DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Department of the Interior FISH and WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 512490-0057 FAX 490-0974

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Department of the Interior FISH and WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 512490-0057 FAX 490-0974 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 512490-0057 FAX 490-0974 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico ThrOUgh:/~sistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico From: Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, Austin, Te as Subject: Biological and Conference Opinions for the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Habitat Conservation Plan - Permit TE-63663A-0 (Consultation No. 214S0-201O-F-OllO) Enclosed are the biological and conference opinions for the final Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (EARlP) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that describes actions the Applicants have proposed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects to the endangered Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana), Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis), Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), Peck's Cave amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), fountain darter (Etheostomafonticola), San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia georgei), Texas blind salamander (Typhlomolge [=EwyceaJ rathbuni), the threatened San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana), and the non-listed Texas cave diving beetle (Haideoporus texanus, also referred to as the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle), Texas troglobitic water slater (Lirceolus smithii), and Comal Springs salamander (Eurycea sp.) over a period of IS-years. We appreciate your staffs assistance throughout this consultation. If you have any questions regarding this biological opinion, please contact Tanya Sommer at SI2-490-00S7, extension 222. The biological opinion is based on the EARIP HCP dated December 2011 and the associated Enviromnental Impact Statement dated June 2012 pursuant to the National Enviromnental Policy Act of 1969; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) files; discussions with species experts; published and un-published literature on the species of concern and related impacts; and other sources of information available to the Service. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the Austin Ecological Services Field Office. Attachment cc: Mike Oetker, ARD-FARC, USFWS, Albuquerque, New Mexico Torn Brandt, San Marcos Aquatic Resources Center Director, USFWS, San Marcos, Texas Mike Montagne, Project Leader, USFWS, San Marcos, Texas 21450-2010-F-OIIO Biological Opinion/or the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program HCP 2 Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3 I. Consultation history ........................................................................................................... 3 2. Description ofthe action ............................................................................................... .4 a. The Edwards Aquifer .............................................................................................. 11 b. Water quality .............................................................................................. 15 c. The EAA and aquifer management .............................................................. 17 3. Status of the species and environmental baseline .............................................................. 18 a. Texas wild-rice ..........................................................................................................21 b. Golden orb ............................................................................................. .28 c. Texas pimpleback ............................................................................................. .32 d. Texas fa!mucket ............................................................................................. .35 e. Comal Springs dryopid beetle ................................................................................... .38 f. Comal Springs riffle beetle ........................................................................ .43 g. Texas cave diving beetle ........................................................................ .48 h. Texas troglobitic water slater .................................................................................. .50 i. Peck's cave amphipod ....................................................................................52 j. Fountain darter .................................................................................... 57 k. San Marcos gambusia .................................................................................... 63 1. Texas blind salamander .................................................................................... 68 m. San Marcos salamander ........................................................................ 73 n. Comal Springs salamander ........................................................................ 76 o. Whooping Crane ........................................................................ 78 4. Effects of the action ............................................................................................... 84 a. Factors to be considered .............................................................................................. 84 b. Analysis for effects of the action .................................................................................... 88 i. Texas wild-rice .................................................................................... 92 ii. Golden orb ........................................................................ 96 iii. Texas pimpleback ......................................................................... 97 iv. Texas fatmucket ........................................................................ 98 v. Comal Springs dryopid beetle ........................................................................ 99 vi. Comal Springs riffle beetle ....................................................................... 103 vii. Texas cave diving beetle ............................................................ !O8 viii. Texas troglobitic water slater ......................................................................... 109 ix. Peck's cave amphipod ...... , ................................................................ 110 x.Fountaindarter ....................................................................... 113 xi. San Marcos gambusia ....................................................................... 118 xii. Texas blind salamander ............................................................. 120 xiii. San Marcos salamander ............................................................ 124 xiv. Comal Springs salamander ....................................................................... 125 xv. Whooping Crane ............................................................ 126 5. Cumulative effects ............................................................................................. 127 6. Biological Opinion Conclusion ................................................................................... 129 7. Conference Opinion ............................................................................................. 129 8. Incidental Take Statement ................................................................................... 135 a. Reasonable and prudent measures ............................................................. 137 b. Tenns and conditions ................................................................................... 137 9. Conservation recommendations ................................................................................... 149 10. Re-initiation requirements ................................................................... : ........... .... 150 II. References cited ............................................................................................. 153 2I450-20IO-F-OIIO Biological Opinion/or the Edwards Aquifer Recove,y Implementation Program HCP 3 BIOLOGICAL AND CONFERENCE OPINIONS This document transmits our biological and conference opinions for the issuance of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 10(a)(I)(B) permit (permit) for the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (EARIP) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA), the City of New Braunfels (CNB), the City of San Marcos (CSM), San Antonio Water System (SAWS), and Texas State University (TSU) (the Applicants). The EARIP HCP will minimize and mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse effects from covered activities to the endangered Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana), Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis), Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), Peck's Cave amphipod (Stygobromus pecld), fountain darter (Etheostomafonticola), San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia georgei), Texas blind salamander (Typhlomolge [=EuryceaJ rathbuni), the threatened San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nan a), and the non-listed Texas cave diving beetle (Haideoporus texan us, also referred to as the Edwards Aquifer diving beetle), Texas troglobitic water slater (Lirceolus smithii), and Comal Springs salamander (Eurycea sp.), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The issuance ofa Service permit to authorize incidental take associated with the HCP is pursuant to 10(a)(I)(B) of the Act and is the action for this intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. 1. Consultation History January 6,2012 The EARIP submitted
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]
  • Melanoides Tuberculata), Species Habitat Associations and Life History Investigations in the San Solomon Spring Complex, Texas
    FINAL REPORT As Required by THE ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM TEXAS Grant No. TX E-121-R Endangered and Threatened Species Conservation Native springsnails and the invasive red-rim melania snail (Melanoides tuberculata), species habitat associations and life history investigations in the San Solomon Spring complex, Texas Prepared by: David Rogowski Carter Smith Executive Director Clayton Wolf Director, Wildlife 3 October 2012 FINAL REPORT STATE: ____Texas_______________ GRANT NUMBER: ___ TX E-121-R___ GRANT TITLE: Native springsnails and the invasive red-rim melania snail (Melanoides tuberculata), species habitat associations and life history investigations in the San Solomon Spring complex, Texas. REPORTING PERIOD: ____17 Sep 09 to 31 May 12_ OBJECTIVE(S): To determine patterns of abundance, distribution, and habitat use of the Phantom Cave snail (Cochliopa texana), Phantom Spring tryonia (Tryonia cheatumi), and the invasive red-rim melania snail (Melanoides tuberculta) in San Solomon Springs, and potential interactions. Segment Objectives: Task 1. January - February 2010. A reconnaissance visit(s) will be made to the region to investigate the study area and work on specific sampling procedural methods. Visit with TPWD at the Balmorhea State Park, as well as meet The Nature Conservancy personnel at Diamond Y and Sandia springs complexes. Task 2. March 2010– August 2011. Begin sampling. Field sampling will be conducted every 6-8 weeks, over a period of a year and a half. Sampling methods are outlined below stated Tasks. Task 3. December 2010. Completion of first year of study. With four seasonal samples completed, preliminary data analysis and statistical modeling will begin. Preliminary results will be presented at the Texas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Edwards Aquifer Authority Study No. 14-14-697-Hcp
    ATTACHMENT 3 DETERMINATION OF LIMITATIONS OF COMAL SPRINGS RIFFLE BEETLE PLASTRON USE DURING LOW-FLOW STUDY EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY STUDY NO. 14-14-697-HCP FINAL REPORT Prepared by Weston H. Nowlin 601 University Drive Department of Biology Aquatic Station Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666 (512) 245-8794 [email protected] Benjamin Schwartz 601 University Drive Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Center and Department of Biology Aquatic Station Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666 (512) 245-7608 [email protected] Thom Hardy 601 University Drive The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666 (512) 245-6729 [email protected] and Randy Gibson United States Fish and Wildlife Service San Marcos Aquatic Resources Center 500 East McCarty Lane San Marcos, TX 78666 (512) 353-0011, ext. 226 [email protected] Riffle Beetle Plastron Study - 1 ATTACHMENT 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE………………………………………………………………………………….……1 TABLE OF CONTENTS…...................................................................................................................................2 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES……………………………………………………………….……3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………….…4 BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE…………………………………………………………….….5 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………….…6 CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION, EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN, AND METHODS…………………….…….7 Collection and Housing of Beetles……………………………………………….………….…..7 Conceptual Foundation for Experiments………………………………. ………………………8 Short-Term
    [Show full text]
  • Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0082]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/19/2012 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2012-25578, and on FDsys.gov 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0082] [4500030114] RIN 1018-AY20 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Revision of Critical Habitat for the Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle, Comal Springs Riffle Beetle, and Peck’s Cave Amphipod AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to revise 2 designation of critical habitat for the Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis), Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), and Peck’s cave amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 169 acres (68 hectares) are being proposed for revised critical habitat. The proposed revision of critical habitat is located in Comal and Hays Counties, Texas. DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods: (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Habitat and Phenology of the Endangered Riffle Eetle, Heterelmis
    Arch. Hydrobiol. 156 3 361-383 Stuttgart, February 2003 Habitat and phenology of the endangered riffle beetle Heterelmis comalensis and a coexisting species, Microcylloepus pusillus, (Coleoptera: Elmidae) at Comal Springs, Texas, USA David E. Bowles1 *, Cheryl B. Barr2 and Ruth Stanford3 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, University of California, Berkeley, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service With 5 figures and 4 tables Ab tract: Habitat characteristics and seasonal distribution of the riffle beetles Herere/­ mis comalensis and Microcylloepu pusillus were studied at Comal Springs, Texas, during 1993-1994, to aid in developing sound reconunendations for sustaining their natural popu1atioas. Comal Springs consists of four major spring cutlers and spring­ runs. The four spring-runs are dissimilar in size, appearance, canopy and riparian cover, substrate composition, and aquatic macrophyte composition. Habitat conditions associated with the respective popuJatioos of riffle beetles, including physical-chemi­ cal measurements, water depth, and currenc velocity, were relatively unifom1 and var­ ied lHUe among sampling dates and spring-runs. However, the locations of the beetles in the respective spri ng-runs were not well correlated to current velocity, water depth, or distance from primary spring orifices. Factors such as substrate size and availability and competition are proposed as possibly influencing lheir respective distributions. Maintaining high-quality spring-flows and protection of Lhe physical habitat of Here· re/mis comalensis presently are the only means by which to ensure the survival of this endemic species. Key words: Conservation, habitat conditions, substrate availability, competition. 1 Authors' addresses: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental Impact Statement
    Draft Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental Impact Statement Prepared for: Comal County, Texas Comal County Commissioners Court Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants Smith, Robertson, Elliott, Glen, Klein & Bell, L.L.P. Prime Strategies, Inc. Texas Perspectives, Inc. Capital Market Research, Inc. April 2010 SWCA Project Number 12659-139-AUS DRAFT COMAL COUNTY REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT April 2010 Type of Action: Administrative Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Responsible Official: Adam Zerrenner Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas For Information: Bill Seawell Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas Tele: 512-490-0057 Abstract: Comal County, Texas, is applying for an incidental take permit (Permit) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. (ESA), to authorize the incidental take of two endangered species, the golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and the black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), referred to collectively as the “Covered Species.” In support of the Permit application, the County has prepared a regional habitat conservation plan (Proposed RHCP), covering a 30-year period from 2010 to 2040. The Permit Area for the Proposed RHCP and the area of potential effect for this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is Comal County in central Texas. The requested Permit would authorize the following incidental take and mitigation for the golden-cheeked warbler: Take: As conservation credits are created through habitat preservation, authorize up to 5,238 acres (2,120 hectares) of golden-cheeked warbler habitat to be impacted over the 30-year life of the Proposed RHCP.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan
    FINAL COMAL COUNTY REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Prepared for Comal County, Texas Comal County Commissioners Court Danny Scheel, County Judge Donna Eccleston, County Commissioner, Precinct 1 Jay Millikin, County Commissioner, Precinct 2 Gregory Parker, County Commissioner, Precinct 3 Jan Kennady, County Commissioner, Precinct 4 Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants 4407 Monterey Oaks Boulevard Building 1, Suite 110 Austin, Texas 78749 www.swca.com Smith, Robertson, Elliott, Glen, Klein & Bell, L.L.P. 221 West 6th Street, Suite 1100 Austin, Texas 78701 Prime Strategies, Inc. 1508 South Lamar Boulevard Austin, Texas 78704 Texas Perspectives, Inc. 1310 South 1st Street, Suite 105 Austin, Texas 78704 Capital Market Research, Inc. 605 Brazos Street #300 Austin, Texas 78701 SWCA Project Number 12659-139-AUS August 1, 2013 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ v CHAPTER 1 — BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND NEED .................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1.1 Species Included in the RHCP ......................................................................... 1-4 1.1.1.2 Other Listed and Rare Species That May Occur in Comal County
    [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]
  • Redescription of Marstonia Comalensis (Pilsbry & Ferriss, 1906), a Poorly Known and Possibly Threatened Freshwater Gastropod from the Edwards Plateau Region (Texas)
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys Redescription77: 1–16 (2011) of Marstonia comalensis (Pilsbry & Ferriss, 1906), a poorly known and... 1 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.77.935 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.zookeys.org Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Redescription of Marstonia comalensis (Pilsbry & Ferriss, 1906), a poorly known and possibly threatened freshwater gastropod from the Edwards Plateau region (Texas) Robert Hershler1, Hsiu-Ping Liu2 1 Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013- 7012, USA 2 Department of Biology, Metropolitan State College of Denver, Denver, CO 80217, USA Corresponding author : Robert Hershler ( [email protected] ) Academic editor: Anatoly Schileyko | Received 2 June 2010 | Accepted 13 January 2011 | Published 26 January 2011 Citation: Hershler R, Liu H-P (2011) Redescription of Marstonia comalensis (Pilsbry & Ferriss, 1906), a poorly known and possibly threatened freshwater gastropod from the Edwards Plateau region (Texas). ZooKeys 77 : 1 – 16 . doi: 10.3897/ zookeys.77.935 Abstract Marstonia comalensis, a poorly known nymphophiline gastropod (originally described from Comal Creek, Texas) that has often been confused with Cincinnatia integra, is re-described and the generic placement of this species, which was recently allocated to Marstonia based on unpublished evidence, is confi rmed by anatomical study. Marstonia comalensis is a large congener having an ovate-conic, openly umbilicate shell and penis having a short fi lament and oblique, squarish lobe bearing a narrow gland along its distal edge. It is well diff erentiated morphologically from congeners having similar shells and penes and is also geneti- cally divergent relative to those congeners that have been sequenced (mtCOI divergence 3.0–8.5%).
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 512 490-0057 FAX 490-0974 In Reply Refer to: Consultation 02ETAU00-2016-F-0216 AUG 15 2016 Stephen Brooks Chief, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 17300 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300 Dear Mr. Brooks: This transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) proposed authorization under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 U.S.C. 1251 – 1376) for activities that are part of the development of the New Braunfels Utilities (NBU) Comal Springs Conservation Center (CSCC) in New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas. The USACE is proposing authorization of partial removal of the concrete spring cap at the head of Comal Springs spring run 4 under a CWA Nationwide Permit. The spring cap modification is part of an 18-acre project to replace the NBU service yard with an educational facility focused on conservation. The NBU proposes to build the CSCC on its property near Landa Lake, Comal Springs spring run 4, and Blieders Creek. In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), the USACE has determined this project may affect four listed endangered species: Peck’s cave amphipod (Stygobromus comalensis), Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis), Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), and fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola). In addition, the USACE has determined the project may affect federally designated critical habitat of Peck’s cave amphipod, Comal Springs dryopid beetle, and Comal Springs riffle beetle.
    [Show full text]