DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Impact Statement DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AUTHORIZATION OF INCIDENTAL TAKE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BARTON SPRINGS/ EDWARDS AQUIFER CONSERVATION DISTRICT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Blind Salamander June 2017 Photo courtesy David M. Hillis. Barton Springs Salamander Photo courtesy Dee Ann Chamberlain. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AUTHORIZATION OF INCIDENTAL TAKE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BARTON SPRINGS/EDWARDS AQUIFER CONSERVATION DISTRICT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Prepared for: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Prepared by: Hicks & Company 1504 West Fifth Street Austin, Texas 78703 June 2017 Cover Sheet Cover Sheet Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS) for Authorization of Incidental Take and Implementation of the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District Habitat Conser- vation Plan (HCP) for the Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum) and the Austin blind salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis). Lead Agency:U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Type of Statement:Draft Environmental Impact Statement Responsible Official: Adam Zerrenner Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 Tel: 512.490.0057 For Information: Tanya Sommer Branch Chief U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 Tel: 512.490.0057 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) received an application from the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District (District) for a permit to take certain federally protected species incidental to otherwise lawful activities pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). This dEIS addresses the potential environ- mental consequences that may occur if the application is approved and the HCP is implemented. The Service is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Incidental Take Permit (ITP) would provide exceptions to the prohibitions of take for two Covered Species, the Barton Springs salamander and Austin blind salamander, arising from permitted pumping authorized by the District throughout the District’s jurisdictional area that in turn reduces springflow at the natural outlets of the Barton Springs system. CS-1 June 2017 Cover sheet As part of the ITP process, the District prepared an HCP that specifies what biological impacts are likely to result from the taking of the Covered Species and the measures that the District will undertake to avoid, minimize, and mitigate such impacts; how the HCP will be funded; and what alternatives to the taking were considered. The proposed term of the permit is 20 years. The dEIS examines the environmental effects of the Service’s approval of the proposed permit and implementation of the HCP (the Proposed Action) and the environmental effects of three other alternatives to the proposed action. The alternatives are: 1) No Action; 2) issuance of an ITP for permitted pumping under the District HCP (proposed action); 3) water demand reduc- tion; and 4) water supply augmentation and substitution. The Proposed Action (Alternative 2) would have the lowest economic impacts to the region, but would have potentially higher biological impacts to the Covered Species during Drought of Record (DOR) conditions than Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 3 (Water Demand Reduction), and Alternative 4 (Water Supply Augmentation and Substitution). Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would provide greater protection to the Covered Species, but would result in high impacts to the regional economy. The proposed action would provide mitigation measures for the Covered Species, afford coverage under an ITP, and is the most balanced alternative in consideration of biological benefits, economic costs, and the existing regulatory and political environment. Therefore, it was selected as the preferred alternative. CS-2 June 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Issuance of BSEACD Incidental Take Permit Executive Summary Executive Summary ES 1.0 Background This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS) describes the potential impacts of the issuance of a proposed Incidental Take Permit (Permit, ITP) to the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District (District). The District created a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that proposes actions to minimize and mitigate unavoidable incidental take of the endangered Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum) and Austin blind salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) (the “Covered Species”). The District submitted the HCP to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as part of an application for a Permit under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. (ESA). The requested Permit would provide exceptions to the prohibitions of take of the Covered Species that may result from specific otherwise lawful activities (the “Covered Activities”) for a period of 20 years. The Covered Activities include pumping withdrawals from the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer (Aquifer) implemented, authorized, or permitted by the District in portions of Travis and Hays Counties in central Texas. ES 2.0 Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of providing the requested Permit to the District is to authorize incidental take of the Barton Springs salamander and Austin blind salamander that may occur from District-permitted Aquifer pumping under implementation of the HCP. The need for this action is for the Service to provide a mechanism for the District to avoid violations of the ESA, to minimize and mitigate the effects of its actions to the maximum extent practicable, while providing adequate funding to protect the two covered salamander species. Approval of the HCP by the Service and the District’s assurance that the HCP will be implemented as written are among several requisites that must be met for issuance of the Permit. The purposes of the HCP are to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any incidental take that occurs from Aquifer pumping under Aquifer management strategies implemented by the District pursuant to its statutory mandate to provide for the conservation, preservation, and protection of groundwater resources of all aquifers in its jurisdictional area. ES 3.0 dEIS Alternatives Evaluated Four alternatives were selected for analysis in this dEIS. Each of the four alternatives are de- scribed below and summarized in Table ES-1. ES-1 June 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Issuance of BSEACD Incidental Take Permit Executive Summary ES 3.1 Alternative 1: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, the District would not implement its HCP and the Service would not issue an ITP. The District would pursue its legislatively mandated Aquifer management responsibilities, but the management and regulation of pumping would be limited to non-drought conditions. Maximum allowable pumping during non-drought desired future conditions (including water for aquifer storage and retrieval projects) would be limited to 16 cubic feet per second (cfs). The District would notify permittees of approaching drought and issue notices to stop pumping once drought is declared and “take” of the Barton Springs and Austin Blind salamanders is imminent. Protection of listed species would depend on expected compliance by the District’s permittees. Under the No Action Alternative, each permittee would be expected to comply with pumping cessation notices issued by the District, or would need to seek an individual ITP for the two species in order to continue pumping. Under Alternative 1, during DOR conditions, compliance by all permittees could reduce total Aquifer pumping to less than 1 cfs, (assumes nearly complete cessation of pumping), with resulting projected lowest average monthly springflow at Barton Springs of 11 cfs reached during the 1950’s DOR that the Covered Species are known to have survived. However, if Aquifer pumping reductions were not realized during any drought conditions that resulted in take of the two species, there would not be any protection provided to the District from violations under the ESA or to permitted pumpers that did not reduce pumping and were not covered by an individual ITP. Under Alternative 1, in the absence of a District ITP, pumpers could seek individual ITPs from the Service. Within the affected area many pumping entities could apply for separate ITPs, each with its own permit area. ES 3.2 Alternative 2: Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit for Permitted Pumping Under the District HCP (Preferred Action) Alternative 2 would involve approval of the District’s HCP addressing authorized pumping of the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer and the issuance of an ITP by the Service. Alternative 2 measures could meet state-mandated Desired Future Conditions (DFC). ES-2 June 2017 Table ES-1. Comparison of dEIS Alternatives Alternative 4 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 2 Water Supply Characteristics of Alternative 1 Issuance of ITP and Water Demand Reduction 1 Augmentation and Alternatives Implementation 3 No Action (Complete Curtailment of Substitution of HCP by BSEACD Pumping) Yes, until alternative water Not Required, provided Coverage Under an ITP for supplies completely regulated pumping of Aquifer Barton Springs and Austin No Yes substitute for groundwater completely ceases during Blind Salamanders pumping. drought as defined. None,
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]
  • American Eel (Anguilla Rostrata)
    Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Animal Information Series American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) Do they have any other names? The names “glass eel” or “elver” are used to describe young, developing eels. Why are they called American eels? The closest relatives to the American eel are other freshwater eels found in Europe and Asia; therefore they are called American eels because they are only in America. Anguilla is the Latin name for eel and rostrata is Latin for “beaked,” in reference to the snout. What do they look like? American eels are a brownish-colored fish with a slender, snake-like body and a small, pointed head. The body appears smooth and mucousy; however there are small scales present. They have a long dorsal fin that is more than half the length of the body and attached to the tail and anal fins. American eels do not have pelvic fins, but do have pectoral fins (on the sides near the head). The lower jaw projects farther than the upper jaw and they have many small teeth. Photo Credit: Duane Raver/USFWS 2012-MLC Page 1 Where do they live in Indiana? American eels are rare in Indiana and are found in large streams and rivers. They can sometimes be found in ponds or lakes that are not connected to a river, although this seldom happens. What kind of habitat do they need? American eels are found in large streams or rivers with continuous flow and clear water. During the day eels like to stay near logs, boulders, or other cover.
    [Show full text]
  • American Eel Anguilla Rostrata Contributor: John W
    American Eel Anguilla rostrata Contributor: John W. McCord DESCRIPTION: Taxonomy and Basic Description The American eel, Anguilla rostrata (Lesueur 1817), belongs to the freshwater eel family, Anguillidae. Related species occur throughout the world, but the American eel is the only North American anguillid eel. Eels are snake-shaped and covered with a mucous layer that renders them slimy to the touch despite the presence of minute scales. A continuous, low fin runs from the middle of the back, around the tail, and ends behind the vent. Relatively small pectoral fins originate near the animals midline and immediately posterior to the head and gill-covers. Coloration varies with stage of maturity and habitat, but eels are generally dark olive, yellowish or slate-gray above and light below. Eels from dark, tannic acid streams are darker while those from clear streams and estuaries are lighter (pers. obs.). The American eel is catadromous; it spawns in oceanic waters but uses freshwater, brackish and estuarine systems for most of its developmental life. Sexually mature adults, called silver eels, migrate from freshwater to the sea in fall. Their destination for spawning is the Sargasso Sea, an expansive portion of the central North Atlantic Ocean, east of the Bahamas and south of Bermuda. Adults are thought to die after spawning. The largest females produce nearly 20 million eggs (Barbin and McCleave 1997). Mature females in the southern portion of the eel’s range are generally smaller and carry as few as 400,000 eggs (Wenner and Musick 1974). Eggs hatch into a brief pre-larval stage before transformation into the active leptocephalus stage.
    [Show full text]
  • American Eel Julia Beaty University of Maine
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Maine Sea Grant Publications Maine Sea Grant 2014 Fisheries Now: American Eel Julia Beaty University of Maine Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/seagrant_pub Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons Repository Citation Beaty, Julia, "Fisheries Now: American Eel" (2014). Maine Sea Grant Publications. 74. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/seagrant_pub/74 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Sea Grant Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. (http://www.downeastfisheriestrail.org) American eel Fisheries Now: American eel By Julia Beaty Reviewed by Dan Kircheis, Fred Kircheis, James McCleave Watch “Harvester perspectives on alewives, blueback herring, and American eels in Downeast Maine (http://www.seagrant.umaine.edu/oral­histories­alewife­eel)” oral history video series. A complex life cycle The American eel is the only species in the Gulf of Maine that spends most of its life in fresh water but spawns at sea (a life cycle known as catadromy). American eels are born in the Sargasso Sea, a large area of the Atlantic Ocean south of Bermuda and east of the Bahamas. American eel larvae (known as leptocephali) are transported by ocean currents for nearly a year until they reach the east coast of North America. As they near the coast, leptocephali metamorphose into an early juvenile stage known as a glass eel. The timing of the arrival (http://www.downeastfisheriestrail.org/wp­ of glass eels along the coast of Downeast Maine is content/uploads/2014/11/eels_now_01.png) driven by water temperature and usually takes Elvers caught in the Union River in Ellsworth, Maine in 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • American Eel Anguilla Rostrata
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the American Eel Anguilla rostrata in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2006 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION ENDANGERED WILDLIFE DES ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL IN CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the American eel Anguilla rostrata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 71 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge V. Tremblay, D.K. Cairns, F. Caron, J.M. Casselman, and N.E. Mandrak for writing the status report on the American eel Anguilla rostrata in Canada, overseen and edited by Robert Campbell, Co-chair (Freshwater Fishes) COSEWIC Freshwater Fishes Species Specialist Subcommittee. Funding for this report was provided by Environment Canada. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur l’anguille d'Amérique (Anguilla rostrata) au Canada. Cover illustration: American eel — (Lesueur 1817). From Scott and Crossman (1973) by permission. ©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2004 Catalogue No. CW69-14/458-2006E-PDF ISBN 0-662-43225-8 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – April 2006 Common name American eel Scientific name Anguilla rostrata Status Special Concern Reason for designation Indicators of the status of the total Canadian component of this species are not available.
    [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]
  • Revision of Karst Species Zones for the Austin, Texas, Area
    FINAL REPORT As Required by THE ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM TEXAS Grant No. E - 52 Endangered and Threatened Species Conservation REVISION OF KARST SPECIES ZONES FOR THE AUSTIN, TEXAS, AREA Prepared by: George Veni Robert Cook Executive Director Matt Wagner Mike Berger Program Director, Wildlife Diversity Division Director, Wildlife 3 October 2006 FINAL REPORT STATE: ____Texas_______________ GRANT NUMBER: ___E - 52____________ GRANT TITLE: Revision of Karst Species Zones for the Austin, Texas Area REPORTING PERIOD: ____1 September 2004 to 31 August 2006 OBJECTIVE: To re-evaluate and redraw, as necessary and in a GIS, all four karst zones within the twenty-two 7.5’ topographic quadrangle area as defined by Veni and Associates (1992). SEGMENT OBJECTIVE: 1. Re-evaluate and re-draw, as necessary and into a Geographic Information System (GIS), all four karzt zones within the twenty-two 7.5’ topographic quadrangle area as defined by Veni and Associates (1992) within six (6) months of contract award date. SIGNIFICANT DEVIATION: None. SUMMARY OF PROGRESS: Please see Attachment A. LOCATION: Austin Area, Texas. PREPARED BY: ___Craig Farquhar______ DATE: October 3, 2006 APPROVED BY: _____________________ DATE: October 10, 2006 Neil (Nick) E. Carter Federal Aid Coordinator 2 George Veni & Associates Hydrogeologists and Biologists Environmental Management Consulting Cave and Karst Specialists REVISION OF KARST SPECIES ZONES FOR THE AUSTIN, TEXAS, AREA by George Veni, Ph.D., and Cecilio Martinez prepared for: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT 8/8/2013 Updates at Chapter 40 -- Karstology
    Chapter 40 -- Karstology Characterizing the mechanism of cavern accretion as "force" tends to suggest catastrophic attack, not a process of subtle persistence. Publicity for Ohio's Olentangy Indian Caverns illustrates the misconception. Formed millions of years ago by the tremendous force of an underground river cutting through solid limestone rock, the Olentangy Indian Caverns. There was no tremendous event millions of years ago; it's been dissolution at a rate barely discernable, century to century. Another rendition of karst stages, this time in elevation, as opposed to cross-section. Juvenile Youthful Mature Complex Extreme 594 DRAFT 8/8/2013 Updates at http://www.unm.edu/~rheggen/UndergroundRivers.html Chapter 40 -- Karstology It may not be the water, per se, but its withdrawal that initiates catastrophic change in conduit cross-section. The figure illustrates stress lines around natural cavities in limestone. Left: Distribution around water-filled void below water table Right: Distribution around air-filled void after lowering water table. Natural Bridges and Tunnels Natural bridges begin as subterranean conduits, but subsequent collapse has left only a remnant of the original roof. "Men have risked their lives trying to locate the meanderings of this stream, but have been unsuccessful." Virginia's Natural Bridge, 65 meters above today's creek bed. George Washington is said to have surveyed Natural Bridge, though he made no mention it in his journals. More certain is that Thomas Jefferson purchased "the most sublime of nature's works," in his words, from King George III. Herman Melville alluded to the formation in describing Moby Dick, But soon the fore part of him slowly rose from the water; for an instant his whole marbleized body formed a high arch, like Virginia's Natural Bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • AN ENUMERATION of the CRUSTACEA DECAPODA NATANTIA INHABITING SUBTERRANEAN WATERS L.-B Holthuis
    AN ENUMERATION OF THE CRUSTACEA DECAPODA NATANTIA INHABITING SUBTERRANEAN WATERS L.-B Holthuis To cite this version: L.-B Holthuis. AN ENUMERATION OF THE CRUSTACEA DECAPODA NATANTIA INHABIT- ING SUBTERRANEAN WATERS. Vie et Milieu , Observatoire Océanologique - Laboratoire Arago, 1956, 7 (1), pp.43-76. hal-02748877 HAL Id: hal-02748877 https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-02748877 Submitted on 3 Jun 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. AN ENUMERATION OF THE CRUSTACEA DECAPODA NATANTIA INHABITING SUBTERRANEAN WATERS par L.-B. HOLTHUIS Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historié, Leiden, Holland The présent paper provides a list of the macrurous Decapod Crustacea, belonging to the supersection Natantia, that have been found in subterranean waters. The number of such species is quite small, being somewhat more than 40 in ail. Of thèse only part are actual troglobic forms, i.e. animais that are only known from caves and have not, or only incidentally, been found in waters that are exposed to daylight. A second group is formed by species that normally live in surface waters and only occasionally are met with in subterranean habitats. No sharp line can be drawn between thèse two catégories, the more so as at présent still extremely little is known of the biology and of the ecology of most of the species.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to Delist the Bone Cave Harvestman (Texella Reyesi) in Accordance with Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
    Petition to delist the Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) in accordance with Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 PETITION TO DELIST THE BONE CAVE HARVESTMAN (TEXELLA REYESI) IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4 OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 Petitioned By: John F. Yearwood Kathryn Heidemann Charles & Cheryl Shell Walter Sidney Shell Management Trust American Stewards of Liberty Steven W. Carothers June 02, 2014 This page intentionally left blank. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The federally endangered Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) is a terrestrial karst invertebrate that occurs in caves and voids north of the Colorado River in Travis and Williamson counties, Texas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed T. reyesi as endangered in 1988 on the basis of only five to six known localities that occurred in a rapidly developing area. Little was known about the species at the time, but the USFWS deemed listing was warranted to respond to immediate development threats. The current body of information on T. reyesi documents a much broader range of known localities than known at the time of listing and resilience to the human activities that USFWS deemed to be threats to the species. Status of the Species • An increase in known localities from five or six at the time of listing to 172 today. • Significant conservation is in place with at least 94 known localities (55 percent of the total known localities) currently protected in preserves, parks, or other open spaces. • Regulatory protections are afforded to most caves in Travis and Williamson counties via state laws and regulations and local ordinances.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    DES #12-29 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Habitat Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service June 2012 DES #12-29 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Habitat Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service June 2012 DES #12-29 Cover Sheet COVER SHEET Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Authorization of Incidental Take and Implementation of the Habitat Conservation Plan Developed by the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Type of Statement: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Responsible Official: Adam Zerrenner Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas Tel: 512-490-0057 For Information: Tanya Sommer Branch Chief U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas Tel: 512-490-0057 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received an application from the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA), San Antonio Water System, City of New Braunfels, City of San Marcos, and Texas State University for a permit to take certain federally protected species incidental to otherwise lawful activities pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addresses the potential environmental consequences that may occur if the application is approved and the HCP is implemented. The Service is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    [Show full text]
  • Karst Invertebrates Taxonomy
    Endangered Karst Invertebrate Taxonomy of Central Texas U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Rd. Suite #200 Austin, TX 78758 Original date: July 28, 2011 Revised on: April 4, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 ENDANGERED KARST INVERTEBRATE TAXONOMY ................................................. 1 2.1 Batrisodes texanus (Coffin Cave mold beetle) ......................................................................... 2 2.2 Batrisodes venyivi (Helotes mold beetle) .................................................................................. 3 2.3 Cicurina baronia (Robber Baron Cave meshweaver) ............................................................... 4 2.4 Cicurina madla (Madla Cave meshweaver) .............................................................................. 5 2.5 Cicurina venii (Braken Bat Cave meshweaver) ........................................................................ 6 2.6 Cicurina vespera (Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver) ............................................. 7 2.7 Neoleptoneta microps (Government Canyon Bat Cave spider) ................................................ 8 2.8 Neoleptoneta myopica (Tooth Cave spider) .............................................................................. 9 2.9 Rhadine exilis (no common name) .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]