Salvage Stock Collection Methods Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan Refugia Program
Texas Blind Salamander (Eurycea rathbuni) Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis) Our Goals
Determine the most effective methods to capture the Comal Springs dryopid beetle and Texas blind salamander if Salvage Operations were invoked. Determine which collection locations produce the greatest numbers of specimens per unit time. Refugia Program EAHCP requires the establishment of off-site refugia to maintain captive populations of the Covered Species. Salvage Stock Recommend 500 individuals of both Comal Springs dryopid beetle and Texas blind salamander. Comal Springs dryopid beetle: Salvage collection is triggered when Comal Springs falls below 30 cfs and when any standard or conventional water quality parameter within one of three Edwards Aquifer wells exceeds the historical range of water quality parameters by 10 percent or more. Texas blind salamander: Salvage collection is triggered when San Marcos Springs falls below 50 cfs and when any standard or conventional water quality parameter within one of three Edwards Aquifer wells exceeds the historical range of water quality parameters by 10 percent or more. Trapping for the Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle
Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis) Known from Comal Springs, Comal Co. and Fern Bank Springs, Hays Co. Stygobiont (lives somewhere in the aquifer) Vestigial eyes Does not swim Larvae are presumed to require air-filled void spaces Previous Collecting Methods Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle
Kick nets – Potentially detrimental to habitat and specimens Hess samplers – Potentially detrimental to habitat and specimens Hand sampling – labor intensive, potentially detrimental to habitat Bottle traps – successful but not consistent Drift nets – successful at capturing living specimens Cloth lures – successful at capturing living specimens Previous Capture Success
DRIFT NETTING CLOTH LURES ~ 0.3-0.6 Dryopids/24 hours ~ 3-4 Dryopids/100 lures Mostly larvae Mostly adults 2015 WEST 2015 WEST - WEST BIO - WEST BIO QUESTION: If salvage were invoked, what collection method produces the most Comal Springs dryopid beetles? We propose to evaluate and modify the existing lure method to potentially increase the capture success of Comal Springs dryopid beetles during Salvage Operations. Cloth Lures
Have occasionally attracted Comal Springs dryopid beetles during riffle beetle monitoring and other invertebrate studies. (BIO-WEST, Gibson et al. 2008) Comal Springs dryopid beetles likely feed on biofilms growing on lures
Pros: Cons: Easy to make Do not last long (Cage-after Zara Environmental Easy to see specimens in field Hester-Dendy Sampler Multiplate invertebrate sampler Comal Springs dryopid beetles have also been found on wood debris lying on upwellings. (Gibson et al. 2008) Test 3 types of materials, for example: Masonite Live Oak Bald Cypress May develop biofilms similar to cloth lures Pros: Cons: Relatively easy to make Can be difficult to Easy to take apart see specimens Fair amount of surface area May last longer than cloth lures Simulates Potential “Bell Trap” CSDB habitat Provides a dark void space under water over upwelling/ small orifice Air/water interface around lure
Container will be black or opaque in the field. Gas Released in Upwellings
Gas bubbles in Comal Springs/Landa Lake Gas is largely atmospheric (LBG-Guyton Associates 2004) Gas trapped in gravel and cobbles may be potential habitat for Comal Springs
LBG-Guyton Associates. 2004. Evaluation of augmentation dryopid beetle methodologies in support of in-situ refugia at Comal and San Marcos Springs, Texas. Prepared for the Edwards Aquifer Authority.
Bell Trap Larvae are thought to utilize void spaces in the aquifer. Adults? Larvae and adults likely feed on biofilms Adults and larvae are troglobitic, they live in dark spaces The bell trap design provides all of these potential requirements A black or opaque container will be used in the field to simulate underground void space.
Sample Site Selection: Comal Springs
Upwellings in and around Spring Island or Pecan Island Spring Runs 1, 2, or 3 Sampling Protocol and Analysis
Four sites will be selected – 2 upwellings in Landa Lake and 2 spring runs Each site will have 8 lures (8 treatments) – 4 uncovered lures and 4 “bell trapped” lures (4 sites X 8 lures = 32 experimental units) Eight boils/small orifices will be selected in each site Lures will be randomly placed in the 8 selected boils/small orifices Lures will be checked weekly Sampling conducted for at least 12 weeks between April and August Half of the captured individuals will be transported to salvage facilities ANOVA will be used to compare Dryopid #’s between treatments and sites Trapping for the Texas Blind Salamander Traditional Collection Methods
Outside of caves, two basic access points to groundwater communities in Texas
Well Pipes Springs/Spring Diversions Springs/ Spring Diversions- Drift Nets Well Pipe-Bottle Traps
QUESTION: If salvage were invoked, what collection method produces the most salamanders and what is the most productive site? Targeted Sample Sites….
Primer’s Well Sessom’s Spring Johnson’s Well Springs/Spring Diversion Spring Well Pipes/ Rattlesnake Cave Diversions and TSU Artesian Well Caves Artesian Wells Trapping Methods
Primer’s Well Well Pipes Johnson’s Well WEST 2015 WEST - Rattlesnake Cave BIO
Springs/Spring Diversions Artesian Flowing Wells Sampling Protocol and Analysis Seasons defined: (Jan/Feb/Mar=Winter; Apr/May/June=Spring; July/Aug/Sep=Summer; October/Nov/Dec=Fall) Each bottle trap type (1 vs. 2 openings) deployed for 6 weeks in the same season, per site Drift nets will be deployed on springs/spring diversions at the same time as bottle traps (when possible) Bottle traps and drift nets will be checked in accordance with USFWS Permit Captured individuals will be weighed, measured, swabbed for disease, and transported to salvage facilities ANOVA will be used to compare Salamander #’s between treatments, sites, and seasons T-test to compare capture rates between well sites and springs/spring diversions Lit Review
Arsuffi, T.L. 1993. Status of the Comal Springs Riffle Beetle (Heterelmis BIO-WEST, Inc. 2006. Comprehensive and critical period monitoring comalensis Bosse, Tuff and Brown), Peck's Cave Amphipod (Stygobromus pecki program to evaluate the effects of variable flow on biological resources in Holsinger), and the Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis the Comal Springs/River aquatic ecosystem, final 2005 annual report. Barr and Spangler) from central Texas. Southwest Texas State University. Prepared for the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas. 42 pp. Prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas. 36 pp. BIO-WEST, Inc. 2007. Comprehensive and critical period monitoring Barr, C.B. and P.J. Spangler. 1992. A new genus and species of stygobiontic program to evaluate the effects of variable flow on biological resources in dryopid beetle, Stygoparnus comalensis (Coleoptera: Dryopidae), from Comal the Comal Springs/River aquatic ecosystem, final 2006 annual report. Springs, Texas. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 105:40-54. Prepared for the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas. 42 pp. Barr, C.B. 1993. Survey for two Edwards Aquifer invertebrates: Comal Springs BIO-WEST, Inc. 2008. Comprehensive and critical period monitoring Dryopid beetle Stygoparnus comalensis Barr and Spangler (Coleoptera: program to evaluate the effects of variable flow on biological resources in Dryopidae) and Peck's Cave Amphipod Stygobromus pecki Holsinger the Comal Springs/River aquatic ecosystem, final 2007 annual report. (Amphipoda: Crangonyctidae). Final report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Prepared for the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas. 41 pp. Service Ecological Services, Austin, Texas. 71 pp. BIO-WEST, Inc. 2014. Habitat conservation plan biological monitoring BIO-WEST, Inc. 2004. Comprehensive and critical period monitoring program program Comal Springs/River aquatic ecosystem, annual report 2013. to evaluate the effects of variable flow on biological resources in the Comal Prepared for the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas. 94 pp. Springs/River aquatic ecosystem, final 2003 annual report. Prepared for the BIO-WEST, Inc. 2015. Habitat conservation plan biological monitoring Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas. 40 pp. program Comal Springs/River aquatic ecosystem, annual report 2014. BIO-WEST, Inc. 2005. Comprehensive and critical period monitoring program Prepared for the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas. 98 pp. to evaluate the effects of variable flow on biological resources in the Comal Brown, H.P. 1987. Biology of riffle beetles. Annual Review of Entomology Springs/River aquatic ecosystem, final 2004 annual report. Prepared for the 32: 253-273. Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas. 70 pp. Lit Review - continued
Gibson, J.R., S.J. Harden, and J.N. Fries. 2008. Survey and distribution of Malard, F., M. Dole-Oliver, J. Mathieu, and F. Stoch (eds.). 2002. Sampling invertebrates from selected springs of the Edwards Aquifer in Comal and Hays manual for the assessment of regional groundwater biodiversity. PASCALIS: Counties, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist 53 (1):74-84. 1–111. HDR, Inc. 2015. Final Refugia Review: Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Mitchell, R. W, and J. R. Reddell. 1965. Eurycea tridentifera, a new species Program. Prepared for the Edwards Aquifer Authority. 92 pp. of troglobitic salamander from Texas and a reclassification of Typhlomolge Hester, F.E., and J.S. Dendy. 1962. A multiple-plate sampler for aquatic rathbuni. Texas Journal of Science 23: 343-362. macroinvertebrates. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 91:420– Purvisa, K.M. and S.P. Opsahl. 2005. A novel technique for invertebrate 421. trapping in groundwater wells identifies new populations of the troglobitic Hutchins, B., D.W. Fong and D.B. Carlini. 2010. Genetic population structure of crayfish, Cambarus cryptodytes, in southwest Georgia, USA. Journal of the Madison cave isopod, Antrolanalira (Cymothoida: Cirolanidae) in the Freshwater Ecology 20(2): 361–365. Shenandoah Valley of the eastern United States. Journal of Crustacean Biology Recon Environmental, Hicks & Company, Zara Environmental LLC, and BIO- 30(2): 312–322. WEST. 2012. Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Habitat Hutchins, B. and W. Orndorff. 2009. Effectiveness and adequacy of well Conservation Plan. November 2012. 414 pp. sampling using baited traps for monitoring the distribution and abundance of Uhlenhuth, E. 1921. Observations on the distribution and habits of the an aquatic subterranean isopod. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 71(3): 193– blind Texan cave salamander, Typhlomolge rathbuni. Biological Bulletin, 203. Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 73-104. Krejca, J. 2007. Mark-recapture study of Eurycea rathbuni at three sites in San U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Endangered and threatened Marcos, Texas. Final report as required by The Endangered Species Program, wildlife and plants; final rule to list three aquatic invertebrates in Comal Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Grant No. E-68-R. and Hays counties, TX, as endangered. Federal Register 62:66295-66304. LBG-Guyton Associates. 2004. Evaluation of augmentation methodologies in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. United States Fish and support of in-situ refugia at Comal and San Marcos Springs, Texas. Prepared Wildlife Service Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific permit requirements for for the Edwards Aquifer Authority. 192 pp. conducting Georgetown, Jollyville Plateau, and Salado Salamander. U.S. Longley, G. 1978. Status of Typhlomulge (= Eurycea) rathbuni, the Texas blind Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office (ESFO) salamander. Submitted to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service under Surveys. contract 14-16-0002-3727: 1 ─ 45. Suggestions? Comments? Questions?