; and Ken Kramer and Tyson Broad of the Sierra Club. vi SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This technical report is an assessment of water quality requirements for aquatic species and aquatic- dependent species (e.g., shore birds) that have been listed (or proposed for listing) in Texas as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The document’s purpose is to provide preliminary information on water quality for federally listed species and designated critical habitat that can be used by personnel of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and other agencies in regard to the development of protective water quality criteria and standards. The report may serve as an informational resource by regulatory agencies, permittees, and applicants for actions required under the Endangered Species Act such as development of biological opinions or habitat conservation plans. The report is also intended to serve as technical assistance to Region 6 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction with the “Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Regarding Enhanced Coordination under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act” (Federal Register 11202-11217, February 22, 2001). Objectives for the technical report are to 1. Evaluate water quality conditions and known effects that currently exist for aquatic and aquatic-dependent listed species and critical habitat in Texas, and 2. Recommend measures that can benefit conservation of these species and their associated habitat. The report should be revised whenever new aquatic or aquatic-dependent species are listed in Texas, critical habitat for these species is designated, or new information concerning contaminant toxicity to listed species or their surrogates is discovered or produced through national consultations under the Memorandum of Agreement. Updated versions of the document may be used as initial information in future triennial reviews of the surface water quality standards for the State of Texas as required under the Clean Water Act. Water quality recommendations in the technical report do not constitute rules, regulations, requirements, or project evaluation criteria of the Service. The document also does not create or establish any legal obligations, binding effects, minimum standards, or mandatory criteria to be adopted by the private sector or by government agencies at the Federal, State, or local level. 1 SECTION 2 SUMMARY This technical report contains water quality recommendations for animal and plant species in Texas that have been listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The report discusses aspects of the Clean Water Act and related regulatory authorities that pertain to listed species and critical habitat in Texas. Individual water quality parameters affecting aquatic and aquatic-dependent listed species are assessed in accordance with the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS) which regulates water quality for Texas waters. To differentiate habitat for these species, waters in Texas serving as species habitat are grouped into four broadly defined water categories: • Category 1 – Aquifer groundwater • Category 2 – Aquifer groundwater and surface waters in spring runs or spring pools • Category 3 – Surface waters in spring runs, spring pools, or spring-dependent wetlands • Category 4 – Surface waters other than surface waters in spring runs, spring pools, or spring- dependent wetlands The four categories are used to make recommendations for conserving listed species in regard to actions required under the Clean Water Act such as permits for discharge of wastewater or stormwater. Specific major recommendations made in the report for water quality that will help protect listed species in Texas
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Headstart 08/1994 Program (NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-OPR-3) TED Regulations for Shrimp Trawls 57 FR 57348 12/04/1992 Recovery Plan - U.S
    Fishing Permits Habitat Conservation Grants Fisheries Environmental Analyses Endangered Spec Search Go fish! nmlkji This si nmlkj All of NMFS Home Threatened and Endangered Species Divisions/Branches Lists What We Do Fishery Bulletins The following list of species under NMFS Fishery Quotas jurisdiction, listed as threatened or endangered, Fishery Regulations for each state and territory. Click on the state, News/Media territory or areas below to view a list of Species: National Employee 1. Southeast Region (North Carolina to Texas and Locator the Caribbean) FOIA Information 2. South Atlantic (North Carolina to Key West Public Records Florida) Request 3. Gulf of Mexico 4. Alabama 5. Florida - Atlantic Coast 6. Florida - Gulf Coast 7. Georgia 8. Louisiana 9. Mississippi 10. North Carolina 11. Puerto Rico 12. South Carolina 13. Texas 14. U.S. Virgin Islands Home · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer · About Us · Information Quality · Contact Us · Last Updated: February 2, 2010 NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources OPR Home | About OPR | Species | Permits | Laws & Policies | Programs | Education | Publications Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) Species Marine Mammals Status | Taxonomy | Species Description | Habitat | Distribution | Cetaceans Population Trends | Threats | Conservation Efforts | Regulatory Overview | Pinnipeds Key Documents | More Info Marine Turtles Marine & Anadromous Fish Status Marine Invertebrates & ESA Threatened - throughout its range Plants Species of Concern Taxonomy Threatened & Endangered Kingdom: Animalia Species Phylum: Chordata Critical Habitat Maps Class: Reptilia Order: Testudines Loggerhead turtle hatchling (Caretta caretta) Family: Cheloniidae Contact OPR Photo: Mary Wozny, Broward Glossary Genus: Caretta County Florida Sea Turtle OPR Site Map Species: caretta Conservation Program Species Description Did You Know? Loggerheads were named for their relatively large heads, which support powerful jaws and enable them to feed on Search OPR hard-shelled prey, such as whelks and conch.
    [Show full text]
  • FISHING Bucks Astir Hunters Keep Anglers After Crappie Have to Change Their Strategy in Winter
    Pheasant season opens * December 8, 2006 Texas’ Premier Outdoor Newspaper Volume 3, Issue 8 * Page 7 www.lonestaroutdoornews.com INSIDE FISHING Bucks astir Hunters keep Anglers after crappie have to change their strategy in winter. The fish often go to deep waters watchful eye to escape the cold and fluctuating temperatures. Crappie also turn more lethargic, on rut activity so pursuing anglers must slow down their actions and try to put By Bill Miller their bait on the money. Page 8 As a fierce arctic front barreled over Texas last week, some deer hunters willing to brave HUNTING frigid temperatures may have hoped the chill would stir bucks into breeding. The fabled rut is the one time hunters can be assured the wily buck of their dreams will abandon caution for the pursuit of a doe in estrus. But it’s a misconception that breeding is spurred by weather. Clayton Wolf, big game director for Texas Parks and Wildlife, said the decreasing length of days is what triggers breeding activity. “When you hear people talking about see- Goose hunters had their share of ing more deer when it’s colder, and that it success as reinforcements correlates with the rut, we find ourselves cor- arrived to bulk up the state’s recting them,’’ Wolf said. Much of the breeding in Texas happens winter goose population. during November, Wolf said, although Page 6 South Texas is famous for its rut in NATIONAL December. Wolf added that some areas experience a A new Coast Guard study IN A RUT: During breeding season, the necks of white-tailed deer swell signaling dominance and readiness to mate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Freshwater Inflows in Sustaining Estuarine Ecosystem Health in the San Antonio Bay Region
    The Role of Freshwater Inflows in Sustaining Estuarine Ecosystem Health in the San Antonio Bay Region Contract Number 05-018 September 15, 2006 1. Introduction Estuaries are vital aquatic habitats for supporting marine life, and they confer a multitude of benefits to humans in numerous ways. These benefits include the provision of natural resources used for a variety of market activities, recreational opportunities, transportation and aesthetics, as well as ecological functions such as storing and cycling nutrients, absorbing and detoxifying pollutants, maintaining the hydrological cycle, and moderating the local climate. The wide array of beneficial processes, functions and resources provided by the ecosystem are referred to collectively as “ecosystem services.” From this perspective, an estuary can be viewed as a valuable natural asset, or natural capital, from which these multiple goods and services flow.1 The quantity, quality and temporal variance of freshwater inflows are essential to the living and non-living components of bays and estuaries. Freshwater inflows to sustain ecosystem functions affect estuaries at all basic physical, chemical, and biological levels of interaction. The functional role of freshwater in the ecology of estuarine environments has been scientifically reviewed and is relatively well understood. This role is summarized in section 3, after a brief overview of the geographical context of the San Antonio Bay Region in the next section. Section 4 follows with discussion of the impacts of reduced freshwater inflow to the San Antonio Bay. Section 5 concludes with some general observations. 2. Geographical Context The San Antonio Bay Region, formed where the Guadalupe River meets the Guadalupe Estuary, teems with life.
    [Show full text]
  • Sabine Lake Galveston Bay East Matagorda Bay Matagorda Bay Corpus Christi Bay Aransas Bay San Antonio Bay Laguna Madre Planning
    River Basins Brazos River Basin Brazos-Colorado Coastal Basin TPWD Canadian River Basin Dallam Sherman Hansford Ochiltree Wolf Creek Colorado River Basin Lipscomb Gene Howe WMA-W.A. (Pat) Murphy Colorado-Lavaca Coastal Basin R i t Strategic Planning a B r ve Gene Howe WMA l i Hartley a Hutchinson R n n Cypress Creek Basin Moore ia Roberts Hemphill c ad a an C C r e Guadalupe River Basin e k Lavaca River Basin Oldham r Potter Gray ive Regions Carson ed R the R ork of Wheeler Lavaca-Guadalupe Coastal Basin North F ! Amarillo Neches River Basin Salt Fork of the Red River Deaf Smith Armstrong 10Randall Donley Collingsworth Palo Duro Canyon Neches-Trinity Coastal Basin Playa Lakes WMA-Taylor Unit Pr airie D og To Nueces River Basin wn Fo rk of t he Red River Parmer Playa Lakes WMA-Dimmit Unit Swisher Nueces-Rio Grande Coastal Basin Castro Briscoe Hall Childress Caprock Canyons Caprock Canyons Trailway N orth P Red River Basin ease River Hardeman Lamb Rio Grande River Basin Matador WMA Pease River Bailey Copper Breaks Hale Floyd Motley Cottle Wilbarger W To Wichita hi ng ver Sabine River Basin te ue R Foard hita Ri er R ive Wic Riv i r Wic Clay ta ve er hita hi Pat Mayse WMA r a Riv Rive ic Eisenhower ichit r e W h W tl Caddo National Grassland-Bois D'arc 6a Nort Lit San Antonio River Basin Lake Arrowhead Lamar Red River Montague South Wichita River Cooke Grayson Cochran Fannin Hockley Lubbock Lubbock Dickens King Baylor Archer T ! Knox rin Bonham North Sulphur San Antonio-Nueces Coastal Basin Crosby r it River ive y R Bowie R B W iv os r es
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Water Resources Institute Annual Technical Report FY 2003 Introduction the Mission of the Texas Water Resources Institute Is To
    Texas Water Resources Institute Annual Technical Report FY 2003 Introduction The Mission of the Texas Water Resources Institute is to: (1) Provide leadership for Experiment Station and Extension research and education water programs statewide, coordinating with scientists, specialists, county agents, administrative personnel and other agencies and water groups. (2) Serve as the designated Water Resources Research Institute for the State of Texas, as part of the National Institutes for Water Research Program and established by the Texas Legislature. (3) Obtain and manage external funds for research, academic programs, outreach, and education projects. (4) Establish TWRI as the focal point for water research and outreach efforts within the Texas A&M University System. (5) Develop relationships with policymakers, elected officials and water resources leaders throughout Texas. (6) Identify emerging water resources issues that may be significant funding sources, and communicate these issues to researchers, stakeholders, and the public. (7) Communicate TWRI projects, research opportunities, research results, resource materials, and water resources news to the public. (8) Support and help faciliatate water related academic programs and administer scholarship programs for students involved in water related studies. Research Program During 2003-04, the Texas Water Resources Institute funded 12 research projects to graduate students at universities throughout Texas. Students were supported at Texas A&M University (9 projects); the University of Texas at Austin (2); and the University of Texas at El Paso (1). These studies covered several broad subjects, including the following: brush control to improve water yields (3 projects); the development and application of computer models (3); hydrology (3); water conservation (1); groundwater (3); surface water (3); water use (3); bays and estuaries (1); aquatic ecosystems (2); water policies (1); the economics of water use (1); water treatment (1); non-point pollution (1); and water quality (5).
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • MEXICO Las Moras Seco Creek K Er LAVACA MEDINA US HWY 77 Springs Uvalde LEGEND Medina River
    Cedar Creek Reservoir NAVARRO HENDERSON HILL BOSQUE BROWN ERATH 281 RUNNELS COLEMAN Y ANDERSON S HW COMANCHE U MIDLAND GLASSCOCK STERLING COKE Colorado River 3 7 7 HAMILTON LIMESTONE 2 Y 16 Y W FREESTONE US HW W THE HIDDEN HEART OF TEXAS H H S S U Y 87 U Waco Lake Waco McLENNAN San Angelo San Angelo Lake Concho River MILLS O.H. Ivie Reservoir UPTON Colorado River Horseshoe Park at San Felipe Springs. Popular swimming hole providing relief from hot Texas summers. REAGAN CONCHO U S HW Photo courtesy of Gregg Eckhardt. Y 183 Twin Buttes McCULLOCH CORYELL L IRION Reservoir 190 am US HWY LAMPASAS US HWY 87 pasas R FALLS US HWY 377 Belton U S HW TOM GREEN Lake B Y 67 Brady iver razos R iver LEON Temple ROBERTSON Lampasas Stillhouse BELL SAN SABA Hollow Lake Salado MILAM MADISON San Saba River Nava BURNET US HWY 183 US HWY 190 Salado sota River Lake TX HWY 71 TX HWY 29 MASON Buchanan N. San G Springs abriel Couple enjoying the historic mill at Barton Springs in 1902. R Mason Burnet iver Photo courtesy of Center for American History, University of Texas. SCHLEICHER MENARD Y 29 TX HW WILLIAMSON BRAZOS US HWY 83 377 Llano S. S an PECOS Gabriel R US HWY iver Georgetown US HWY 163 Llano River Longhorn Cavern Y 79 Sonora LLANO Inner Space Caverns US HW Eckert James River Bat Cave US HWY 95 Lake Lyndon Lake Caverns B. Johnson Junction Travis CROCKETT of Sonora BURLESON 281 GILLESPIE BLANCO Y KIMBLE W TRAVIS SUTTON H GRIMES TERRELL S U US HWY 290 US HWY 16 US HWY P Austin edernales R Fredericksburg Barton Springs 21 LEE Somerville Lake AUSTIN Pecos
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist and Annotated Bibliography of the Subterranean Aquatic Fauna of Texas
    A CHECKLIST AND ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE SUBTERRANEAN AQUATIC FAUNA OF TEXAS JAMES R. REDDELL and ROBERT W. MITCHELL Texas Technological College WATER RESOURCES \ CENTER Lubbock, Texas WRC 69-6 INTERNATIONAL CENTER for ARID and August 1969 SEMI-ARID LAND STUDIES A CHECKLIST AND ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE SUBTERRANEAN AQUATIC FAUNA OF TEXAS James R. Reddell and Robert W. Mitchell Department of Biology Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas INTRODUCTION In view of the ever-increasing interest in all studies relating to the water resources of Texas, we have found it timely to prepare this guide to the fauna and biological literature of our subterranean waters. The value of such a guide has already been demonstrated by Clark (1966) in his "Publications, Personnel, and Government Organizations Related to the Limnology, Aquatic Biology and Ichthyology of the Inland Waters of Texas". This publication dea ls primarily with inland surface waters, however, barely touching upon the now rather extensive literature which has accumulated on the biology of our subterranean waters. To state a n obvious fact, it is imperative that our underground waters receive the attention due them. They are one of our most important resources. Those subterranean waters for which biological data exi st are very un­ equally distributed in the state. The best known are those which are acces­ sible to collection and study via the entrances of caves. Even in cavernous regions there exist inaccessible deep aquifers which have yielded little in­ formation as yet. Biological data from the underground waters of non-cave rn­ ous areas are virtually non-existant.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Abandoned Crab Trap Removal Program Texas ACTRP
    Texas Abandoned Crab Trap Removal Program Texas ACTRP • Senate Bill 1410 - Passed during 77th Legislative session (2001) – Mandated 10-day closure period in February • Conducted annually since 2002 – ~ 12,000 voluntary hours (> 3,000 volunteers) – > 1,000 vessels –> 35,000 traps! Commercial Crab Trap Tags in Texas 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 92 94 96 98 178 Licenses, 200 traps per license Condition Assessment • From 2002-2003, we performed an assessment study of retrieved traps looking at location, condition, bycatch, etc. Condition Assessment of Traps • 1,703 traps studied • 12% located on seagrass beds • 46% had ID present • 63% in fishable condition • 42% degradable panel present • 33% open • Oldest confirmed trap dated 1991 • 3 Diamondback terrapins Number % of Species Observed Scientific Name Observed Total Blue crab Callinectes sapidus 314 49 Stone crab Menippe adina 179 28 Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus 48 7 Thinstripe hermit crab Clibanarius vittatus 30 5 Gulf toadfish Opsanus beta 28 4 Black drum Pogonias cromis 12 2 Hardhead catfish Arius felis 6 1 Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 6 1 Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus 4 1 Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 3 <0.01 Bay whiff Citharichthys spilopterus 3 <0.01 Diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin littoralis 3 <0.01 Longnose spider crab Libinia dubia 2 <0.01 Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma 2 <0.01 Spotted scorpionfish Scorpaena plumieri 2 <0.01 Pelecypoda Rangia spp. 1 <0.01 Musk turtle Family Kinosternidae 1 <0.01 Spotted seatrout Cynoscion
    [Show full text]
  • View of the Abundance of Predators
    ********************************************************************* ********************************************************************* Document-ID: 2194356 Patron: Note: NOTICE: ********************************************************************* ********************************************************************* Pages: 10 Printed: 01-18-12 11:05:38 Sender: Ariel / Windows Journal Title: Texas Journal of Science 1/18/2012 7:45 AM (Please update within 24 hours) Volume: 27 Issue: 1 Call#: 01 .T4 MonthNear: 1976 Pages: 179-195 Location: evans Article Author: Tupa and Davis Not Wanted Date: 07/14/2012 Article Title: Population Dynamics of the San Marcos, Texas salamander Eurycea nana Status: T AES San Antonio Phone: 830-214-5878 Note: E-mail: [email protected] Name: Bandel, Micaela T AES San Antonio ,.. N z Address: 1- 2632 Broadway, Suite 301 South San Antonio, TX 78215 "Ccu ::::i ..J 178 THE TEXAS JOURNAL OF SC lENC£ appears to be less tolerant of arid conditions than B spec· . lOSUS and th spnng and summer of 1971 may have prevented this species f ' e dry ing in that year. rom reproduc- I wish to thank Dr. E. William Behrens for supplying the c1· data and the Port Aransas Police for their patience with my imatologica} pOPULATION DYNAMICS OF THE SAN MARCOS ditions. nocturnal expe. SALAMANDER, EURYCEA NANA BISHOP LITERATURE CITED by DIANNA DOWDEN TUPA 1 and WILLIAM K . DAVIS Blair, W. F., 1953 - Growth, dispersal, and age of sexual maturity of theM . Department of Biology, Southwest Texas State Untversity, San (Bufo val/iceps Weigmann). Copeia 1953: 20 . exican toad 8 212 Marcos 78666 Bragg, A. N. and C. C. Smith, 1943 - Observations on the ecology d 0; ~.nura. IV The ecological distribution of toads in Oklahoma~c;/~.;~~:s~1- ABSTRACT 0 Results of a study of the population ecology and demography of a paedogenetic spe­ Conant, R., 1958 - A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians H h .
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Resource Management of the Devils River Watershed Final Report
    Water-Resource Management of the Devils River Watershed Final Report August 11, 2017 Nathaniel Toll, S. Beth Fratesi, Ronald T. Green, F. Paul Bertetti, and Rebecca Nunu Earth Science Section Space Science Division Southwest Research Institute® ABSTRACT The Devils River watershed in south-central Texas has been recognized as one of the remaining pristine rivers in the state. Adding to its importance, the Devils River is a key tributary to the Rio Grande, providing essential freshwater flows to south Texas and the Rio Grande Valley. The Devils River watershed basin is being threatened by proposed large-scale groundwater export projects. This study was undertaken to evaluate what impact groundwater pumping in the upper Devils River watershed would have on downstream discharge in the Devils River. The watershed is located in a semi-arid environment with modest distributed recharge, oftentimes less than 1-2 cm/year [0.4-0.8 in/year]. The Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer of the Devils River watershed is characterized as a karstic carbonate aquifer with preferential flow paths that align with major river channels. Water chemistry, water budget, hydraulics, and geophysical imaging data were used to corroborate this conceptualization. A coupled surface-water/groundwater model was assembled to replicate the hydraulics of the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer to provide a defensible tool to assess the impact of pumping on river flow. The surface-water model was assembled to determine recharge to the groundwater model. The conduit/diffuse groundwater model replicates both fast conduit flow and slow diffuse flow in the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer. The model provides, for the first time, a numerical groundwater flow model that replicates the hydraulic dominance of preferential flow paths in the karstic Edwards-Trinity Aquifer of the Devils River watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • San Marcos Recovery Plan
    ~""'.- San Marcos Recovery Plan U. • Fish & Wildlife Service Albu,querque, New Mexico .-1-934--- The San Marcos Recovery Plan FOR San Hareqs River, Endangered and Threatened Species San ,Marcos Gambusia (Gambusia georgei) Hubbs and Peden ~ountainDarter (Etheostoma fonticola) (Jordan and Gilbert) San Marcos Salamander (Eurycea nana) Bish~p Te1,Ca s Wildr ice" (Z.tzaniatexana}Hitchcock PREPARED BY THE SAN MARIDS REIDVERY TEAM Dr. Robert J. Edwards, Leader, Pan American University, Edinburg, Texas 78539 Mr. Harold E. Beaty, 3414 Forest Trail, Temple, Texas 76502 Dr. Glenn Longley, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666 Mr. David H. Riskind, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas 78744 Dr. Dianna D.Tupa, center for Research and Water Resources, Unlvers1tyof Texas Balcones Research' Center, Austin, Texas 78758 Dr. Bobby G.Whites ide, Southwes t Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666 OONSULTANTS Mr. Harry Bishop, USFWS, Fish Cult. & Develop. Res. Center, San Marcos, Texas 78666 Dr. W. H. P. Emery, South~est Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 7e666 (Member 1981-82) Mr. Russell L. Masters, Edwards Underground Water District, San AntoniO, Texas 78205 Mr. William McPherson, Soil Conservation Service, Bastrop, Texas 78602 Mr. Floyd E. Potter, Jr., Texas Parks and lHl(,ili~~ Department, Austin, Texas 78759 i;:'y' , . // i f ,It . '1 ,/.' "V- Approved: '. ~ /-, j;t Regtaff'a i or, Region 2 U.S. Fi h, .. ' 'Wildlife Service Date: '/ .f --------~~~~~--------------------- SUMMARY 1 •. GOAL: Secure the survival and eventual recovery of the San Marcos .. gambusia, f01.nltain darter, San Marcos salamander, and Texas wildrice through protection of their natural ecosystem, the . San Marcos River.
    [Show full text]