San Marcos & Comal Spring & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems

Home , Comal River, Comal Springs (Texas), Gambusia, Haideoporus, Mosquitofish, Palaemonetes antrorum

SAN MARCOS & COMAL SPRING & ASSOCIATED AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS (REVISED) RECOVERY PLAN

Us. San Marcos and Comal Springs and Associated Aquatic Ecosystems (Revised) Recovery Plan

(Short tide: San Marcos/Comal (Revised) Recovery Plan) for

San Marcos Gaxnbusia (Gambusia georgei) Fountain Darter (Etheostomafonticola) San Marcos Salamander (Eu~ycea nana) Texas Wild-rice (Zizania texana) Texas Blind Salamander (Typhiomolge rathbuni)

(Original approved: April 8, 1985)

Prepared by The San Marcos/Comal Recovery Team and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758-4455

for

Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico

Approved:

Date: February 14, 1996 United States Department of the Interior FiSH AND WThDLIFESERVICE Eco1o~izai Serucd Field Q~ic 1071’. ~uxnerRe~ad. S.~ire 200 ~pJ~ Bank Bide. A.Lstin, Texas T8753

March 22, 1996

CORRECTION SHEET FOR SAN HARCOS/COI4A.L (REVISED) RECOVERY PLAN The following corrections should be noted to the San MarcoS & Comal Springs and Associated Aquatic Ecosystems (Revised) Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996): P.iv, the literature citation should read “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. . . . ‘, not 1995. P.7, column 2, second paragraph, line 13: “atchment” should be “catchment” P. 33, column 1, under “Habitat”, first paragraph: the list given there should be numbered 1-6.

P. 34, column 1, lines 4—5: For clarification, the “—“ on the end of line 4 is a negative number sign. P. 59, task 2.~: for clarification, the reference to task 2.11, actually refers to subtask 2.11 listed above task 2.3. P. 64, column 2, line 7: the sentence beginning “Some mechanism “ should read “Some mechanism for assuring adequate aquifer levels and springf lows is essential to assure success of this plan, otherwise all the efforts of the involved parties could be offset by parties who choose not to participate in the implementation of the Aquifer Management Plan.”

P. 114, column 2, line 14: replace “without” with “which does not impose” p. 116, column 1, 7 lines from the bottom: “task 2.11” should read “subtask 2.12”. San Marcus & Comal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers’ Plan SAN MARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY TEAM

Dr. Robert J. Edwards, Leader Ms. Jackie Poole Department of Biology Texas Parks and Wildlife Department University ofTexas-Pan American Endangered Resources Branch Edinburg,TX 78539 3000 So. IH-35 Suite 100 Austin, TX 78704 Dr. Gary P. Garrett Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Dr. Dianna D. Tupa Heart of the Hills Research Station 11102 D-K Ranch Rd. Junction Star Route Box 62 Austin, TX 78759 Ingram, TX 78025 Dr. Bobby G. Whiteside Dr. Glenn Longley Department of Biology Department of Biology Southwest Texas State University Southwest Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666 San Marcos, TX 78666

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Liaison Ms. Alisa M. Shull USFWS, Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78758

Recovery Team H San Marcos &Comal Springs &Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers Plan DISCLAIMER

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Because of furloughs of Federal employees and ongoing litigation regarding the Edwards Aquifer and species covered by this plan, there was considerable urgency to finalize this plan. Therefore, the normal critique and input to the final version of the plan was minimal. The Service does, however, appreciate the Recovery Team s substantial efforts in completing the earlier drafts of this plan. As is customary, objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks.

Disclaimer 111 San Marcos & Cornal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers’ Plan LITERATURE CITATIONS

Literature citations should read as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. San Marcos/Comal (Revised) Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. pp. x + 93 with 28 pages of appendices.

Additional copies of this plan, when finalized, may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service: 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (800) 582-3421 or (301) 492-6403

The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.

Literature Citations iv San Marcos& Carnal Springs &AssociatedAquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Service would like to express its appreciation for the many individuals, groups and agencies who have been actively working to resolve problems and gather information needed to achieve the goals of stabilizing the habitats and populations of these species, and making progress toward recovery. The Service looks forward to continued collaboration to achieve the conservation of these unique resources. Many individuals and groups have conducted or assisted in field research on the Comal and San Marcos rivers, including people from city departments, universities, state and Federal agencies, non- profit groups, local businesses, landowners, and interested individuals. Thanks to one and all. The Service gratefully acknowledges the Alabama Museum of Natural History and the Illinois Natural History Survey for use of the line drawing of the fountain darter found in Figure 4. In addition, thanks is due the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for permission to use the illustration of Texas wild-rice used in Figure 6.

Adax,wkdgement3 v San Marcos & Comal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery lw EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RECOVERY CRITERIA CURRENT SPECIES’ STATUS Delisting is considered unattainable in the near future for all five species due to the The fountain darter, San Marcos gambusia, Texas blind salamander, andTexas wild-rice are potential for extinction from catastrophic events. endangered. The San Marcos salamander is Consequently, this plan calls for the establishment and continued maintenance of refugia threatened. Critical habitat is designated for all except the Texas blind salamander. The fountain capability for all five species in case of a cata- darter occurs in the San Marcos and Comal strophic event. Downlisting is considered fea- systems in centralTexas. The Texas blind sala- sible for the fountain darter, Texas wild-rice, and mander is restricted to the Edwards Aquifer. The Texas blind salamander and detailed criteria are other three species occur in the San Marcos given in the plan. The potential for downlisting system. Other species of concern also occur in the San Marcos gambusia is problematic. In- these ecosystems including three that have been terim objectives are given for that species to proposed for listing: Peck’s Cave amphipod, measure progress toward preventing extinction. Comal Springs riffle beetle, and the Comal ACTIONS NEEDED Springs dryopid beetle. 1. Assure sufficient water levels in the HABITAT REQUIREMENTS Edwards aquifer and flows in Comal and AND LIMITING FACTORS San Marcos Springs to maintain habitat for all life stages of the five listed All species are aquatic and inhabit ecosys- species and integrity of the ecosystem tems dependent on the Edwards Aquifer. All but upon which they depend. the subterranean Texas blind salamander occur in spring-fed systems. Loss of springflows due to 2. Protect water quality. drawdown of the aquifer is one of the primary 3. Establish and maintain populations for all threats. Other threats include nonnative species, five listed species in their historic habitats. recreational activities, predation, and direct or indirect habitat destruction or modification by 4. Conduct biological studies necessary for humans (e.g., dam building, bank stabilization, successful monitoring, management, and and control of aquatic vegetation) and factors restoration. that decrease water quality. 5. Encourage partnerships with landowners RECOVERY GOALS and agencies to develop and implement conservation strategies. The goals of recovery are: 1) to secure the 6. Develop and implement a regional survival of these species in their native ecosys- Aquifer Management Plan. tems; 2) to develop an ecosystem approach using strategies to address both local, site-specific, and 7. Develop and implement local broad regional issues related to recovery; and 3) management and restoration plans to to conserve the integrity and function of the address multiple threats. aquifer and spring-fed ecosystems that these species inhabit. 8. Promote public information and education.

Executive Summary vi San Marcos & Comal Springs &Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plan

Costs (Dollars x 1000): Priority 1 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3

Year Tasks Tasks Tasks Tasks Total

1996 256.0 506.5 234.5 5.0 1,002.0

1997 238.0 530.5 233.5 5.0 1,007.0

1998 205.0 439.5 182.0 5.0 831.5 1999-

2025 1,140.0 1,329.5 592.0 — 3,061.5

Total 1,839.0 2,806.0 1,242.0 15.0 5,902.0 Date ofRecovery: If continuous progress is made, downlisting the fountain darter and Texas wild-rice should be possible by 2025.

Executive Summary vii San Marcus & Comal springs & ssoccsted Aquatic Bcosvsrersss Recovers Piais TABLE OF CONTENTS

DisclailIIer iii

Literature Citations IV

~~~flOwledgements

Executive Summary vi

Table of Contents viii

List of Figures and Tables

Overview of the Recovery Plan

PART I - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. THE ECOSYSTEMS 6 Physiography and Hydrology 7 B. THREATS TO THE SPECIES AND THEIR ECOSYSTEMS 16 Water Quantity 16 Water Quality 18 Habitat Modification 19 Nonnative Species 20 Recreational Activities 21 Other Impacts C. GENERAL CONSERVATION MEASURES 24 Water Quantity 24 Water Quality 25 Nonnative Species 25 Recreation 26 Habitat Maintenance, Restoration, and Enhancement 26 Captive Propagation and Contingency Plans 26 Education and Outreach 26 D. SPECIES ACCOUNTS 27 San Marcos Gambusia (Gambusia georgei) 27 Description 27 Historic and Present Distribution 27 Habitat 29 Life History/Ecology 29 Conservation Measures 30 Fountain Darter (Etheostomafonticola) 30 Description 30 Historical Distribution 32 Present Distribution 33 Habitat 33 Life History/Ecology 33

Table of Contents viii San Marcos & Cornal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystenss Recovers’ PI.sn Conservation Measures 35 San Marcos Salamander (Eurycea nana) Description 36 Historical and Present Distribution Habitat 38 Life History/Ecology 39 Conservation Measures 41 Texas Wild-rice (Zizania texana) 41 Description 41 Past and Present Distribution 42 Habitat 44 Life History/Ecology cf/4 Conservation and Research Efforts 45 Texas Blind Salamander (7jiphlomolge rathbunz) 46 Description 46 Historical and Present Distribution 48 Habitat 48 Life History/Ecology 48 Conservation Measures 50 E. RECOVERY STRATEGY 51

PART II- RECOVERY

A. OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA 53 B. STEP-DOWN OUTLINE OF RECOVERY ACTIONS 58 C. NARRATIVE OUTLINE FOR RECOVERY ACTIONS 60 D. REFERENCES CITED 74

PART III - RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 81

APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED 94 Technical Issues 95 Background Geography, Geology, and Hydrology 95 Water Quality 97 Fish 98 Salamanders 101 Texas Wild-rice 102 Recovery Criteria 103 Contingency Plan and Captive Populations 104 Habitat Protection and Management 106 Nonnative Species 106 Water Quantity 107 Artificial Augmentation 111 Miscellaneous Technical Comments 112 Information and Public Education 112 Policy and Implementation Issues 113 Compliance with Judge Bunton’s Order 115 Federal Agency Obligations 116 Implementation Schedule, Priorities, and Cost Estimates 119

Table of Contents ix San Marcos & consal Spnngs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers~ Plan

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

List of Figures

~. Edwards Aquifer Region 10 2. Comal Aquatic Ecosystem 12 3. San Marcos Aquatic Ecosystem 14 4. Male and female fountain darter 31 5. Drawing of Eurycea nana 37 6. Inflorescence and male and female florers of Texas wild-rice 43 7. Collection and sighting locations of the Texas blind salamander 49

List of Tables

1. Summary of features of the Comal and Upper San Marcos ecosystem 8-9 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determination of minimum springflows needed to prevent take, jeopardy, or adverse modification of critical habitat 17 3. Historical data for known Gambusiageorgei collections 28 4. Areal coverage ofTexas wild-rice from 1976 to 1994 47

List of Figures and Tables x San Marcos & Cornal Springs & Asso.isted .A~uatic Ecoss~steirxs Re.~verv PI.c. OVERVIEW OF THE RECOVERY PLAN

levels that compromise the integrity of the This plan addresses recovery actions for systems and the survival and recovery of the the fountain darter, San Marcos salamander, species. San Marcos gambusia~ Texas blind salamander, Decreased aquifer levels and loss of adequate and Texas wild-rice. The recovery goal is to springflows are imminent. The recovery plan secure the survival of all five species and the identifies the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s ecosystem upon which they depend. This plan provides criteria for downlisting the fountain preliminary evaluation of the springflow levels needed at Comal and San Marcos Springs to darter, Texas wild-rice, and Texas blind salamander from endangered to threatened. This prevent “take” of the listed species. The Service overview summarizes 1) the water resource continues to conduct and fund studies to refine issues associated with the recovery of these understanding of what springflow levels are species and the Edwards aquifer and spring needed, under varying conditions, to maintain ecosystems; 2) efforts by individuals, state and the species and their habitat. Such studies, local governrnents~ and private organizations to evaluations, and monitoring will be an ongoing resolve these issues; 3) tasks and recommended need to evaluate management efforts (see tasks actions to achieve recovery; 4) technical evalua- 1.22, 1.23, 1.3, 2.12 and 3.2). tion and technical assistance needed for plan- To assure adequate springflows for the long- ning; and 5) the process for developing a term, a mechanism to provide and maintain regional Habitat Conservation Plan or one or aquatic habitat must be in place; e.g., conserva- more smaller regional or local HCPs that could tion measures and management of groundwater contribute to overall aquifer management. withdrawal. Efforts have been made to achieve To conserve these species and meet the this goal. In 1993, the Texas legislature passed objectives of this recovery plan, the ecosystems S.B. 1477 creating an Edwards Aquifer Author- upon which these species depend must be ity to regulate groundwater withdrawal. The conserved. These ecosystems include the legislation was challenged over Voting Rights Act Edwards aquifer and the systems associated concerns, which were resolved by the legislature with Comal and San Marcos Springs (including in 1995 with amendments (H.B. 3189). The spring runs, lakes, rivers, and caves). legislation was again challenged by the Medina The recovery ofthese species depends on and Uvalde County Underground Water Dis- actions taken at three levels: broad regional issues tricts and the court ruled that the legislation was of water use and landscape level management that unconstitutional. The Authority’s ability to influence these systems; localized actions taken by regulate water withdrawal from the aquifer municipalities and landowners that affect these depends on resolution of these concerns. systems; and species—specific or site—specific A sound overall plan for sharing and manag- actions that directly affect the species. Current ing groundwater use from the aquifer is needed information about these endangered and threat- (task 2. 1). This is a complicated task, considering ened species and their habitats is not complete, the diversity ofwater users and need for water. and some tasks will only be conducted after The Recovery Plan cannot determine or dictate additional research or evaluations are completed. the specific provisions of an Aquifer Management This Recovery Plan includes tasks to deal with Plan. State and local involvement in developing recovety needs at all of these levels and addresses specific strategies is importantto ensure consider- all identified issues. ation of local and regional socio-economic Regional resource issues critical to the survival concerns, provide flexibility in the evolution and of the species of concern and their habitat require fine-tuning that will be needed to address chang- maintaining sufficient water in the habitat, and ing local and regional needs, and to achieve ensuring that water quality is not degraded to compliance with the plan.

Overview San Maecos & Cornal Springs &Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers Plan Manywater management agencies and aquifer needed.The mechanism to achieve these reduc- users have begun to address the issues of main- tions will have to be discovered. taining ecosystems and species dependent upon The Recovery Plan stresses cooperative ~ieEdwardsAquifer. These efforts will be useful development of a regional Aquifer Management in forging an overall plan. In June 1994, a court Plan, primarily by state and local entities, with appointed monitor, Joe Moore, Jr., prepared an the Service lending technical support. It would emergency withdrawal reduction plan, revised in be most useful ifthe Service were involved in the March of 1995. In May of 1995, Judge Bunton process from the early stages. providing assis- formed a committee to develop an alternative tance to plan developers in assessing the plan’s emergency withdrawal reduction planfor 1995. adequacy for protection ofaffected species and The committee developed an ordinance to limit their habitat (task 2.1 and 2.11). municipal and industrial water use for 1995, The Recovery Plan gives some preliminary which has been largely adopted by the city of San guidance for springflow levels (Table 2) and Antonio. measures that may be useful and biologically Progress has also been made on developing supportable to protect the species (task 2. 1 and and implementing several other beneficial 2.11). In addition, a comprehensive technical practices. For example, New Braunfels, San evaluation of springflows, aquifer levels, and Antonio, and San Marcos have water conserva- conservation measures (e.g., pumping limits) tion ordinances. The city of San Antonio has needed for various conditions of rainfall, re- developed a wastewater re-use plan that promises charge, weather conditions, and groundwater use conservation of a significant amount of water. is also needed. This evaluation should consider Many municipalities and water conservation voluntary or mandatory water use reductions districts are exploring alternative sources of and alternative means of providing water region- water. wide. The Service believes that to undertake this In August of 1994, the Court Monitor evaluation, it will be necessary to convene a initiated discussions among the city of San technical team of experts to assist planners in Antonio, the Uvalde Underground Water Dis- evaluations of hydrology, geology, biology, and trict, the Medina County Underground Water economics (task 2.12). It is expected that this District, the Edwards Underground Water Dis- evaluation will be modified as more information trict, the San Antonio River Authority, and the becomes available. Guadalupe Blanco River Authority about coop- All Federal agencies have a role in conserva- erativelypreparing a regional HCP. Following tion of species of concern, under section 7(a)(1) these discussions, a preliminary issues document and 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. The was drafted and discussions regarding an HCP Recovery Plan encourages efforts by Federal and a potential incidental take permit were agencies (see task 2.2). Progress has been made in initiated with the Service. thisarea, such as recent water conservation efforts Manywater users and agencies have con- and development of wastewater irrigation systems ducted studies and evaluations, including com- by military bases. An aquifer management plan puter modeling, to determine the aquifer levels that will assure adequate springflows and aquifer needed to maintain springflow. This has levels is required to recover these species (see emerged as a critical issue in efforts to manage below and task 2.1). Preparation and implemen- groundwater for the benefit of listed species. tation of plans to assure adequate springflows are Estimates ofaquifer levels needed have been best accomplished by state and local agencies. The reported over a large range. One estimate says that Recovery Plan calls for actions by Federal agencies in a drought of record no more than 165,000 to reduce aquifer water withdrawal as much as acre-feetper year could be pumped from the possible within their authorities to maintain Edwards aquifer (Edwards Underground Water habitat forlisted species (task 2.3). Several tasks District 1992a). In 1989 well discharge was call for avariety of actions, including continuing 542,000 acre-feet. Obviously in drought condi- to support conservation actions by Federal tions severe reductions in water usewill be agencies (task 2.3 1) and private entities (2.32).

Overview 2 Sas, Ni.srcos & CorsiW Sprinci. & Associsteci A. 1u.stic Ecosssrems Re:os’erv Pi.u, Nonnative specieshave direct and indirect Task 2.33 callS for aggressive pursuit of Federal impacts on the habitat and survival of species of .uzencv compliance with obligations for informal concern. Several nonnative species are presently and formal section 7 consultations. The Service of concern, and the Recovery Plan (see task •ded notices of the potential effects, the need proVi 1.29) calls for research to learn more about to consults and has met with Federal agencies nonnative species impacts and control. Task 2. 10 ~~hoseactions may directly or indirectly impact calls for implementation of needed management the survival of the listed species or adversely affect techniques. Monitoring will also be needed to their critical habitat. The resolution of the prob- prevent outbreaks or unacceptable levels of lem of maintaining springflows needed for these damage from these nonnatives, and this moni- species to survive is so critical that, in the absence toring is included as part of task 3.2. Data on of a regional Aquifer Management Plan enforced the incidence of clipping of leaves ofTexas wild- by state and local governments~ the Service should rice by herbivores in Spring Lake are being be prepared to initiate legal action required to collected, and some basic research on ramshorn maintain springflows at levels that would main- snails has been conducted in the Comal Springs tain habitat sufficient to preventjeopardy to listed ecosystem. species. Task 2.12 requires review of section 10 permitapplications~ performance and compliance; Certain recreational activities are of concern because of damage to Texas wild-rice from and review of compliancewith formal section 7 recreationists and floating mats of vegetation agreements by Federal agencies. Water quality in the Edwards aquifer and the (sometimes cut by local owner/managers to provide better recreational experiences for San Marcos and Comal ecosystems is also a major concern with regional implications. The Recovery visitors and users). Task 1.21 calls for an evalua- Plan calls for a regional approach that provides tion of the impacts of recreationists to the the aquifer with protection from significant integrity of the springs and rivers and to listed sources of pollution and the effects of chronic species. Progress is being made in this area. The low-level contamination. Tasks 1.24 and 1.28 Service has recently funded studies examining provide for an assessment ofexisting provisions, recreational impacts on Texas wild-rice, and and task 2.5 recommends the implementation of discussions have been initiated with operators of measures needed to protect water quality in the the largest tubing operation in the San Marcos aquifer. River to examine management options to reduce On a more local level, tasks 1.24, 1.25, 1.26, impacts. 1.27, and 3.2 evaluate and task 2.8 seeks to In some areas there may be potential for address water quality concerns for the Comal restoration or enhancement of habitat quality for and San Marcos ecosystems. In addition to water one or more species of concern. Identification quality concerns, tasks 2.4, 2.6, and 2.9 address and implementation of habitat restoration and a variety of local management concerns. Progress enhancement opportunities are discussed in the has been made on addressing concerns for these Recovery Plan (see task 2.9, conducting restora- systems. The Service is working in cooperation tion directly by resource agencies and others, and with the city of New Braunfels and others to task 2.6, working with private landowners to develop a Comal Ecosystem Management Plan encourage advantageous management). These (task 2.42). The city of San Marcos and South- activities are also supported indirectly through west Texas State University have funded an effort tasks developing local management plans for the to develop a similar plan for the San Marcos area Comal and San Marcos Systems (tasks 2.4, 2.41 (task 2.41). ln addition, Texas Parks and Wildlife and 2.42). Progress is being made in this area Department has a study currently underway to through development of management plans, and examine potential impacts to listed species from a proposal for manipulation to improve habitat the effluent of the A.E. Wood State Fish Hatch- for the San Marcos gambusia. ery, and a study is underway to examine some Most of the tasks reviewed above address potential impacts of effluent from the San general habitat requirements and known threats Marcos wasrewater treatment plant. to habitat. Implementation of these tasks should

Overview 3 San Maecos & comal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems RecoveryPlan contribute significantly to increasing stability and crisis is imminent. The plan will be distributed as maintenance, habitat integrity needed for survival, a separate document when completed. Reintro- and recovery ofthe listed species. duction techniques are fairly well understood for In some cases, information about the species the fountain darter and are the subject ofcurrent of concern is limited and questions about what is research underway on Texas wild-rice. Informa- needed to enhance survival and recovery are not tion is still needed for the salamanders and for yet answered. For some species the exact habitat San Marcos gambusia. requirements that determine why they occur in The Service acting alone cannot achieve the some areas and not others are not well under- conservation and recovery of these species. stood, making fine-tuning of habitat manage- Conservation of these species and their ecosys- ment difficult. Task 1.15 provides for the identi- tems will require the support and participation fication of specific habitat characteristics and from a wide variety of people and organizations. requirements. The Service and Texas Parks and In addition, Service policy directs the Service to Wildlife Department are conducting instream involve parties in implementation of Recovery flow studies to identif~e habitat requirements of Plans. The policy states that implementation aquatic plants and animals in the Comal and San should minimize social and economic impacts as Marcos systems. Through section 6, the Service much as possible. Consequently, public informa- has funded work by Texas Parks and Wildlife tion, education, and involvement is an impor- Department to investigate habitat requirements tant component of this Recovery Plan. Task 2.1 for Texas wild-rice. Before management can be calls for the primary involvement of state and implemented for other species, the general life local entities in developing an aquifer manage- history, survivorship, and potential unique ment plan. Task 4.2 provides for active encour- problems such as diseases and parasites must be agement of public involvement in planning and understood (see tasks 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14). carrying out conservation efforts. Task 4.1 notes Monitoring of individuals and populations of that educational materials will need to be pro- some species and their habitat is required for duced and distributed for a variety of audiences. tracking species condition, and the overall Some progress has been made in this area, impacts of various threats, as noted in task 3.1. although more is needed. The Service has a Monitoring is needed to assure that no signifi- project underway at present in cooperation with cant decline in their status occurs and to measure Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to produce success of recovery efforts. Periodic monitoring an information kiosk for the San Marcos River. is taking place for Texas wild-rice and the foun- Another section 6 educational project undertaken tain darter and should continue. cooperatively with Texas Parks and Wildlife A primarygoal of this Recovery Plan is to Department is producing educational materials on reduce threats to the species of concern and the listedspecies and their ecosystem. Aquarena conserve the species in their native ecosystem. Springs (now owned and operated by Southwest However, in these relatively restricted systems a Texas State University) installed exhibits that will catastrophic event could cause severe environ- be helpful in providing information to the mental damage and possibly lead to extinction of public. The Edwards Underground Water District some species. Consequently, protecting the has also produced a variety of educational materi- generic variation present in existing populations als about the aquifer. and developing techniques needed for restoration work are high priority recovery tasks addressed through tasks 1.4 and 2.11. This recovery plan requires establishingrefugia and captive populations (task 1.4) for all five listed species. Although progress is being made, additional work and research are needed. The Contingency Plan (task 2.11) calls for collection and conservation of individuals of the species ofconcern in the event a

Overview 4 Plan as

PART I

BACKGROUND INFORMATION SanMarcos & Comal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems RecoveryPlan A. THE ECOSYSTEMS

endangered: the San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia The Comal and San Marcos Springs are the georgei), the fountain darter (Etheostoma largest spring systems in Texas. The source of fonticola), the Texas blind salamander their flows is the San Antonio Segment of the (Typhlo mo/gerathbuni), and the Texas wild-rice Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer, which (Zizania rexana). In addition, the San Marcos will be referred to in the rest of this plan as salamander (Euryce’a nana) is listed as threat- simply the EdwardsAquifer.The species covered ened. by this plan are dependent upon the Edwards Three species of aquatic invertebrates in rhc Aquifer and its associated aquatichabitat in the Comal were proposed for listing by the Service 1 and San Marcos Springs areas. Coma on June 5,1995(60 FR 107:29537). The Partly because of the constancy of the waters species that are proposed are the Peck’s cave in temperature and flow, the San Marcos and amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), Comal Springs Coma1 ecosystems~ including the spring runs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), and the and the San Marcos and Comal Rivers and their impounded headwaters, have one of the greatest Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis). The final decision regarding the need known diversities of organisms of any aquatic ecosystem in the southwestern United States. to list has not yet been made. The unique habitats of these systems provide In addition to the listed species, a great relatively isolated, island-like systems which diversity of other unique species occur in these support a high degree ofendemism. The biologi- aquatic ecosystems. Some of these may also be cal uniqueness of these systems has been known threatened with extinction, but insufficient for many years. Many species found in the information is available to fully assess their Coma1 and San Marcos ecosystems are not found status. Some of these species associated with elsewhere. Most of the unique species are re- the Edwards Aquifer include the Texas cave diving stricted to the headwaters and the first few beetle (Haideoporus texanus), San Marcos saddle- kilometers or less of the San Marcos and Comal case caddisfly (Protoptila arca), Ezell’s Cave Rivers. In the San Marcos River, this includes amphipod (Siygobromusflagellatus), Texas sala- the area above the confluence with the Blanco mander (Eu?ycea neotenes), Comal blind sala- River, commonly referred to as the upper San mander (Eu?ycea trident~frra), robust (=Blanco) Marcos River. The Edwards Aquifer is known to blind salamander (7jsphlomo/ge contain a great diversity of organisms that live robusta), widemouth blindcat (Satan eurystomus), within it, underground. and toothless blindcat (Trogloglanispattersoni). These aquatic ecosystems are in danger of Several other invertebrates and vertebrates losing their unique fauna and flora. A variety of may also be endemic (that is, found only in a factors threaten the listed species. Local threats particular locality or region) to these aquatic to each of the species, as well as broader, regional ecosystems. threats to the ecosystem’s continued integrity, are This recovery plan covers the five species addressed in this plan. Some of the most severe listed as threatened or endangered and the threats are related to both the quality and quan- ecosystems upon which they depend, including tity ofwater available in the spring systems and the San Marcos and Comal aquatic ecosystems in the aquifer. Threats include decreased and the Edwards Aquifer. Both the San Marcos springflows, impacts resulting from increased and Comal Springs and river systems are depen- urbanization near the rivers, recreational use, dent upon water from the Edwards Aquifer and pollution, alterations of the rivers, introduction thus, represent components of the larger Edwards ofnonnative species and other concerns. Aquifer ecosystem. On a smaller scale, both the Presently, four San Marcos, Comal, and San Marcos and Comal aquatic systems contain aquifer species included in this plan are listed as unique flora and/or fauna that do not occur

Overview 6 San Marcus& Comal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecos~’~teerss Recovers’ i’lan throughout the Edwards Aquifer ecosystem. For PHYSIOGRAPHY AND purposes of this plan, the San Marcos and Comal HYDROLOGY systems (including their springs, lakes and rivers) are considered individual ecosystems with the Edwards Aquifer understanding that they are connected to, and an integral part of, the larger EdwardsAquifer The Balcones Fault Zone is the principal ecosystem. A briefcomparison of the Comal and geological feature characterizing the San Marcos San Marcos ecosystems is presented in Table 1. and New Braunfels area. The Fault Zone is a The Edwards Aquifer ecosystem is also important series of faults and fractures that extend east to the bay and estuaryecosystems along the Texas from near Del Rio (Val Verde County) to San coast. Aquifer water exiting at San Marcos and Antonio (Bexar County), where it turns north- Comal Springs provides a largeproportion of the east through the spring zone. Water flows base flow of the Guadalupe River, particularlyin underground along this fault zone from west to times of low rainfall. The Guadalupe River east and then northeast. The EdwardsAquifer provides freshwater input to San Antonio Bay on underlies this fault zone and has a northern the Texas Gulf Coast and this freshwater input is (Barton Springs) and a southern (San Antonio) important for maintaining habitat for species segment. The aquifer’s San Antonio segment inhabiting the bays and estuaries. extends from Bracketrville (Kinney County) to The 1984 San Marcos Recovery Plan was near Kyle (Hays County). This San Antonio among the first recovery plans to address segment is the source of water for many major recovery of multiple species through an ecosys- springs along the fault zone including the San tem approach. The importance of conserving Marcos and Comal springs (Figure 1). the entire spring ecosystem as the only viable Runofffrom the southern and eastern por- approach for recovery of these species was tions of the Edwards Plateau flows through an recognized early in the development of that plan. area of about 12,035 kilometers2 (4,647 miles2) Any recovery plan for these endangered and that is composed of about 9,184kilometers2 threatened species that fails to address the (3,546 miles2) of catchment area (often referred continued functioning of the ecosystems will fail to as the drainage basin or contributing zone) and to achieve recovery goals set forth for these 2,851.6 kilometers2 (1,101 miles2) of recharge listed species. Protection of these ecosystems zone (Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority 1988). should also help conserve many other unique Water flowing from the catchment area to the organisms that reside there, including species recharge zone recharges the aquifer through the that are candidates for listing. These ecosystems permeable outcrops ofCretaceous-aged lime- also provide a great diversity of uses for hu- stones found in Hays, Comal, Bexar, Medina, mans, from the aquifer and associated streams. Uvalde, and Kinney counties. This atchment area Protection of these systems for listed species is also sometimes referred to as the contributing would also help assure their quality for human zone or drainage basin. Investigators have esti- use now and for future generations. mated that 50-78 percent of the water recharging This revised plan has been expanded to the EdwardsAquifer comes from the drainage address importance of the Comal ecosystem as basins west of Bexar County (Guyton and well as the San Marcos ecosystem and to Associates 1979, Wanakule and Anaya 1993, include the Texas blind salamander, a listed Edwards Underground Water District 1991). The aquifer dwelling species. This recovery plan recharge zone is an area ofkarsr terrain where discusses problems each of the listed species is water enters the aquifer. The water is primarily facing and presents a set of actions that, when stored in the artesian zone, where impermeable accomplished, should alleviate threats to each strata overlie the cavernous limestone and trap the species and maximize potential for continued water underground. Water confined in the existence of these species and the ecosystems artesian zone flows along the fault zone. they depend on.

Pa~I 7 Ta~Ie 1. Summary of features of the Comal and Upper * San Marcos Ecosystems.

Comal

Listed Fountain darter (Etheostomafonticola) Fountain darter (Etheostomafonticola) Species

Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana)

Proposed Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis co,nalensis) Comal Springs riffle beetle (1 specimen) Species

Other Guadalupe bass, (Micropterus treculi) (historic only) Guadalupe bass (Micropterus treculi) Species Comal Springs salamander (Euryceasp.) of Interest San Marcossaddle-case caddisfly (ProtoptiIa arca,) Duskydarter (Percina scieraapristis)

Non-native Elephant ears, C, (Colocaija esculenta) Elephant ears, C, (Colocaija esculenta) Species of Elodea, Egeria densa Elodea, (Egeria densa) Potential Hydrilla, (Hydrilla verticillata) Hydrilla, (Hydrilla verticillata) Concern Hygrophilapolysperma, (no common name) Hygrophiiapolysperrna, (no common name) 0 LimnophiIa sessiI~flora (no common name) Parrot feather, C, (Myriophyllum brasiliense) 0 C common Blue tilapia, C, (Tiiapia aurea) Water hyacinth, C4’Eichhornia crasszpes,~) (in Spring Lake) C,, in system Rio Grande cichlid, C, (‘Gichiasoma cyanoguttatu7n) Blue tilapia, C, (Ti lapia aurea) Common carp, (Cyprinus carpio) Rio Grande cichlid, C, (Cichiasoma cyanogutrarum) k Amazon molly, (Poeciliaformosa) Common carp, (Cj~prinus carpio) C Sailfin molly, C, (Poecilia latipinna) Amazon molly, (Poeciliaformosa)

Waterfowl (various non-native) Sailfin molly, C, (Poecilia Lati/idnna) 0

Giant ramshorn snail, C, (A’farisa cornuarietis,) Waterfowl (various non-native) -C Other snails, (Mdanoides tubercuiata,) and (Al. gran~frra,) Giant ramshorn snail, (Marisa cornuarietis,) Asian clam, (Corbicu Ia) Other snails, (A’!elanoides tuberculara) and (A’!. granif’ra) Nutria, C, (A’Iyocaster co.ipus,) Asian clam, C, (Corbicula) Nutria, C, (Alyocaster co}’pus)

* the area commonly referred to as che upper San Marcos River includes the area above the confluence with the Blaiico River. Table 1. Summary of Features ofthe Coma] and Upper* San Marcos Ecosystems (Continued) Comal Upper San Marcos

Meanwater 23.3 (George 1952) 22 (Guyton and Associates 1979) temp. (0C) at Springs

Average annual 284 (1928-1989, Guyton andAssociates 1979) 170 (May 1956-Oct 1994, USGS 1995) springilow (cfs)

Maximum 666 (Dec 22, 1991; EUWD pers. comm) 451 (Mar 12-15, 1992; EUWD pers. comm) daily mean springflow (cfs)

0 Minimum 0 (June 13-Nov 4, 1956) 45 (Aug15 & 16, 1956) daily mean 0 springflow (cfs) 0

0~ Lake Area Landa Lake: about 21 acres Spring Lake: about 10 acres -o (acres)

Riverine about 2 miles (3 kin) about 4 miles (6.4 kin) Habitat

I Figure 1. Edwards Aquifer Region (modified from Figure 1 in Machay and Land, 1988).

2’. + -I. + — EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA BOUNDARY OF FRESHWATER PART OF IS U me EDWARDS AQUIFER

— UNE SEPARATING UNCONFiNED ZONE TO NORrH FROM CONFiNED ZONE TO SOUTH a. a. me mLUugin BOUNDARY OF DRAINAGE BASINS — BASIN NAMES ARE tI~Z[D1 1 Springs &Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers’ l4Iauu San Marcos & Coma Because ofthe characteristics of the Edwards Works Project Administration and a childrens Aquifer (which include relatively rapid flow pool was built at the lower end of spring run 2 through underground caverns), there has been (Gregory and Gaff 1993). debate among hydrologists regarding whether it Water emerging from the various springs should be termed an aquifer or an underground passes through Landa Lake before flowing into river.This difference in terminology could have either the old or new channel of the Comal ramifications in terms ofwater-rights law in River (Figure 2). The old and new channels Texas, the right of the State to regulate the water, merge about 2.5 km (1.6 miles) downstream and which state agency would have regulatory from Landa Lake and the Comal River flows authority. Recognizing the volume and flow of generally south another 2.5 km (1.6 miles) water through the aquifer and its significance as a before joining the Guadalupe River, making it natural resource, the Texas Water Commission the shortest river in Texas and the shortest river declared the EdwardsAquifer an underground in the United States carrying an equivalent river (TWC Rules, l7Tex. Reg. 660 1-6620) on amount of water (Texas Almanac 1973). A short September 25, 1992. In May of 1993, Senate Bill distance downstream from the headsprings, Dry 1477 declared the EdwardsAquifer is a distinctive Comal Creek enters the new channel of the natural resource in the state, to be a unique Comal River from the southwest. Dry Comal aquifer, but not an underground stream. Creek is also an intermittent stream, but it does provide some recharge. Comal A major fault, the Comal Springs Fault, lies to the west of the Comal Springs tending in a The Comal Spring system is the largest northeast direction with about 243.9 m (800 spring system in Texas. It consists of numerous feet) of displacement. Edwards Group limestones spring openings, collectively called Comal outcrop on the west side of the fault, whereas on Springs, that originate from the Edwards Aquifer. the east side, the Edwards has been displaced and These spring openings include Brune’s (1981) lies about 140.2 m (460 feet) below the surface Springs j, k, and I (referred to herein as spring (Edwards Underground Water District 1992a). runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively; Figure 2). These This outcrop of the karstic water-bearing springs provide flow to three short spring runs Edwards limestone on the west side of the fault that empty into the western end of Landa Lake accounts for the presence of the Comal Springs. in Landa Park, a municipal recreational area The Comal Springs issue from the lime- owned by the city of New Braunfels (Comal stones of the Edwards Group at the base of the County, Texas). Another smaller group of springs Balcones Escarpment. In the vicinity of the (east of Brune’s Springs a, b, and c (Brune springs, the Edwards Group crops out in a 1981), referred to collectively herein as spring continuous escarpment with about 30.5 m (100 run 4) occurs at the eastern end of Landa Lake ft) of topographic relief that has been created near the confluence with Blieders Creek. along the Comal Springs Fault (Guyton and Blieders Creek is about 11 km (6.8 miles) long Associates 1979). The spring outlets are located and dry except immediately after rains. Numer- along the base of this escarpment. The three ous small springs and seeps occur in the spring main outlets of Comal runs, along the banks of Landa Lake, and Springs lie at an elevation of about 190 m beneath the Lake. (623 ft). Landa Lake was created when the original Faulting has, for the most part, hydrologically river channel was dammed in 1847 to create a isolated Comal Springs, although large local new channel providing water for Merriwether’s storms temporarily contribute a small recharge Mill. Landa Park was established as a privately component to spring run 3 (Rothermel and owned park open to the public in 1898. The city Ogden 1987). Brune (1981) believed the pri- of New Braunfels acquired the park in 1936. At mary recharge area lay as much as 100 km (62 that time the three largest spring runs were miles) to the west and Guyton and Associates channeled by rock work constructed by the (1979) determined that the recharge area for

Parr I 11 5.u~ M.secos ~c Comal S~rinis & AssociateA A~uu.uu;c E.’’svsueuuo Recs’e~rv Puw.

~igi.1re2. Coma1 Aquatic Ecosystem.

LANDA LAKE SPRING 0 ®= RUN NO.

OLD CHANNEL NORTH

DRY J COMAL CREEK

USGS Gage ST

0 100 200 ~n0 400 000 M~E~

NEW BRAUNFELS COMAL COUNTY TEXAS

12 5lac San Marcos & Comal Springs &AssociatedAquatic Ecosvstenss Recovers’ i Comal Springs includes alarge area of the Ed- the greatest flow dependabili~ and environmental wards Aquifer southwest of Cibolo Creek basin. stability of any spring system in the southwestern Studies of the tritium content ofthe water United States. Records indicate that the San emerging from Comal Springs indicate that the Marcos Springs have never ceased flowing, amount of recharge from local sources is mini- although the flow has varied and is tied to fluc- mal (Guyton andAssociates 1979). Maclay and tuations in their source, the EdwardsAquifer Land (1988) note that based on their simulation underlying the Balcones Fault Zone. The headwa- studies it appears that most of the flow of Comal ters of the San Marcos River issue from several Springs is sustained by groundwater from the large fissures and numerous smaller solution downthrown side of the Comal Springs fault, openings along the San Marcos Springs fault where there is flow of groundwater moving (Puente 1976). It has been reported that prior to northeastward toward the springs. inundation with the formation of Spring Lake, George, Breeding and Hastings (1952) the largest springs emerged with such force that reported that the mean annual water tempera- they formed a fountain three feet high (B rune ture of Comal Springs is 23.30C (740F) and is 1981). not believed to fluctuate more than about 0.50C Early Spanish explorers estimated that a (1 0F). series of 200 springs made up the main spring Flow at Comal Springs has been monitored area (Brune 1981). Spring Lake, elevation 189 m since the early 1 880s. Comal Springs have the (620 feet), was created over 50 years ago by the greatest mean discharge of any springs in the damming of the San Marcos River not far southwestern United States (George et al. 1952). downstream from the springs. Spring Lake, The average annual discharge from 1928-1989 known for the clarity of its water, is the site of a was 8.04 cms (284 cfs). Maximum daily major tourist attraction, Aquarena Springs, Inc., springflows were 18.86 cms (666 cfs) on Decem- an amusement park featuring glass-bottomed ber 22, 1991 (Edwards Underground Water boat rides and a submarine theater. This resort District, pers. comm.). The highest monthly was sold to Southwest Texas State University in flow from Comal Springs was 13.2 cms (467 cfs) 1994. in 1973 (Guyton and Associates 1979). The San Marcos River (Figure 3) flows Much lower flows have been recorded during primarily southeastward for about 110 km (68.4 drought years, and in dry years flows from miles) before joining the Guadalupe River near Comal Springs can drop very rapidly. Comal Gonzales, Gonzales County, Texas. The upper Springs ceased flowing from June 13 to Novem- San Marcos River (which includes the river area ber 4, 1956, during the most severe drought on above the confluence with the Blanco River) is record (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1964). At rapidly flowing and unusually clear. The upper that time, all major springs in the Balcones Fault River run is primarily spring-fed and varies from Zone had ceased to flow, with the exception of about 5-15 m (16.4-49.2 feet) wide and up to San Marcos Springs, which had decreased its about 4 m (13.1 feet) deep. The section between flow substantially (Guyton and Associates 1979). the Blanco River confluence and the Guadalupe Some of the higher elevation Comal Springs River has fewer attributes of a spring run. ceased flowing in 1984 and 1990 when water From its headwaters at the springs to near levels in the Bexar County index well 0-17) in its confluence with the Blanco River, a distance San Antonio dropped to within twelve feet of the of a few kilometers, the river flows mostly over historic low of 186.7 m (612.5 feet) that oc- gravel or gravel/sand bottom (Crowe 1994), curred in 1956 (Wanakule 1990). with many shallow riffles alternating with deep pools. However, there is variability in the San Marcos substrate, and in areas with lower flows, silt/ mud accumulates. Near banks where erosion The springs at San Marcos (the second largest has occurred and near stormwater drainage points, spring system in Texas) historically have exhibited silt dominated substrates are also found.

Parr I 13 Saut Maccos & Carnal Springs & Associated Aquatic &osvsueuns Recovery P.c

FigUre 3. San Marcos Aquatic Ecosystem.

~SINK CK

SPRING LAKE

SE ING ION

‘HopkTns

Glaver’s IsIon~

i~H35 0 200 400 600 800 1000

SAN MARCOS HAYS COUNTY WILLOW TEXAS island A B LAN CO NORTH RIVER

SAN MARCOS RIVER

14 San Marcos & Coma1 Springs &Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers’ Plan Upstream from the junction of the Blanco southern Hays County groundwater moves River with the San Marcos River, within about a northeastward along a narrow strip berween 6.4 km (4.0 mile) river section below the main Hueco Springs and Comal Springs faults, and springs in San Marcos, 4 named and various discharges at San Marcos Springs. They state that unnamed creeks, various storm sewers, and one discharges at San Marcos Springs also likely wastewater treatment plant discharge into the come from water moving southeastward from the river (Figure 3). Sink Creek, largest of the recharge area in east-central Hays County. creeks, discharges large quantities of storm The flow of San Marcos Springs has been runoff from the north into Spring Lake. Spring monitored intermittently since 1894 (Puente Lake dam backs water about 1.6 km (1.0 mile) 1976). Average annual springflow from May up Sink Creek. Willow Springs and Purgatory 1956- October 1994 was 4.81 cms (170.0 cfs) Creek are normally dry except during periods of (USGS 1995). During drought years much high rainfall. lower flows occurred, especially in the mid- The exact areas contributing recharge to the 1 950s during the drought of record. Part of the San Marcos Springs, and their relative impor- flows recorded in 1956 may be attributed to tance, has not been clearly delineated. Guyton & water provided by a well near Spring Lake. The Associates (1979) stated that the majority of lowest recorded monthly flow from the San recharge for San Marcos Springs is considered to Marcos River was 1.53 cms (54 cfs) during 1956 be from an area of the aquifer southwest of (Guyton and Associates 1979). The lowest Comal Springs that flows under the Comal measured daily flow rate occurred on 15 and 16 Springs and is discharged at San Marcos Springs. August 1956 when the San Marcos River flowed These flows are derived primarily from the same at only 1.29 cms (45.5 cfs). Maximum daily sources as the Comal Springs, which likely springflows can be greater than the 12.72 cms include the recharge area southwest of the (451.0 cfs) of 12 March 1992, especially follow- Cibolo Creek basin (including the upper part of ing high local rainfall and runoff (USGS 1995). the San Antonio River basin with Helores, Leon, The thermally constant water from the San and Salado creeks, and the Nueces River basin) Marcos Springs has long been noted. Guyton with some contribution from a large part of the and Associates (1979) report an average tempera- Cibolo Creek basin (Figure 1). ture in the headwaters area of 22.0 oC (71.6 oF) However, tritium content in the San Marcos and that the temperature generally fluctuates less Springs water may indicate that some recharge than 0.5 oC (1 SF). At the lower end of the water also originates from other sources such as spring run habitat only a slightly greater range of the Dry Comal Creek basin. The flow from San variation in temperature (from 25.5 “C [77.9 oF] Marcos Springs also has a component derived in August to 20.4 OC [68.7 ~F]in February) has from local recharge including recharge from the been recorded (USGS 1967-1971, Beaty 1972). Blanco River basin, Sink, Purgatory, York, and Waters tend to be alkaline or neutral due to Alligator creek basins, the Guadalupe River basin the limestone aquifer. The pH range of the San

recharge area east of the river, the upper part of Marcos Springs is 6.9 - 7.8 (Texas Water Devel- the Dry Comal Creek basin, and possibly part of opment Board 1968). The stability of this the upper part of the Cibolo Creek basin stream, both in terms of flow dependability and (Guyton and Associates, 1979). Puente (1976) thermal characteristics, provided a unique set of estimated that under normal rainfall conditions ecological conditions. The unusually high degree 40% of discharge could be derived from local of endemism of the San Marcos and Comal biota recharge. Maclay and Land (1988), through may be a result of the relatively constant, island- computer simulation studies, concluded that in like spring habitats.

Parr I 15 ~an Marcos & Comal Springs &‘ Associated Aquatic Ecoss’sreiuss Recovers’ l’jur B. THREATS TO THE SPECIES 7 AND THEIR ECOSYSTEMS WATER QUANTITY the current pumping rare). At this pumping level, Comal Springs could be expected to maintain some annual flow although flows may be inter- A primary threat to all five of these species mittent during a recurrence of the drought of and their ecosystems is loss of springflows. record (Technical Advisory Panel 1 990). Thc springflows at San Marcos and Comal Springs Panel also predicted that in the year 2000, if are tied inseparably to water usage from the pumping continues to grow at historical rates and entire Edwards Aquifer, and use of groundwater a drought of record were to occur, Comal Springs in that region decreases flow of water from the would go dry for a number of years (Technical springs. Analyses by the Texas Department of Advisory Panel 1990). Water Resources (TDWR 1977), projecting Given various schemes of water usage, the water usage from the aquifer through the year Bureau of Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Recla- 2020, indicate that increased groundwater usage mation 1972, 1973, 1974) projects that the is expected well into the 21st century, especially probability of continuous flow from the San in the San Antonio area. Total withdrawal from Marcos Springs by the year 2020 is only ~0-7~i the San Antonio area of the Edwards Aquifer has been increasing since at least 1934, when total percent certain. Klemt et al.(1979) project that well discharge was 101,900 acre-feet (EU’WD assuming full projected development with 1989). In 1989, total well discharge was slightly average hydrologic conditions, continuous flow more than 542,000 acre-feet (Longley 1991, from San Marcos Springs will cease around the EUWD 1992a, 1992b). Municipal water use year 2010. accounted for 58% of water use from the Ed- Data from the Bureau of Reclamation (U.S. wards from 1981-1988 (Wanakule 1990). The Bureau of Reclamation 1972, 1973, 1974) and population in Bexar, Comal, Hays, Medina, and others suggest that demands on the Edwards Uvalde counties is estimated to increase between Aquifer, even considering a low (and unlikely) 37 and 47% by the year 2010 with a concurrent rate of growth for this region, will far exceed thc increase in water demand (Texas Water Develop- recharge to the aquifer (Longley 1975, ment Board 1990, 1992a). Projections of future McKinney and Watkins 1993, Research and San Antonio water use and needs have been Planning Consultants 1994). Wanakule (1990) analyzed by the Texas Water Development Board states: “The presentproblem facing the Edwards (1992), Research and Planning Consultants Aquifer is the threat of overdrafring of the annual (1994), and others. average recharge rate (1934-1 988) of approxi- Because of the anticipated growth in this mately 635,500 acre-feet.” A number of recent region of the Edwards aquifer and the concomi- studies have modeled springflow at San Marcos tant increase in water use, several estimates have and Comal springs (Thorkildsen and McElhanev been made concerning the influence of increased 1992, McKinney and Watkins 1993, Wanakule well discharge on springflows at Comal and San and Anaya 1993) and found some regulation of Marcos. groundwater withdrawal necessary to ensure The Texas Water Development Board has continuous flow at San Marcos and Comal applied its model of the EdwardsAquifer to Springs. Refinement of modeling techniques led determine what pumping level would allow to the conclusion, in an updated Texas Water Comal Springs to continue to flow (Technical Development Board report (1992) that a sus- Advisory Panel 1990). The Board found that tained pumping limitation of about 165,000 during a drought similar to that of the 1950s, the acre-feet per yearwould be needed to ensure maximum pumpage from the aquifer that would springflows during a repetition of a drought of allow springflow at Comal Springs to continue is record. The Edwards Underground Water District about 250,000 acre-feet per year (less than half (1 992a) had aTechnical Data Review Panel

Part I 16 San Marcos & Comal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecos~’srems Recovers’ Plan examine potential problems with the methodol- essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or ogy and assumptions used in making current sheltering. projections, and concluded that additional data These springflows and aquifer levels were to would be needed to improve the accuracy of be based on available information and the projections for regulatory purposes. Service’s best professional judgment. The deter- As part of a February 1, 1993, Judgment (as minations made by the Service are included in amended on May 26, 1993) in the case of Sierra Table 2. These determinations were based on Club vs. Secretary of the Interior (No. MO-91- conditions at the time and assume there is no CA-069, U.S. Dist. Ct., WD. Texas), the Court mechanism in place to manage groundwater ordered the Service to make certain determina- withdrawal so that the timing and duration of tions relative to minimum springflows and flow levels can be influenced. Determinations aquifer levels necessary for endangered and also assume there is no effective control mecha- threatened species. The purpose of these deter- nism for nonnative species such as the giant minations was to provide guidance to Federal ramshorn snail. It may be possible for flow levels agencies and pumpers from the aquifer to assist to fall below these levels for short periods of them in taking appropriate actions to ensure time, but not for extended periods without their activities do not take or jeopardize listed causing take, jeopardy, and/or adverse modifica- species or result in adverse modification or tion. In some cases these flow levels may also be destruction of critical habitat. Take includes “to reduced forshort periods ifadequate management harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, for controlling duration and timing of low flows trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage and management of nonnative species are in place. in anysuch conduct.” Take can include signifi- Accurately monitoring the discharge of both cant habitat modification or degradation if it Comal and San Marcos Springs is an important kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing task. A variety of methods have been employed for the period of record. Many entities use data

Table 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determination of minimum springflows needed to prevent take, jeopardy, or adverse modification of critical habitat. All flow rates are given in cubic feet per second (cfs).

Species Take Jeopardy Adv. Mod.

Fountain darter in Comal 200 150 N/A Fountain darter in San Marcos 100 100 100 San Marcos gambusia 100 100 100 San Marcos salamander 60 60 60 Texas blind salamander 50* 5Q* N/A Damage and Destruction Texas wild-rice 100 100 100

* Refers to San Marcos springflow

Some of these levels could be reduced under certain conditions, such as significant control of certain nonnative species and/or implementation of an aquifer management plan. Significant control of nonnative species would be that which would eliminate threats from these species, such as loss or alteration of essential habitat, increased predation, disruption of normal behaviors, or hybridization.

Pars 17 San Marcus & Comal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosysreusus Recovers’ l’l.sn

pounds ofpetrochemical or pesticide origins). from a monitoringwell in San Antonio known as Some of the physical factors considered impor- to track Edwards Aquifer levels. Several rant include water temperature~ air temperature. ~ 0yestigatorshave examined the relationship light, turbidity, and sedimentation. between1 andlevelsSaninMarcosJ-17 andSpringsspringflows(Guytonat theand Due to its wide ranging influence on many AssociateSComa l979~ Wanakule 1988). J-17 well different biotic and chemical factors (Armour levels do not correspond directly (that is 1:1) to 1991), water temperature is an important springflows~ particularly at low flows. The consideration. Rivers like Comal and San correlation betweenJ17 well levels and the flow Marcos typically have a gradient of increasing from Comal Springs appears to be better than the variability in temperature from the headwaters to correlation betweenJ-17 well levels and the flow the lower reaches. However, human caused from San Marcos Springs. Using wells closer to factors can affect Comal and San Marcos aquatic the springs to estimate spring discharge maybe systems’ temperatures (such as through discharge more accurate than relying on J-17 levels. of water at a temperature other than the ambient However, a more direct and accurate method water temperature or through decreased aquifer levels resulting in lowered spring discharges and 0f~onitOring Comal and San Marcos springflows is desirable to support recovery efforts. associated increases in temperature fluctua- Working cooperativelywith the Edwards Under- tions). ground Water District, the USGS has established In 1988, The Texas Water Commission, now a San Marcos gage station near the outflow of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Spring Lake at University Drive and has added Commission, reported that the San Antonio additional instrumentation along the Comal as segment of the Edwards Aquifer, Bexar, Hays, well. Previously USGS used a monitoring well and Comal Counties had the greatest number of offHunter Road (SW of the City) to estimate land-based oil and chemical spills in central San Marcos springflow. The University Drive Texas that affect surface and/or groundwater, gage measures San Marcos discharge as the sum of with 28, 6, and 4 spills, respectively (TWC springflow and runoff from Sessom and Sink 1989). The potential exists for catastrophic Creeks. Similarly, the USGS gage for the Comal accidental spills from railroad tank cars, tractor- River measures Comal springflow and runoff trailers, or other motor vehicles crossing the San from Blieders and Dry Comal Creeks and Panther Marcos River on railroad bridges, the interstate Canyon. These new gages will givea better highway, or other road crossings. As of July, estimate of springflow and floodflow conditions. 1988, Bexar County had between 26 and 50 Local wells in Comal and Hays counties that have confirmed leaking underground storage tanks, been used in the past to monitor aquifer levels Hays County had between 6 and 10, and Comal and estimate springflows provide valuable infor- County had between 2 and 5 (TWC 1989), mation about the relationship between differences putting these counties among the top five in aquifer levels in the region and their relation- counties in central Texas for confirmed under- ship to springflows, and should continue to be ground storage tank leaks. The TWC estimates monitored as well. that, on average,every leaking underground storage tank will leak about 500 gallons per year WATER QUALITY of contaminants before the leak is detected. These tanks are considered one of the most Water quality declines would likely impact all significant sources of groundwater contamina- five listed species included in this plan as well as tion in the state (TWC 1989). other species. Water quality includes chemical and Decreased water quality could also result from physical factors. Some of the chemical constitu- a reduction in the water level in the aquifer. The ents that may be important include dissolved Balcones Fault Zone-San Antonio Region is ions, trace elements, pH, nutrients, dissolved bounded on the south and east by asaline water oxygen, and organic contaminants (e.g., com- interface known as the “bad water” line across which the groundwater quality abruptlydeterio-

18 San Marcos & Coma1 Springs &AssociatedAquatic Ecosysrems RecoveryPlan rates to greater than 1000 mg/L total dissolved as invertebrate prey species and algae on which solids (TDS). In other words, crossing the bad they feed, could also be affected by runoff of water line, groundwater goes from fresh to saline herbicides, pesticides, and other non-point or brackish. Lowered water levels due to ground- source pollutants. water pumpage or decreased recharge mayresult A report produced by the Edward’s Under- in deterioration of water quality by movement of ground Water District (EUWD 1993) summa- saline water into the freshwater section ofthe rizes information on increasing development in aquifer. Movement of bad water into the aquifer the EdwardsAquifer recharge zone and the effects could have serious impacts on the species of of these activities in Bexar, Comal, and Hays concern,which depend on fresh water, as well as counties. The report concluded there was cause to the suitability for use as a humanwater supply. for concern that the cumulative impact of pollu- Both Comal and San Marcos Springs are very tion resulting from urbanization over the Ed- close to the bad water line CIWC 1989, EUWD wards recharge zonewas not being adequately 1 992b) and, although the data are inconclusive at addressed, and that degradation of Edwards present, both springs could undergo intrusion of Aquifer water could be imminent. The Edwards saline waters at low aquifer levels. Underground Water District report also included Lower aquifer levels and springflows may recommendations for steps that could be taken also decrease water quality because of a decreased to prevent pollution of the aquifer. dilution ability (i.e., less water to dilute any Rice (1994) examined USGS and State of pollutants in the system, resulting in higher Texas data for wells sampled between 1982 and pollutant concentrations). This situation would 1992 and found that 54 wells in Bexar County be compounded during drought. have reported mercury and chlorinated solvents. Other threats to water quality occur as a Rice considered the data cause for concern and result of human activities in the recharge zone presented recommendations for preventing and in the local watersheds. Permitted, non- groundwater contamination. While only a few permitted, and accidental discharges (such as wells had contaminant levels above those permit- sewage leaks) into waterways are a possible threat ted in drinking water standards, the presence of that needs to be evaluated and addressed (Emery these contaminant compounds demonstrates the 1967, Vaughan 1986). Surface runoff, particu- risk ofaquifer contamination. If not abated, larly in urban areas, may impact the springs, contamination may increase and threaten the lakes, and river systems. Stormwater runoff may health of humans as well as plant and animal include such things as pesticides and herbi- species. cides, fertilizers, soil eroded from construction activities, silt, suspended solids, garbage, HABITAT MODIFICATION hydrocarbon and inorganic/metal compounds from vehicles and machinery, household sol- Human modifications (such as bank stabiliza- vents and paints, and other urban runoff from tion, dams, andlandowner maintenance activities point and non-point pollutionsources (Urban in waterways and on adjacent tractsof land) have Drainage and Flood Control District 1992). significantly altered natural configurations and Non-point source runoff and chemical drainage in the San Marcos and Comal systems. contamination are potential sources ofwater These alterations, in turn, have changed the quality degradation. For example, use of an historical magnitude and occurrence of episodic herbicide along bridge pilings and concrete events such as flooding. Indirect impacts from aprons at the IH-35 crossing of the San Marcos surrounding development and urbanization have River has occurred foryears. Moderate to light also changed these systems. Understanding these rainfall could wash this and other contaminants changes and their impacts is important to the into the river at the type locality of the San conservation ofthe ecosystems and their species. Marcos gambusia. Such runoff could impact the Aseries of five flood retardation structures San Marcos gambusia, fountain darter, Texas built by the Soil Conservation Service (now wild-rice, or their habitats. Other species, such

ParrI 19 San Marcos & Comal Springs &Associated Aquatuc £cosxsueuus Recovcrv lw NONNATIVE SPECIES kllowfl as the Natural Resource Conservation V service) on tributary creeks feeding into the San Certain nonnarive species (that is. those Marcos p.jver is expected to decrease the severity introduced to an area outside their normal range f~Ooding in the watershed and to slightly of distribution; including species native to areas increase the recharge into the aquifer (U.S. outside the continent often termed exotic spe- Department of Agriculture 1978). However, the cies) pose a significant threat to the listed effect of these structures on flushing flows and silt species. Threats occur due to competition over accumulation is uncertain. Flooding still occurs habitat or diet and/or by modifying habitat, and may flush silt and other soft materials from such as affected by nonnarive elephant ears the river bottom, but may not be adequate to (Coloca.sia esculenta) and giant ramshorn snails maintain natural habitats. Alarge gravel bar has accumulated below the confluence ofSessom (Marisa cornuarietis). In addition, some species Creek due to construction in the Sessom Creek prey on the listed species. Decreased flow may watershed (Longley, in Iitt., and USFWS obser- exacerbate the problem posed by nonnative vations). periodic flooding is a natural event in species. the San Marcos (and to a lesser extent in the Since introduction ofgiant ramshorn snails Comal). In addition to silt removal, flooding can into the Comal and San Marcos ecosystems maintain habitats for some species by periodi- around 1983, aquatic plants in many areas of cally removing vegetation from parts of Landa Lake have been denuded or grazed to the streambanks and rivers, creating openings in bottom (Home et al. 1992, Linam et al. 1993) shoreline emergent vegetation and in some such that they no longer provided cover for the substrate areas. Flooding also is known to reduce fountain darter. Giant ramshorn snail popula- abundances of introduced nonnarive fishes in tions appear to increase during low flows. This other southwestern streams. snail poses a significant threat to the Comal The species composition, distribution, and aquatic ecosystem. On March 3, 1990, this density of aquatic vegetation are very important species was added to the Texas Parks and for many ofthe listed species. These factors Wildlife Department’s list of “Harmful or influence the quality and quantity of available potentially harmful exotic shellfish.” The giant habitat. Activities that alter aquatic vegetation, ramshorn snail is recognized as a voracious directly or indirectly, need to be carefully evalu- herbivore, which is why it became unpopular ated and managed to minimize adverse impacts with aquarists and has been investigated as a and improve species habitat. Cutting and biological control agent for aquatic weeds that removing vegetation (algae, mosses, vascular clog ponds, canals, and waterways (Seaman and plants) from Spring Lake may harm or kill San Porterfield 1964, Blackburn et al. 1971). Marcos salamanders and fountain darters.This is Seaman and Porterfield (1964) found that 150 potentially a serious threat to the San Marcos adult snails required less than one week to com- salamanders, since the algal mats provide a food pletely consume masses (1360 g wet weight) of source, cover and protection from predators several species ofaquatic macrophytes in outdoor (Nelson 1993). Emery (1967), Vaughan (1986), concrete tanks. The giant ramshorn snail is and Rose and Power (1993) have noted that common throughout Landa Lake and the Comal cutting of aquatic vegetation in Spring Lake and River and its population has increased dramati- other areas threatens Texas wild-rice because cally since its introduction around 1983. Giant floating mats of cut vegetation released into the ramshornsnails have apparently had asignificant river shade and entangle Texas wild-rice plants impact on Landa Lake and the Comal River and knock over inflorescences. Vegetation ecosystem (Home etal., 1992). On September 1, cutting may also threaten other species of con- 1989, the New Braunfels Parks Director (David cern by direct damage or lowering habitat Whatley) contacted the Service to inform them quality. that vegetation was disappearing from Landa Lake. From October 1989 through February 1990 extremely dense populations of adult snails

Parr I 20 San Marcus & Comal Springs &Assocuaued Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers’ Plan and large numbers ofegg masses were present in Fonteyn 1981) and now form extensive stands at Landa Lake (Linam 1993, and Thomas Arsuffi, the water’s edge in the San Marcos and Comal SWTSU, pers. comm.). This coincided with low systems, displacing native species. Elephant ears springflows. Areas of the lake that had sup- are present in the area occupied by the San ported large masses of aquatic macrophytes Marcos gambusia and may have decreased were completely denuded, leaving areas of bare habitat suitability and contributed to its decline. lake bottom criss-crossed with snail tracks. The changes in shoreline conditions may also Following the giant ramshorn snail popula- have indirect impacts on other species. tion increase in 1989-90, the population subse- Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), an aquatic quently declined, possiblybecause it had severely plant introduced from the Old World, is natural- depleted its own food and habitat requirements ized now in many Texas waters. It is abundant in (Thomas Arsuffi, pets. comm.). By April 1990, the San Marcos River and Rose and Power very few living adult specimens were collected or (1992) note that “Most of the area historically observed, although a large number of young occupied by wild-rice is now occupied by

snails were present (Thomas Arsuffi, pets. Hydrilla. . . comm.). From May to June average springflows Many fish species have been introduced into dropped below 200 cfs. On July 10, 1990 the the San Marcos and Comal ecosystems (e.g., New Braunfels Parks Director contacted the tilapia, common carp, rock bass, sailfin mollies), Service to inform them that they were having to and some may compete with the fountain darter remove dump truck loads of clipped vegetation and San Marcos gambusia for needed resources from Landa Lake. This second episode of rapid (food, breeding habitat) or prey upon the listed vegetation loss occurred after a shorter period of fish species. Taylor et. al. (1984) note that low flows. Snail censuses in July 1993 and introduced fish may also have indirect impacts, January 1994 during high flow conditions inducing changes in habitat characteristics (for indicate that adult and juvenile ramshorn snails example, by removal of vegetation or substrate and egg masses are still present in the main body disturbance) or introducing diseases and para- of Landa Lake. They are also still present, sites. Tilapia have become so abundant in although less common, in the spring runs Landa Lake and Spring Lake that in terms of feeding the lake and in the river channel below biomass they appear to exceed any of the native the lake. sunfish family (blackbass/sunfish species) Currently, few giant ramshorn snails are (Patrick Connor, USFWS, pers. obs.).

known from the San Marcos ecosystem. How- Nutria (Myocastercoypus), an introduced ever, in the future under low flow conditions mammal native to South America, is also the snails may have an adverse effect on Spring common in the San Marcos and Comal systems. Lake and the San Marcos River. Nutria feed on a wide variety of aquatic vegeta- Alteration ofplant communities by anonnative tion (Burt and Grossenheider 1964) and have herbivore like the giant ramshorn snail can have a been observed feeding on Texas wild-rice (Emery drastic effect on endemic species, such as the 1967). Investigators feel nutria may significantly fountain darter. Additional studies andmonitoring damage stands ofTexas wild-rice (Rose and programs for tracking population dynamics and Power 1992). monitoring the effects oframshorn snails on aquatic vegetation communitiesshould be estab- RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES lished for both the Comal and San Marcos aquatic ecosystems. Understanding ofgiant ramshornsnail The Comal and San Marcos areas are very life history and demographic characteristics could popular recreation sites that provide a variety of prove importantin developing a management recreational opportunities including swimming, scenario for this pest species. tubing, canoeing, fishing, snorkeling, scuba Elephant ears (Coloca.sia esculenta) are be- diving, and glass-bottomed boat tours. These lieved to have been introduced into the San activities and their associated support facilities Marcos area in the early 1 900s (Akridge and

Parr I 21 San Marcos & Coma1 Springs & AssociatedAquatic Ecosystems Recovers’ Plan ation, and a general decrease in species diversity p’ia~ directlyor indirectly impact the ecosystems and species numbers in impacted aquatic envi- and their species. Texas wild-rice plants may be ronments. For these reasons, changes in the physically damaged by water activity, or its upper San Marcos and Comal watersheds should inflorescences may be prevented from emerging be approached with extreme caution to avoid so that the plants cannot successfully produce further degrading of aquatic habitat suitable for seed (Vaughan 1986, Rose and Power 1992, these endangered and threatened species. ~radsby 1994). Predation is currently believed to be a minor Habitat alteration due to recreation activities threat to the San Marcos salamander. However, occurs from direct impacts such as bottom fish have been observed preying on salamanders disturbance and vegetation control, or indirectly (Tupa and Davis 1976, Nelson 1993) and are due to introduction of non—nativebait fish or suspected to be the main predators of sala- streamside influences such as increased compac- tion, erosion, litter, pollution, and runoff from manders. Tupa and Davis (1976) suspected that parking areas and support facilities. crayfish, which are often found in the Recreational impacts should be carefully salamander’s habitat, may also prey on F. nana. evaluated and a comprehensive plan developed Given diet similarities it is possible that decapod to monitor and manage recreational activities so crustaceans (prawns and crayfish) in general may that species needs are provided for and adverse present a predation threat (David Bowles, impacts minimized. TPWD invertebrate biologist, pers. comm., 1995). However, Nelson (1993) found no OTHER IMPACTS evidence of crayfish predation on salamanders during her study. The New Braunfels and San Marcos areas are Waterfowl may also present problems for growing rapidly (U.S. Bureau of the Census some aquatic species. Rose and Power (1992) 1982). Over half of the population of Comal noted that waterfowl appear to clip offleaf County resides in New Braunfels, and the segments ofTexas wild-rice and have significant population of New Braunfels has increased from impacts on experimental plots that are not 17,859 in 1970 to 27,334 in 1990 (M. Meek, protected from herbivory. They postulate that New Braunfels Chamber of Commerce, pers. waterfowl have increased in numbers and are comm., 1993). The population of the city of San now permanent residents in the San Marcos area Marcos, Hays County, Texas rose from 741 in (rather than a migratory and transient popula- 1870 to 23,420 in 1980 (U.S. Bureau of the tion) due to urbanization of the area. Introduced Census 1982); no other county along the swans (Cygnus olor), domesticated mallard ducks Balcones Fault Zone had a greater relative (Anasplatyrhynchos), and other ducks in the lake growth than Hays County for the period 1960- feed on the aquatic moss and Lyngbya sp. (Tupa 1980. Between 1980 and 1990, the population and Davis 1976). These birds roost nightly on the of Hays County grew61.6 percent. As ofJuly, sidewalk alongside the San Marcos salamanders’ 1992 the Texas State Data Center estimated the principal habitat. Their fecal droppings are swept population of Hays County at 67,964. The daily into the lake, increasing the nutrient input Bureau of Business Research at the University into this system. This factor, combined with the of Texas at Austin estimated that the popula- birds’ feeding activities, could reduce the abun- tion of Hays County will reach 83,201 by the dance of the aquatic moss and Lyngbyasp. where year 2000. As of January 1994, the population E. nana occurs. A reduced abundance of aquatic of the ciw of San Marcos was estimated at moss along the bank and on large submerged 36,464 (Greater San Marcos Economic Devel- boulders has been reported byTupa and Davis opment Council 1994), and this figure excluded (1976). their student population. Broad regional issues of water use and Edwards (1976) found that increased urban- landscape level management influence the ization caused increased flooding and erosion systems upon which these species depend. In (due to uncontrolled runoff), pollution, silt- addition, more local actions of municipalities Part I 22 San Marcos & Comal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers’ Pi~, and landowners have significant potential impacts that must be addressed; and there are some sire- 7 specific problems impacting multiple species. Progress on these regional, local, or site-specific issues that impact multiple species has been noteworthy and is discussed below. Progress on more species-specific problems is discussed under the individual Species Accounts section.

Pan 23 San Marcos & Coma] Springs &Associated Aquatic Ecosysuen;’. Recovers’ Plan C. GENERAL CONSERVATION F MEASURES WATER QUANTITY place that provides habitat required to recover the five federally listed species covered by this plan. The Service has given preliminary guidance New Braunfels, San Antonio, and San Marcoshave water conservation ordinances. The on the minimum springflow levels that need to city of San Antonio has developed a wastewater be maintained to protect the species and their re-use plan that may result in conservation of a habitat (Table 2). In addition, the Service and significant amount of water. Many municipali- {exas parks andWildlife Department have ties and water conservation districts are exploring ~ 0strea~ flow and habitat requirement studies alternative sources ofwater. 0~de~ay to help refine habitat requirements Federal agencies have also been making a and characteristics in both the Comal and San conscious effort to reduce water needed from the Marcos systems. aquifer. There have been recent efforts by There has been considerable activity by military bases to conserve water and develop many water management agencies and aquifer wasrewarer irrigation systems. The Department users that address water quantity issues in devel- of Agriculture is conducting a review of the oping a regional management plan to ensure impact of its programs and practices on irriga- adequate springflows to protect the five listed tion withdrawals. species and ecosystem to which theycontribute, In covered by this plan. Numerous agencies have addition, many water users and agencies examined structural and hydrological characteris- have conducted studies and evaluations (includ- tics and trends of the aquifer and its watersheds, ing computer modeling) to examine projected and there are numerous publications available. water needs and determine the aquifer levels These agencies include the U.S. Geological needed that will translate to maintaining Survey, Edwards Underground Water District, springflow (Longley 1975, McKinney and Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Center, Texas Watkins 1993, Research and Planning Consult- Natural Resource Conservation Commission, ants 1994, Thorkildsen and McElhaney 1992, Texas Water Development Board, U.S. Army Wanakule and Anaya 1993, Texas Water Devel- Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and opment Board 1992). This has emerged as a the NaturalResource Conservation Service. In critical issue in efforts to manage groundwater addition, land ownership and use along the San for the benefit of listed species, and more work is Marcos River has been examined (McCoig and needed. Cradit 1986, and Pulich er al. 1994). Estimates have fluctuated widely, and one Progress has also been made on developing estimate predicts that in a drought of record no and implementing several other elements or more than 165,000 acre-feet per year could be techniques that can contribute to maintaining pumped from the EdwardsAquifer (Edwards necessary springflows. The Texas State Legisla- Underground Water District 1992a). In 1989 ture has made a significant contribution to this well discharge was 542,000 acre-feet. Immediate effort by enacting legislation (S.B. 1477, as reductions in groundwater use are needed (and in amended by H.B. 3189 in 1995) creating the drought conditions severe reductions in water use Edwards Aquifer Authority. According to that will be needed). legislation the authority should be able to In June 1994, as a part of the lawsuit proceed- regulate and control groundwater pumping from ings in Sierra Club vs. Babbitt, Judge Bunron the EdwardsAquifer, a primary need identified in ordered court appointed monitorJoe Moore, Jr., the recovery plan. While the implementation of to prepare an emergency withdrawal reduction the authority has been challenged as noted above plan by August 1, 1994. The plan was completed and litigation continues, the Service is hopeful and filed on August 1, and was revised in March that a State regulatory mechanism will be put in of 1995. In May of 1995 Judge Bunton named a

24 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery p~

5-member committee to develop an alternative iry that recharge enhancement can provide signifi- voluntary emergency withdrawal reduction plan cant water to the aquifer should be evaluated. for 1995. The committee developed a generic, Impacts to fish and wildlife at the point of representative ordinance to limit municipal and recharge, from decreased flows in rivers and industrial water use for 1995, which has been streams downstream of recharge, and other largely adopted by the city of San Antonio. impacts to drainages that will be deprived of In August of 1994 discussions were initiated waters normally accruing to them (due to diver- by the Court Monitor among the city of San sion to recharge) must be carefully evaluated as Antonio, the Uvalde Underground Water Dis- well. trict, the Medina County Underground Water District, the Edwards Underground Water WATER QUALITY District, the San Antonio River Authority, and the Guadalupe Blanco River Authority about The Edwards Underground Water District cooperatively preparing a regional Habitat (1993) and Rice (1994) have examined water Conservation Plan. Numerous public meetings quality threats and existing regulations protect- were held. Following these activities a prelimi- ing aquifer water quality and given recommenda- nary issues document was prepared, and discus- tions for improvements. In addition, Texas Parks sions regarding an HCP and a potential inciden- andWildlife Department has a study currently tal take permit have been initiated with the underway to examine potential impacts to listed Service. The option also exists that concerned species from effluent from the A. E. Wood State stakeholders may develop and implement one Fish Hatchery, and a study is underway to exam- or more smaller regional or local HCPs that ine some potential impacts of effluent from the contribute to overall aquifer management. San Marcos wastewater treatment plant. In addition to strategies for conserving water Water quality issues are also included in some and developing sources off the aquifer to serve activities underway to address more local impacts projected needs in the area, another approach in a comprehensive manner. The Service is that has been suggested is to artificially augment working in cooperation with the city of New the aquifer with water from other sources. Braunfels and others to develop a Comal ecosys- McKinney and Sharp (1995) examined five tem management plan (task 2.42). The city of potential techniques for artificially augmenting San Marcos and SouthwestTexas State University springflows at Comal and San Marcos Springs. are about to begin developing a similar plan for The Service submitted written comments to the the San Marcos area (task 2.41). Texas Parks and Texas Water Development Board (September 1, Wildlife (Spain et al. 1994) completed a prelimi- 1994 andJanuary 23,1995) indicating that there nary overview ofsignificant management issues were hydrological and biological concerns. The for the San Marcos River. Service’s comments stated that the augmentation alternatives described involving injection wells, NONNATWE SPECIES infiltration galleries, aquifer baffles, and direct addition ofwater to spring-fed lakes are not Progress has been made in some areas. Nutria feasible in terms of providingadequate protection control measures have been implemented in some for Federally listed species dependent upon the areas in the past by Animal Damage Control, and Edwards Aquifer. While regional and local some basicresearch on giant ramshorn snails has recharge enhancement opportunities mayhave been conducted in the Comal Springs ecosystem some potential benefit, these recharge alternatives area. In addition, data on the incidence of clip- cannot be adequately evaluated until data on ping of leaves ofTexas wild-rice by herbivores in water quality issues (such as the potential for Spring Lake are now being collected (Power, contamination or thelikelihood that enhanced SouthwestTexas State University, pets. comm.). recharge waters will equilibrate to normal aquifer conditions without harm to species) are developed and analyzed. Further, the realistic probabil-

Part I 25 San Marcos & Coma] Springs &Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recosers’ Plan

RECREATION Reducing the probability of loss of the species of concern from catastrophic events led to development ofa Contingency Plan providing for I The Service has recently funded studies collection and captive propagation of individuals ~~~ining recreational impacts on Texas wild- of the species of concern in the event a crisis is rice, and discussions have been initiated with imminent, as well as more long-term general operators of the largest tubing operation in the effort to establish captive populations of the listed San Marcos River to examine management species. The Contingency Plan is currently under 0ptions available to reduce impacts from tubing. revision. When completed it will be distributed as a separate document. HABITAT MAINTENANCE, RESTORATION, AND ENHANCEMENT EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

The Service has a project underway at present Progress is being made in this area through in cooperation with Texas Parks and Wildlife development of local management plans, and a Department to produce an information kioskfor proposal has been developed for habitat manipu- the San Marcos River that includes information lation to improve habitat for the San Marcos on threats from nonnative species. Another gambusia. section 6 educational project undertaken cooperatively with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department CAPTIVE PROPAGATION AND is producing other educational materials on the CONTINGENCY PLANS species ofconcern and their ecosystem. Aquarena Springs (now owned and operated by Southwest Several cooperatinginstitutions have con- Texas State University) has recently installed ducted investigations ofcaptive breeding tech- exhibits that will be helpful in education of the niques. Techniques are available for the fish and public. The Edwards Underground Water District wild-rice, and some preliminary work has been has produced avariety ofeducational materials done for salamanders. The Texas blind salamander about the aquifer andwater conservation. The appears to breed fairly easily in captivity, but for Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Center has the San Marcos salamander it has been more also developed educational programs about difficult to achieve breeding in captivity. Edwards Aquifer issues.

Part] 26 1’uauu San Marcos & Coma] springs & Aasociared Aquatic Ecos~’srcitus Recosers D. SPECIES ACCOUNTS

San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia georgei) - Gambusia is well defined and mature males may endangered be distinguished from related genera by their (Federal Register Vol. 45: 47355-47364; thickened upper pectoral fin rays (Rosen and July 14, 1980); Bailey 1963). Only a limited number of Gambzi- sia are native to the United States and of this fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola) - endangered subset, G. georgei has one of the most restricted (Federal Register Vol. 35: 16047; ranges. October 13, 1970; Federal Register 45: 47355-47364; July 14, 1980); The San Marcos gambusia is subtlydifferent from the western mosquirofish (G. affinis).

San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana) - Scales tend to be strongly crosshatched in contrast threatened to the less distinct markings on the scales of G. (Federal Register Vol. 45: 47355-47364; affinis. In addition, G. georgei tend to have a July 14, 1980); prominent dark pigment stripe across the distal edges of their dorsal fins. A diffuse mid-lateral Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana) - endangered stripe extending posteriorly from the base of the (FederalRegisterVol. 43:17910-17916; pectoral fin to the caudal peduncle is also often April 26, 1978; FederalRegisterVol. 45: 47355- present, especially in dominant individuals. As in 47364;July14, 1980) G. affinis, a dark subocular bar is visible and is elicited easily from frightened fish. Compared to Texas blind salamander ( Typhlomolge rathbuni) - endangered G. affinis, G. georgei has fewer spots and dusky (FederalRegisterVol. 32:4001; March 11, 1967) pigmented regions on the caudal fin. The me- dian fins (i.e., unpaired fins: dorsal, caudal, and The recovery priority for all five of these anal fins) of wild-caught specimens of San species is SC. A SC priority indicates species Marcos gambusia tend to be lemon yellow under with a high degree of threat, a low recovery certain behavioral patterns (when they are not potential, and that are or maybe in conflict with under stress). In a dominant or high male, this construction or development projects or other color can approach a bright yellowish-orange, forms of economic activity. especially around the gonopodium. A bluish sheen is evident in more darkly pigmented SAN MARCOS GAMBUSIA individuals, especially nearthe anterior dorsolat- (GAMBUSIA GEORGEJ) eral surfaces ofadult females. Gonopodial structures of males classically have beenemployed in dealing with Gambusia Description sysremarics. G. georgeiis unique morphologically from other species in several characters, including The San Marcos gambusia was described the presence of more than five segments in ray 4a from the upper San Marcos River system in (which are incorporated into the elbow) and also 1969. Of the three species of Gambusia native to by the presence of a compound claw on the end the San Marcos River, G. georgeiapparently of ray 4p (Hubbs and Peden 1969). always has been much less abundant than either the largespring gambusia (G. geiseri) or the Historic and Present Distribution western mosquitofish (G. affinis) (Hubbs and Peden 1969). The San Marcos gambusia is represented in The San Marcos gambusia is a member of collections taken in 1884 by Jordan and Gilbert the family Poeciliidae and belongs to a genus of during their surveys ofTexas stream fishes and in Central American origin having more than 30 species of livebearing freshwater fishes. The genus later collections (as a hybrid) taken in 1925

Part 27 ~uan1NI.ircus ~c Carnal Spriu-~~s & Assccijte.I A~ju.itu.’ E:usvsueuuc~ uxe,i”s’erv

‘fable 3. Historical data for known Gambrisiageorgei collections. Data taken from Edwards et al. F (1980) and unpublished data. Year Number of Number of Number of NumberofG. %ofpuire collections G. georgei hybrids * george: per G. georgei collection 1884 I 2 0 2.0 100.0 1925 1 0 1 0.0 0.0 1955 1 1 0 1.0 100.0 1960 2 9 1 4.5 90.0 1961 3 42 1 14.0 97.7 1968 8 119 6 14.9 95.2 1974 1 1 0 1.0 100.0 1978-79 16 18 3 1.1 85.7 1981-83 10 3 17 0.3 15.0 1984 4 0 0 0.0 0.0 1985 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 1989 3 0 0 0.0 0.0 1990-94 6 0 0 0.0 0.0

* hybrids - G. georgeix G. affinis

(Hubbs and Peden 1969). Unfortunately, records outfall of the San Marcos wasrewater treatment ofexact sampling localities are not available for plant in 1974 (Longley 1975). these earliest collections. Collection localities were Historically, San Marcos gambusia popula- merely listed as “San Marcos Springs.” These tions have been extremely sparse; intensive collections likelywere taken at or near the collections during 1978 and 1979 yielded only headsprings area. If true, then G. georgei appears 18 G. georgei from 20,199 Gambusia total to have significantly altered its distribution over (0.09%) (Edwards et al. 1980). Collections made time. For the area of the San Marcos River in 1981 and 1982 within the range of G. georgei downstream of the headwarers area, there are few indicated a slight decrease in relative abundance records of sampling efforts prior to 1950. How- of this species (0.06% of all Gambusia) and ever, even in the samples that were taken there are subsequent sampling has yielded none between few collections of San Marcos gambusia. 1982 and the present (1995) (Table 3). Intensive During 1953, a single individual was taken searches for G. georgei were conducted in May, below the low dam at Rio Vista Park; however, July, and September of 1990 but were unsuccess- since that time, nearly every specimen of G. ful in locating any pure San Marcos gambusia. georgei has been taken in the vicinity of the The searches consisted of a total of 1 8 hours of Interstate Highway 35 bridge crossing down- effort (>180 people-hours) on three separate days stream to the area surrounding Thompson’s and covered the area from the headwaters at Island (Figure 3). The single exception to this Spring Lake to the San Marcos wastewater was a male taken incidentally with an Ekman outfall. Over 15,450 Gambusia were identified dredge (sediment sampler) about 1 km below the during the searches. Oneindividual collected during the search was visually identified as a

Pact I 28 San Marcos & Comal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery ~ possible backcross of G. affinis and G. georgei clean and clear water: and 6) food supply of (USFWS 1990 permit report). This individual living organisms. r was an immature fish with plain coloration, Critical habitat has been designated for the The pattern of San Marcos gambusia abun- San Marcos gambusia as “Texas, Hays County; dancestrongly suggests a decrease beginning prior San Marcos River from Highway 12 bridge to the mid-1970s. The increase in hybridabun- downstream to approximatel~’ 0.5 miles below dance between G. georgei and G. affinis and the Interstate Highway 35 bridge” (45 FR 47355). decrease in the proportion of genetically pure G. georgei is considered evidence of its rarity. As Life History/Ecology fewer pure individuals encountered each other, the chances of hybridization with the much more Food Habits common G. affinis substantially increased. The subsequent decrease in San Marcos gambusia The food habits of G. georgeiare un- abundance along with their hybrids suggests the known. Presumably, as in other poeciliids, extinction ofthis species. insect larvae and other invertebrates account for most of the diet of this species. Habitat Reproduction The San Marcos gambusia apparently prefers quiet waters adjacent to sections of moving water, There is little information on the repro- but seemingly of greatest importance, thermally ductive capabilities of C. georgei. Two individu- constant waters. G. georgei is found mostlyover als kept in laboratory aquaria produced 12, 30, muddy substrates but generallynor silted habitats, and 60 young, although the largest clutch and shade from over-hanging vegetation or bridge appeared to have been aborted and did not structures is a factor common to all sites along the survive (Edwards et al. 1980). upper San Marcos River where apparently suitable habitats for this speciesoccur (Hubbs and Peden Hybridization 1969, Edwardset al. 1980). Introduced elephant ears have been noted in previously recorded Hybridization between G. georgei and C. localities forthe species. Although the exact affinis was first noted by Hubbs and Peden nature of therelationship between the occurrence (1969) and the production ofhybrid individu- and abundance ofelephant ears and the disappear- als between them has continued for many years ance of G. georgei is unknown, some investigators without obvious introgression of genetic believe these nonnative plants may have modified material into either of the parental species. essential aspects ofthe gambusia’s habitat. Given thehistory of hybridization between Compared to G. georgei, G. affinis tends to these two species, this factor was not thought show similar preferences for shallow, still waters, to be ofprimary importance in considerations but differs strikingly from G. georgei in ability to of the status of C. georgei. It was thought that colonize environmentswith greater temperature so long as the proportion of hybrids remained fluctuation. These environments include the relatively low compared to the abundance of partially isolated sloughs, intermittent creeks, and pure C. georgei, few problems associated with drainage ditches found in the upper San Marcos genetic swamping or introgression would occur River, and in the nearby Blanco River and lower (Hubbs and Peden 1969, Edwards etal. 1980). San Marcos River, as well. However, the series of collections (Edwards, The San Marcos gambusia apparently re- pers. comm.) taken during 198 1-83 indicate quires: 1) thermally constant water; 2) quiet, that hybridindividuals mayhave become many shallow, open water adjacent to sections of times more abundant than the pure C. georgei. moving water; 3) muddy substrates without It is possible that hybrid individuals maynow appreciable quantities of silt; 4) partial shading; 5) be competing with G. georgei, placing an

Parr] 29 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosvsuenss Recovers’ Plan ‘onal stress on the small native population of FOUNTAIN DARTER [ 1jJiti gainbusia. (ETHEOSTOMA FONTICOLA) ~jn Marcos Description Conse1.~~ati Measures Recognition of thefountain darter began with In 1976, prior to listing, the Service con- the inadvertent description of this species as tracted for a status survey to improve our Alvariusfonticola from specimens collected from p~erstandin~ of the species~ particularly its the San Marcos River just below the confluence habitat needs. The Service also promoted of the Blanco River in 1884 (Jordan and Gilbert bringing individuals into captivity for breeding 1886). The authors noted at that time that the ~d study. Many researchers have been involved species was abundant in the river. An additional and have devoted considerable effort to attempts specimen reported from theWashita River to locate and preserve populations. Captive breedingwas attempted. Individuals drainage ofArkansas by Jordan and Gilbert was undoubtedly misidentified (now presumed lost, taken during the 1976 studywere held and bred at the University ofTexas atAustin by Dr. Clark and discussed below under “Historical Distribu- Hubbs in 1979, and fish from that captive non”). Gilbert (1887), in the intended original population were used to establish a captive description, redescribed the species and noted its population at the Service’s Dexter National Fish occurrence only in the San Marcos River System. Hatchery in 1980. Both captive populations later Evermann and Kendall (1894) included an became contaminated with another Gambusia illustration of the species by E. Copeland which species. The fish hybridized and the pure stocks was designated the lecrorype by Jordan and were lost. Evermann (1886). Because the “type” referred to Following publication of the status report and by Jordan and Evermann was a lot containing listing of the species in 1980, the Service con- four specimens, Collette and Knapp (1966) tracted with Dr. Bob Edwards for examination of selected a lecrotype from the U.S. National known localities, and collection of fish to estab- Museum collections of Etheosto~nafonticola lish captive refugia. In 1981, 1982, 1983, and originally referenced by Gilbert (1887). The 1984 Dr. Edwards tried to relocate populations remaining three specimens included in this and reestablish a culture of individuals for captive collection are nowparalectotypes (Burr 1978). refugia. Too few pure San Marcos gambusia and Etheostomafonticola (Figure 4) is the smallest hybrids were found to establish a culture, al- species ofdarter, usually less than 25 mm (I in.) though Dr. Edwards attempted to do so with the standard length (SL), and is mostly reddish few fish available. In the mid 1980s personnel brown in life. The scales on the sides are broadly from the Fish and Wildlife Service National Fish margined behind with dusky pigment. The dorsal Hatchery in San Marcos also searched unsuccess- region is dusted with fine specks and has about fully for the species in attempts to locate indi- eight indistinct dusky cross-blotches. Aseries of viduals to bring into captivity. In 1990 the horizontal stitch-like dark lines occur along the Service organized three intensive searches, con- middle of the sides, forming an interrupted lateral ducted by Service biologists and volunteers, to streak. Three small dark spots are present on the search forthe species again. Unfortunately, none base of the tail and there is a dark spot on the were found. opercle. Dark bars appear in front of, below, and Academic researchers, Texas Parks andWild- behind the eye. The lower half of the spinous life Department scientists, and the Service con- dorsal fin is jet-black; above this appears a broad tinue to search for the gambusia during all red band, and above this band the fin is narrowly collection and research with fishes that is done on edged with black. Male fountain darters differ the San Marcos River. from females in four morphological characters: banding pattern, spinous dorsal fin coloration, genital papillae, and pelvic and anal fin nuptial

Part] 30 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Pia~ Figure 4. Adult fountain darters. Drawing by Alice A. Pricketrt from Bulletin Alabama Museum V Natural History (Burr 1978).

Male 29 mm SL

Female 27 mm SL

Parr i 31 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosvsuern~ Recovers’ I’liu;

record for that locality of the original population~ r tobercles (Jot and Gilbert 1886: Gilbert before its apparent extirpation there and subsequent reintroduction into the Comal system. 18815’ Jordan and Evermann 1896, 1900; Strawn i95 1956;Collette 1965; Schenck and During March 1973 through February 1975. s~4fhiteside 1977b, Burr 1978). Schenck and Whiteside (1976) spent 300 person- ~lthough the fountain darter has been charac- hours sampling the Comal River but collected no terized as the most advanced (specialized) darter, F. fonticola. They proposed three possible reasons the basis for this was an analysis of a very limited why E.fonticola was absent from the Comal ~ibsetof traits, which appear to be highly influ- River. First, the Comal River was treated with enced by environmental factors, such as tempera- i’otenone in December 1951. Many specimens of ture (Bailey and Gosline 1955, Colletre 1962). desirable fishes, including Efonticola, were seined ‘The subgenusMicroperca, to which E.fonricola and held in a protected area until the rorenone ~elOOgs~is still thought to be the most derived dissipated (Ball et al. 1952; C. Hubbs, University (specialized) subgenus ofEtheostoma. The ~volutionaty history of this group is presumed to ofTexas atAustin, pets. comm.). This procedure involve an earlyseparation of the presently reduced the number of F fonticola but apparenrl~’ recognized E. proeliareand E. microperca groups did not cause their immediate elimination since followed by a later isolation of a subset of an F. this specieswas last collected in the Comal River proeliare-like ancestor. This F. proeliare-like in 1954. Second, the most likely cause, Comal ancestorsurvived and became the presently Springs ceased flowing from June until Novem- recognized Efonticola in only the San Marcos ber, 1956, which probably caused drastic tem- andComal Rivers (Bailey and Gosline 1955; perature fluctuations in the remaining pools of Collerte 1962, 1965; Page and Whitr 1972; water. Since Efonticola occupies areas with Collette and Banarescu 1977; Page 1974, 1977; constant water temperature, temperature fluctua- and Burr 1978). tions (broader due to cessation of Comal Springs) may have contributed to the loss of this popula- Historical Distribution tion. Other factors resultant from reduced springflow that may have contributed to the The original range ofEfonticola includes the Comal population loss are: decreased habitat! San Marcos and Comal Rivers in Texas (Jordan water quality and increased predation offountain and Gilbert 1886, Gilbert 1887, Evermann and darters during low flows. Third, but less likely, a Kendall 1894,Jordan and Evermann 1896, flood from Blieders Creek inundated the entire Jurgens 1951, Ball et al. 1952, Hubbs eral. 1953, Comal River in the spring of 1971 and mayhave Hubbs 1954, Kuchne 1955, Strawn 1955, caused their elimination. Hubbs 1957, Hubbs and Strawn 1957b, Schenck Areport of F. fonticola in the Washita River, and Whiteside 1976). In 1884, Jordan and Arkansas, (Jordan and Gilbert 1886) is the only Gilbert (1886) collected the type specimens of E. record of fountain darters outside ofTexas. These fonticola in the San Marcos River from immedi- specimens, now lost from the Smithsonian ately below the confluence of the Blanco River. collections, are presumed to be F. proeliare, which Fountain darters have been found intermittently were misidentified due to the early confusion in between downstream of Cumming’s Dam and the taxonomy and systematics of the subgenus Martindale. Asingle specimen was taken near Microperca to which both F. proeliareand F. Ottine. Evermann and Kendall (1894) collected fonticola belong. 43 specimens of E.fonricola in the Comal River From 1974 until 1981 a stock of E. fonricola in 1891, the first collection record for that taken from the San Marcos River near the IH-35 locality. Jurgens (1951) collected fountain darters crossing was cultured at the Federal facility at below the ice house dam, by the old USO pool, Dexter, New Mexico, to ensure against a cata- and below a cotton gin near the State Hatchery. strophic loss ofthis species. This stock has since Hubbs and Strawn (1957a) collected this species been discontinued; however, a new culture was from the Comal River in 1954, the last collection established at the San Marcos National Fish

Part] 3-) 5Iaa San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Rccos’crs ‘ Hatchery andTechnology Center, now part of the leaf litter in the Comal River (Thomas Brandt, NBS, pets. obs.). r National Biological Service, in 1988. Critical habitat has been designated for the Present Distribution fountain darter as “Texas, Hays County; Spring Lake and its outflow, the San Marcos River, The present distribution ofF. fonticola in the downstream approximately 0.5 miles below Interstate Highway 35 bridge.” A field identifier San Marcos River is from Spring Lake (inclusive) of the downstream boundary is the defunct U.S. to an area between the San Marcos wastewater treatment plant outfall and the confluence with Geological Survey stream gage. the Blanco River (Figure 3), (USFWS 1994 permit report; Casey Berkhouse, NBS, pets. Life History/Ecology comm.). The fountain darter is also found virtually throughout the Comal River to its Food and Feeding Habits confluence with the Guadalupe River (USFWS 1994 permit report). Based on percent frequency of occurrence of B.G. ‘Whiteside andJ.R. Schenck released food items in fountain darter stomachs sampled 457 adult F. fonticola, which were collected from from the San Marcos River, fountain darters the San Marcos River (mostly from below Rio <19.2 mm (0.75 in.) SL feed primarily on Vista Dam), into the Comal system. During copepods; darters between 19.2 and 29.5 mm February 1975 through March 1976 about 400 (0.75-1.15 in.) SL feed mainly on dipteran and fish were released into the headspringsarea of the ephemeropteran larvae, and darters >29.6 mm Comal River, Landa Park, New Braunfels, Texas, (1.15 in.) SLpreferephemeropteran larvae. Food and about 50 fish were released into the old habit studies are currently underway for fountain channel area that flows through the golfcourse. darters in the Comal ecosystem. Schenck andWhiteside (1976) found five off- Food habits of fountain darters in Spring spring a short distance belowthe headsprings area Lake differ from the food habits of darters in the on June 18, 1976. An established reproducing San Marcos River. Casual observations indicate population nowoccupies the entire Comal that the overall invertebrate community in aquatic ecosystem from Landa Lake (inclusive) to Spring Lake is different from the community in the vicinity ofthe Comal/Guadalupe River the river, which could explain the observed confluence (Figure 2). differences in food habits of darters in these two areas on the basis of availability of food items. Habitat Fountain darters feed primarily during daylight and demonstrate selective feeding behav- The fountain darter requires: 1) undisturbed ior. Those held in an aquarium feed on moving stream floor habitats (including runs, riffles, and aquatic invertebrates while disregarding immobile pools), 2) a mix of submergent vegetation (algae, ones, suggesting that these darters respondto mosses, and vascular plants) in part for cover, 3) visual cues. Fountain darter fry raised in captivity appear to prefer cladocerans when offered a choice clear and clean water, 4) a food supply of living organisms, 4) constantwater temperatures within of other microcrustaceans, protozoans, and rotifers. When the fry reach 8 mm (0.3 in.) in the natural and normal river gradients, and 5) most importantly, adequate springflows. length they select copepods. Fry up to 13 mm In general, E.fonticola prefers vegetated (0.5 in.) in length consume organisms from 0.2 stream-floor habitats with a constantwater to 0.4 mm (.008-.016 in.) long. temperature. Higher densities of the fish are found in mats ofthe filamentous green algae Population Estimates (Rhizoclonium sp.) and the moss Riccia. It is occasionally found in areas lacking vegetation. Schenck and Whiteside (1976) estimated the Fountain darters have also been observed among total number ofE. fonticola in the San Marcos

Part I 33 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosx’steisus Rccuus’crs ]u.iu~

assistin maintaining the spawning position giver to be about 103,000. L.A. Linam (1993) the San Marcos River fountain darter within the vegetation (Collette 1965). Sex deter- -estiinate mination ofEfonticola in the wild (325 males ~0pulatioO(excluding Spring Lake) to be 45,900, and 234 females) revealed a sex ratio of 1 .39:1 ~irh aconfidence interval (90%) ranging from - (Schenckand Whiteside 1 977b). 15,900 to 107,700. This could indicate a real Schenck and Whiteside (1 977b) reported that decrease in fountain darter numbers in the San natural populations offountain darters have two Marcos over the past 18 years, or the difference in temporal peaks of ova development~ one in the population estimates mayjust reflect differ- August and the other in late winter to early ences in the methods used to estimate population spring. Therefore, fountain darters apparently size. However, Dr. Bobby Whiteside (Southwest have two major spawning periods annually. The Texas State University, San Marcos, pers. comm.), monthly percentages offemales with ovaries believes that the numbers offountain darters in containing at least one mature ovum also demon- the San Marcos River have decreased over the past strate the two annual spawning peaks. However, 20 years that he has been collecting in this stream (though he has no quantitative data to demon- females containing atleast one mature ovum have strate this). In 1991, Janet Nelson conducted been collected throughout the year, further scuba-aided underwater surveys in Spring Lake suggesting year-round spawning. The ovary and estimated atleast 16,000 fountain darters at weight/body weight relationship and the testis the springs openings and another 15,000 in the width/square root of total length relationship also green algae habitat (Longley 1991). indicate the two peak spawning periods (Schenck G. Linam et al. (1993) sampled 7 transects in and Whiteside 1 977b). Landa Lake and the Comal River in 1990 and Fountain darters have been artificially hybrid- reported a population estimate of about 168,078 ized with a number of other species including: F. darters above Torrey Mill Dam, with a confi- caeruleurn, E. chiorosomurn, F. euzonurn, F. juliae. dence interval (95%) ranging from 114,178- F. lepidum, F. specta bile, Percina caprodes, and P 254,110. sciera. Procedures for artificially stripping eggs and milt of fountain darters and a discussion of the Reproduction artificial hybridization and the resulting low survival of the various hybrid combinations The reproductive activities of fountain appear in Strawn (1956), Hubbs and Strawn darters were first described by Strawn (1955, (1957a,c), Hubbs (1958, 1959), Hubbs and 1956) who noted that F. fonticola are headwarer Laritz (1961), Hubbs (1967), and Distler (1968). darters that breed in the relatively constant Most darters spawn in the spring or early temperature of the San Marcos River. He summer. However, populations of E lepidum and further recorded in his publications that foun- F. spectabile, which live in areas with slight tain darters appear to spawn year-round and annual water temperature variation, extend their that the parents, after depositing eggs in vegeta- breeding periods considerably (up to 10-12 tion, provided no further care to the young. months) (Hubbs and Strawn 1957b, Hubbs et After hatching, the fry were never free swim- al. 1968). The extension of the breeding season ming, in part due to the reduced size of their of E. spectabile throughout the summer is also swim bladders as in other darters. Dowden known for a population inhabiting the (1968) found fountain darter eggs attached to Guadalupe River below Canyon Reservoir where moss and to algae and these eggs hatched in releases from the bottom of the reservoir moder- aerated aquaria. Strawn (1956) also included a ate water temperatures, especially duringsummer photograph of a breeding male in its nuptial months (Marsh 1980). Since E.fonticola also lives coloration in his discussion of the reproduction in a relatively constant temperature environment, of this species. Males develop nuptial tubercles it is not especially surprising to find that this on their pelvic and anal fins (Collette 1965) and species spawns throughout the year as was origi- the sexes differ in this respect. Tubercles on darters nally suggested by Strawn (1956). are thought to stimulate gravid females or to

Parr] 34 San Marcos & Gomal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery p]~ A number of other studies and conservation r The mean diameter of mature ova (1.10 mm efforts are underway or have taken place for this or 0.04 in.) from E. fonticola apparently is not species. Genetic studies of the fountain darter correlated with length of the fish. Based on 74 E. populations in the San Marcos and Comal fonticola that contained mature ova, the mean ecosystems are being done by D.C. Morizot at fecundity was 19, which is less than in other darters. This low fecundity is probably compen- the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. These studies are designed to determine sated for by repeated spawnings of small groups of eggs throughout the year. It is not known the pattern and extent of genetic variation how many ovaare spawned annually by each E within and among fountain darter populations in the Comal and San Marcos ecosystems and the fonticola. Male fountain darters produce little milt experimental fountain and that which is produced tends to be transparent darter stock at the San (Hubbs andStrawn 1957b, Hubbs 1958). Marcos NFH&TC. This research will provide Culture techniques have been developed for valuable information for culture and conservation the fountain darter at the Aquatic Station, of the fountain darter. An interim progress report SWTSU, and the San Marcos NFH&TC. The submitted in May 1993, indicated no evidence of fountain darter will spawn and produce offspring hybridization offountain darters with greenthroat when held at temperatures between 60 and 270 (Etheostoma lepidurn) or orangethroat darters Of 11 polymorphic loci C (42.8-80.6~F). (These offspring were moved (Etheostomaspectabile). examined, no alleles were present in the hatchery to room temperature after being spawned.) If photoperiod is held at 12 light and 12 dark, the strain that were not also present in wild-caught fountain darter will spawn year-round. The darters. However, 46% (19 of4l) of the alleles detected in the total wild-caught darters were not number of eggs produced by a single female per day can vary between 0 and 60. Fountain darters present in the hatcherystrain. It appears that there held at 210C (69.8oF) reached sexual maturity has been some loss of genetic variability in the about 180 days after hatching. Darters as old as hatcherystrain and/or the original collection did 39 months produced viable offspring. The not adequately represent all the variability in the critical thermal maximum for fountain darters wild, producing a founder effect. This is not was 34.80C (94.6~F)(Brandt et al. 1993). particularly surprising as the hatchery strain was established for preliminary studies of a different Conservation Measures nature and not for use as captive stock for reintroduction or restoration work. The hatchery In 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service strain was established with twenty or fewer fish and several cooperators began studies in the that were not intended as a representative Comal Springs ecosystem designed to study sample, and was maintained with uncontrolled habitat use and to model instream flow require- breeding. These results do underscore the need ments for the fountain darter and the Comal for careful management of the genetic character- Springs riffle beetle. Results of this study are not istics of captive populations. Finally, several yet available, but are expected to provide addi- genetic markers were detected in the Comal rional population and density estimates for these population that were not found in the San two species. In 1994, the USFWS and coopera- Marcos population sample. There are several tors initiated a similar study in the San Marcos possible explanations for this result and further system. studies should help to clarify this observation. The U.S. Geological Survey is in the process Apreliminary studyhas been conducted to of collecting water temperature, DO, pH, and determine the toxicity of effluent from the San specific conductivity (an indicator of salinity) data Marcos wastewater treatment plant and the in both Comal and San Marcos aquatic ecosys- herbicide Rodeo® to fountain darters. A statisti- tems. These data will be valuable in modeling cal procedure referred to as the inhibition concen- water temperature atvarious spring and river tration (IC) provides a point estimate of the discharges. toxicant concentration that would cause a given percent reduction in a biological measurement of

Parr I 35 San Marcos & Coma] Springs &Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers’ Plait Plateau. Based on chromosomal studies (karvo- I the test organisms~ including reproduction. types), he included in F. nana populations from ~rowth~fertiliZation~ or inortalit’v~ An IC,~ for the following localities in addition to San groWth would represent the effluent concentra- Marcos Springs: Sabinal River, 8.9 km (5.5 mi) on atwhich a 25 percent reduction in growth north of Vanderpool, Bandera County; Moun- occutS. Results indicate that the IC 25 ofwastewa- tain Home, headwaters of the river feeding into ter plant effluent on growth for fountain darters the fish hatcherv in Mountain Home, Kerr is 19.1 percent effluent (Greg Smith, Great Lakes County; and Kerrville, 8 and 11 km (4.9 and 6.8 Environinental Center, Columbus, Ohio, in litr., miles) west of Highway 16 beside RR 1273, Kerr However, data are available for only one County. effluent sample. Further research on the toxic Sweet (1978) indicated that a population of effects of both pure and complex toxicants on Eurycea inhabiting Comal Springs in New fountain darters and their symbionts is needed. Braunfels is very similar to F. nana and prob- SAN MARCOS SALAMANDER ably conspecific. However, recent biochemical, (EURYCEA NANA) molecular and morphomerric studies (Chippindale et al. 1992, 1993, 1994) indicate that the salamander at Comal Springs is clearly a Description different species than E. nana. The Comal Springs population is currently included in the Taxonomy large, diverse, Eurycea neotenes species group. Work by Chippindale et al. (1992, 1993, The San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana) 1994) also provides evidence that populations is a member of the family Plethodontidae of Eurycea on the Edwards Plateau in locations (lungless salamanders). The various species of other than San Marcos are not F. nana. Their Eurycea are known as brook salamanders. F. work indicates that these other populations are nana is a neotenic form and retains its external geographically and genetically isolated, and gills (the larval condition) throughout life. The represent distinct taxa, probably distinct spe- salamander does not leave the water to meta- cies. F. nana then, is represented only by the morphose into a terrestrial form, but becomes populations in the San Marcos Springs area. sexually mature and breeds in the water. The specific name nana is from the Greek nanos or Morphology Latin nanus, meaning dwarf, referring to the small adult size (up to 59.6 mm [2.32 in.] total Prominent external features of the small, length) of these salamanders (Brown 1967). slender salamander are moderately large eyes with On June 22, 1938, C.E. Mohr collected a a dark ring around the lens, well developed and series of 20 specimens from San Marcos Springs. highly pigmented gills, relatively short, slender The specimens were sent to Sherman C. Bishop limbs with four toes on the forefeet and five on who described E. nana as “a small, slender, the hind feet, and a slender tail with well devel- neotenic species uniformly light brown above with a dorsolateral row of pale spots on either oped dorsal fin (Figure 5). Compared to other neotenic Eurycea from Texas, the San Marcos side of the mid-line; yellowish white below; with salamander is smaller andmore slender, different 16 or 17 costal grooves. F. nana differs from E. in coloration, has larger eyes relative to the size of neotenes, the only other species of the genus from its head, a greater number of costal grooves, and the general locality, in its smaller size, its uni- fewer pterygoid and premaxillary teeth. Detailed formly light brown dorsal coloration relieved morphological descriptions of this species are only by a few small light spots, and in its more found in Bishop (1941, 1943), Baker (1957, slender form and longer, more slender toes (Bishop 1941). 1961), Mitchell and Reddell (1965), Schwetman (1967) andTupa andDavis (1976). Bogart (1967) studied the life histories and chromosomes ofTexas Eurycea on the Edwards

Part I 36 ~,ai Niarcos ~c Carnal S F’ritics =CAssoci.ir,’.l A~ 1.111.’ Lc >5551011 . r’.e.’’X’0IV Figure 5. Drawing of Eiuycea nana ~modifiedfrom Schwetman 1967).

.,• . r

Dorsal View

Lateral View

Part I 37 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers’ Vim j-listorical and Present Distribution springs (Nelson 1993). F. nana is found in the San Marcos River just below Spring lake tot about 150 m (492 feet). On November 24, 1975, a sampling program was started on the largest fissures that constitute San Marcos Springs (Longley 1978), Habitat and the sampling was continued in recent years by Nelson (1993). The sampling involved The San Marcos salamander occurs in Spring placing a 500-micrometer (0.02 in) mesh net over Lake where rocks are associated with spring the outlet from one ofthe major springs in openings, and in rocky areas up to 150 m (492 Spring Lake. This outlet was dubbed “Pipe feet) downstream of the dams at Spring Lake Spring” since it had been diverted via pipe into (Longley 1978,Tupa and Davis 1976, Nelson the show area of Aquarena’s Submarine Theater. 1993) (Figure 3). This outlet is also frequently called Diversion The salamander is also found in shallow Spring. The concrete base over the spring opening spring areas on the uppermost (northernmost) had been undercut by action offloods in recent portion of Spring Lake on a limestone shelf in an years and this allowed material from the lake area immediately in front of Aquarena Springs bottom nearthe spring to be drawn into the Hotel. The substrate in this area is sand and outflow from the spring by aventuri (suction). gravel interspersed with large limestone boulders. Small organisms such as E. nana work their way Concrete banks in front of the hotel and boul- between the rocks surrounding the spring opening ders in shallow (1-2 m or 3.3-6.6 feet) water until theyare caught in the flow from the spring support a lush growth of an attached aquatic and then carried into the net along with subterra- moss (Leptodictyium riparium). Interspersed with nean organisms. In Longley’s (1978) study, E. the moss and blanketing the shallow sandy nana were found in most samples. All age classes substrate are thick filamenrous mats of a coarse, were common, but juveniles were most often filamentous blue-green alga (Lyngbya sp.), the collected. dark reddish-brown color of which almost Other studies used the above technique to perfectly matches the dark dorsal coloration of sample Diversion Spring and other techniques to the San Marcos salamander. sample spring outlets throughout Spring Lake Spirogyra sp. and a few other larger filamen- (Tupa and Davis 1976, Nelson 1993). E. nana tous green algae species, as well as the carnivo- was found in most samples taken from “Deep rous angiosperm known as bladderwort (Utricu- Spring” in Spring Lake. Tupa and Davis (1976) lana gibba), are present in small amounts in the found E. nana in the dense mats of filamentous aquatic moss. A wide variety of rooted aquatic alga (Lyngbya sp.) along the shallow area adjacent macrophytes occur on the periphery of the to the northern bank of Spring Lake, especially salamander habitat at 1-3 m depths. The macro- in the uppermost region of the lake in front of phytes include arrowhead (Sagittariaplatyphylla), the Aquarena Springs Hotel. Nelson (1993) parrot’s feather (Myriophyllum brasiliense), water found the salamanders distributed throughout primrose (Ludwigia repens), and wild celery Spring Lake among the rocks near spring open- (Vallisnenia americana). In deeper water, Carolina ings, in the algal mats where Tupa and Davis fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana), Hydrilla found salamanders, and in the rocky areas just (Hydnilla verticillata), and elodea (Egenia densa) downstream from the dams. UnlikeTupa and become the dominant macrophytes of the mud Davis (1976), Nelson (1993) used SCUBA to and detritus-laden benthic region. observe salamanders in Spring Lake, which may The salamanders are abundant within the explain the different distributions seen in these wiry mesh of the aquatic moss and the filamen- studies. tous mats of Lyngbya sp. in the shallow headwa- The combined results of these three studies ters area. Sandy substrates devoid of vegetation show that E. nana occurs near all the major and muddy silt or detritus-laden substrates with spring openings scattered throughout Spring or without vegetation are apparently unsuitable Lake and is quite abundant at some of these habitats for E. nana. Specimens occasionally are Part 38 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recast 1.5. collected from beneath stones in predominantly Life History/Ecology r sand and gravel areas. In view of the abundance of predators (primarily largerfish, but also crayfish, turtles, and aquatic birds) in the immediate Food Habits vicinity of the springs, protective cover such as that afforded by the moss and cvanophycean Salamanders in laboratory aquaria feed on bacteria (=blue-green algae) is essential to the amphipods and young brine shrimp. Stomach survival ofthe salamander. This vegetation also content analyses of 80 preserved specimens supports a plentiful food supply for the sala- revealed the salamander’s diet in its natural habitat mander. included amphipods and rendipedid (midge fly) Flowing water is apparently a prerequisite for larvae and pupae; other small insect pupae and suitable E. nana habitat, as no specimens were naiads and small aquaticsnails were found in found in still water areas of the lake or river. The lesser numbers. Small amounts of Lyngbya sp. and flowing spring waters in the principal habitat are grains ofsand occasionallywere present. appar- slightly alkaline (pH 7.2), stenothermal (narrow ently as incidental items ingested along with range of temperatures) at 21-220C (69.8-71.6~F), principal food items. Feeding behavior observed and clear. Around springs, the oxygen content of in the laboratorv indicated that the salamanders the water is about 4 mg/L or greater (about 40-50 did not actively pursue their prey. Salamanders percent saturatedwith oxygen). Methylorange remained stationary until the prey items were near alkalinity in the area where E. nana occurs (due their head, then abruptly snapped forward while entirely to bicarbonates) measured 220-232 mg/L opening their mouths to engulf food items. This and the specific conductance measured 510-535 information suggests they respond either to visual micromhos/cm in the habitat (Tupa and Davis or vibrational cues from living prey. 1976). In preliminary observations in captivity, Reproductive Characteristics: Male E nana these salamanders appear to become stressed at reach sexual maturity (possess at least one full temperatures above 30CC (86SF). Oxygen con- darkly-pigmented lobe in each testis) after sumption by F. nana was greatest at water attaining a snout-vent length of 19 mm (0.741 temperatures of 25oC (77SF) as compared with 20 in.) or35 mm (1.37 in.) total length. AJI males or 300C (68 or 860F)(Norris et al. 1963). Critical with snout-vent40-45mmlengths greater(1.56-1.76thanin.)23.5totalmm thermal maximum (CTM) investigations by length(0.92 in.)wereormature, possessing darkly-pigmented Berkhouse and Fries (1995) determined that testes with one to three lobes (Tupa and Davis juveniles had a lower CTM, 35.8oC (96.40F) than 1976). In an investigation by Mackay (1952), adults (37.20C or 99~F). sperm were found in the testes of all mature In summary, the San Marcossalamander males collected from October to May and in the apparently requires: (1) thermally constant Wolffian ducts of certain males from October to waters; (2) flowing water; (3) clean and clear June (except for January and March). This study water; (4) sand, gravel, and rock substrates with did not include the months ofJuly and August. little mud or detritus; (5) vegetation for cover; Mackay found large numbers of spermatozoa in and (6) an adequate food supply. the Wolffian ducts in November; ducts were in a Critical habitat has been designated for the distended condition in June, leading her to San Marcos salamander as: “Texas, Hays County; postulate a breeding season in June and possibly Spring Lake and its outflow, the San Marcos another in the fall. River, downstream approximately 50 m (164 Salamanders had the following four classes of feet) from the Spring Lake Dam. ova in the oviducts: very small clear ova, small opaque-white ova, small yellow ova, and large yellow ova. Females carrying large yellow ova (1.5-2.0 mm [0.06-0.08 in.] diameter) were considered gravid andpresumably ready for oviposition. Large yellow ova were present in

Part I 39 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems RecoveryP]an

the year with a possible peak about May and June. r jenlalesmales(0.78~irhwithin.)snoutventaorsnout-vent35mmlengths(1.37lengthin.)greater=26totalmmthanlength).(1.0120.0 Population Estimates

ifl) carried 1 to 19 large yellow ova. Large yellow QV’I were present in some females in nearly every Tupa and Davis (1976) estimated the number month of the year (Tupa and Davis 1976). of F. nana in the floating algal mats at the Courtship and egg deposition byE. nana has uppermost portion of Spring Lake to be between 0~t reported~ and no eggs have been col- about 17,000 and 21,000 individuals. Nelson lected from the habitat. However, courtship, (1993) followed the same procedure used by 0~~position~ andhatching have been observed for Tupa and Davis (1976) and estimated that the the closely related Comal Springs salamander. mats were inhabited by about 23,000 sala- Eggs ofthis species were deposited singly on plant manders. Nelson (1993) also searched rocky inarerial~ stones, and the bottom of a glass bowl substrates around the spring openings throughout about 24 hours after courtship. Eggs hatched 18- Spring Lake and estimated an additional 25,000 23 days later (Bogart 1967, Schleser et al. 1994). E. nana in this type ofhabitat. She also estimated Jordan et al. (1992) were successful in inducing the population below Spring Lake associated with the Comal Springs salamander to spawn, but rocky substrates to be about 5,200 individuals. hatching did not occur. The Comal Springs salamander has reproduced successfullyseveral These estimates give a combined population total for Spring Lake of 53,200. Nelson’s population rime in artificial spring upwellings atthe Dallas Aquarium (Schleser et al. 1994). Most, if not all, estimates of the rocky substrate habitat are Eurycea breed in running water of brooks, caves, believed to be low (Nelson 1993 and Longley, in or springs. In most cases, adherent eggs are litt., 1994), since salamanders are known to deposited singly on the bottom and sides of wriggle down into interstitial spaces in the habitat. stones, or on aquatic vegetation. Captive salamanders from Comal springs are A total of seven small juveniles ofE. nana found as far as four feet down in simulated spring still possessing yolk on the venter were collected habitats (Longley, in lit., 1994). in February, May, and June 1968. Juveniles of less than 12 mm (0.47 in.) total length were Other Known Biological Aspects collected from February through October (Tupa and Davis 1976). Bogart (1967) found very The San Marcos salamander is capable of small F. nana in September, December, March, altering its dorsal coloration from light tan to April, and June, but noted they were most dark brown in accord with the lightness or common in the late spring and early summer. He darkness of the substrate. This color change is postulated that the salamander breeds most of accomplished by migration of pigment in the year with a peak in late spring. melanophores, giving them these structures the The structure of the F. nana population is appearance of expanding or shrinking remarkably uniform throughout the year. In all (Schwetman 1967). seasons juvenile specimens (snout-vent lengths The salamander’s external gills expand and usually less than 15 mm [0.54in.]) of undeter- appear bright red from increased blood flow in mined sex represented about 45 percent of the cool water of low oxygen content. The bushy total population. Larger juveniles (about 15-20 red gills are prominent on individuals when mm [0.59-0.78 in.] snout-vent length) of unde- collected from the springs, but they show marked rermined sex represented about 30-40 percent of reduction, almost to the point of apparent the population. Mature males (snout-vent lengths resorption when specimens are kept in well- 19 mm [0.74 in.] andgreater) represented about oxygenated aquaria (Tupa and Davis 1976). 10-15 percent andgravid females (snout-vent lengths 20 mm [0.78 in.] and greater) about 4 percent of the total (Tupa and Davis 1976). Most evidence suggests reproduction occurs throughout

Parr] 40 San Marcos & Coma] Springs &Associared Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers’ i’lat~ Associated Species Comal salamander. Efforts to induce propagation at the San Marcos NFH&TC, which also housed Fountain darters occupy some of the same F. nana in simulated spring environments, were habitats as E. nana (Tupa and Davis 1976), and unsuccessful (Brandtet al. 1993). display many of the same feeding and protective TEXAS WILD-RICE concealment habits of the salamander. Unlike other fishes in the area but like the salamanders, (ZIZANIA TEXANA) fountain darters are found within the aquatic moss growths and Lyngbya mats, as well as beneath and alongside stones. Like the fountain Description darters, the salamanders in the lake habitat eat amphipods (Tupa and Davis 1976). Taxonomy Associated with the salamander and fountain darter in the moss and algal vegetation are crayfish Texas wild-rice was first collected by G.C. Neally in August 1892 and was originally identi- of varying sizes, two species ofsmall freshwater fled as Z shrimp (Palaemonetesspp.), many rendipedid aquatica (U.S. National Herbarium larvae, a variety of other insect larvae, avery large sheet 979361). The next collection was by Ena A. number (particularly in the moss) of amphipods Allen on July 10, 1921 (U.S. National Her- barium sheet 1611456). This sheet was labelled as (Hyale/la azteca), water mites, and many small Z. texana, aquatic snails. Leeches (Placobdelia sp. and others) apparently by A.S. Hitchcock, some time after its collection. WA. Silveus, an attorney and planarians (Dugesia sp.) are also numerous, especially in samples taken over rocky substrates and amateur botanist from San Antonio, first (Tupa and Davis 1976). recognized Texas wild-rice as a distinct species. Most larger associated species are predators The type collection (W.A. Silveus 518, both the holotype and isotype are housed at the U.S. and occur in the vicinity of the salamander habitat. These include several species of sunfishes National Herbarium) was probably made on (family Centrarchidae) and cichlids (family April 3, 1932. Silveus sent the specimen along with a letter to Agnes Chase of the U.S. National Cichlidae), which feed on insect larvae, amphipods, terrestrial isopods, aquatic snails, freshwa- Herbarium on April 4, 1932. The plant was ter shrimp, fountain darters, and San Marcos formally described and named as Z. texana by salamanders. Turtles such as Texas river cooters Hitchcock (1933). All specimens were collected (Pseudemys texana) and stinkpots (Sternotherus from the San Marcos River. (The above information was taken from Terrell eta1. 1978). odoratus) occasionally are present in the salamander habitat as are yellow bullheads (Ameiurus In a monographic work on the genus Zizania, natalis) and largemouth bass (Micropterus Dore (1969) labelledZ. texana a “dubious salmoides) (Tupa and Davis 1976). Nonnative species.” Dore felt that Texas wild-rice was most blue catfish have been introduced into Spring closely related to Z aquatica var. aquatica. He Lake and may prey on Eurycea. The exotic blue attributed the “perennial” nature of Texas wild- tilapia are a common part of the Spring Lake and rice to the “constant year-round temperature of San Marcos fish fauna as well. Blue tilapia are the artesian waters in which it grows,” and the omnivorous and may prey on Eurycea. prostrate habit was due to the force of the current. Dore felt that the distinction of Z texana Conservation Measures from Z aquatica would require careful field appraisal. Experiments are underway at the Dallas Dore also noted that collectors might mistake Aquarium to develop captive breeding techniques Zizaniopsis miliacea for Zizania texana, as Dore was sent rhizomes of the former when requesting for F. nana in the event that the natural population at San Marcos Springs is lost, using tech- material of the latter (Terrell eta1. 1978). How- ever, these two genera are different in several niques patterned after those used for breeding the reproductive and vegetative characters and are

Parr I 41 San Marcos& Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems RecoveryPlass

wild-rice nearlythe entire spikelet is filled by the ~aslly~j I 5tinguishable.The most diagnostic of caryopses at maturity (Terrell er al. 1978). these characters is that Ziz.aniopsismiliacea does Morphology: Texas wild-rice is an aquatic, 0ot male and female flowers on separate monoecious, perennial grass. The plant is gener- branches11asetdoesal. (1978)Zizaniaexaminedtexana (Figurethe three6). ally 1-2 m (3.3-6.6 ft.) long (up to 4 m or 13 ft.) Terre Mlerican raxa ofZizania, including cultivating and usually immersed and prostrate in the swift- jiein in common garden conditions (cultivation flowing water of the San Marcos River. In slow water the inflorescence, as well as the upper culms 5ide~byside to be certain differencesare intrinsic and leaves, becomes emergent. The culms are long and not environmentally induced). They con- decumbent, stoloniferous, and root only at the cluded that Z texana was a distinct species based lower nodes. The leaves are linear, elongate, green, on several characters. In addition, neither of the other North American taxa occur near Texas 12-110cm (4.7-43.3 in.) long, and 5-25 mm wild~rice, so there is little or no chance for (0.2 - 1.0 in.) wide. The inflorescence is a narrow panicle, 16-3 1 cm (6.3 - 12.2 in.) long, and 1-10 confusion. Northern wild-rice (Z.paluszris) appears several hundred miles to the north and cm (0.4 - 3.9 in.) wide. Flowering occurs prima- northeast (Missouri, Kansas, and Arkansas). The rily in the spring and fall although it may occur nearest populations ofsouthern wild-rice are in throughout the year in warm weather. The Louisiana, some 400 miles to the east. spreadingstaminate branches occur belowthe Southern wild-rice is a much more robust appressed pistillate branches. Spikelets consist of plant than Texas wild-rice, attaining heights up a single naked floret and lack glumes. The stami- to 4 m (13 ft.) and having only its lower culms nate spikelets are 6-11 mm (0.24 - 0.43 in.) long, immersed in water; the rest of the plant is erect 1.2-2 mm (.05 - .08 in.) wide, with white stamens, and emergent. In addition, the leaves of southern and hang down whenmature. The pisrillate wild-rice are 3-5 times as broad as those ofTexas spikelers are 8-12mm (0.32-0.4 in.) long, 1.2-

wild-rice. In southern wild-rice the upper 1.8 mm (0.05 - .07 in.) wide, erect, and awn- inflorescence branches are long and widely ripped. The awns are scabrouswith scattered spreading, while those ofTexas wild-rice are prickle hairs, and 10-35mm (0.39- 1.38 in.) shorter, more erect, and appressed. Southern long. The seeds (as obtained from cultivation) are wild-rice has lemmas and paleas that are thin and cylindrical, 4.3-7.6mm (0.17-0.30 in.) long, 1- papery while those ofTexas wild-rice are some- 1.5 mm (0.04 -0.06 inch) wide, 1/2 to 3/4 as what leathery (Terrell et al. 1978). long as the lemma and palea, and black, brown, or Northern wild-rice is somewhat smaller in greenish. The chromosomenumber is n= 15. stature and more closely resembles Texas wild- (Compiled from Silveus 1933, Hitchcock 1950, rice. Distinguishing characters are that the Correll and Correll 1975, andTerrell et al. 1978). spikelet is generally longer [up to 20 mm (0.8 in.) long in northern wild-rice, while Texas wild- Past and Present Distribution rice seldom exceeds 12.5 mm (0.5 inch)], the paleas and lemmas of northern wild-rice are When first described in 1933, Texas wild-rice distinctly leathery, and the lemmas of northern was abundant in the San Marcos River, including wild-rice have prickle hairs in lines rather than Spring Lake and its irrigationwaterways (Terrell randomly scattered as in Texas wild-rice (Terrell et al. 1978). By 1967 Emery found only one et al. 1978). The northern wild-rice plants are plant in Spring Lake, none in the uppermost 0.8 generallymore emergent thanTexas wild-rice km (0.5 mile) of the San Marcos River, only under typical growing conditions, though in scattered plants in the lower 2.4 km (1.5 miles), some conditions Texas wild-rice will become and none belowthis (Emery 1967).2Beary(2,580(1975)ft2). more emergent. However,reported athecoveragesurveyofmethodologyabout 240 mBeaty used is The mature caryopses (seeds) ofTexas wild- rice are only 50-70% as long as the lemma and not known. In 1976 Emery again checked the palea, whereas in both northern and southern abundance (Emery 1977). He found no plants in

42 Parr] San Marcus & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plan Figure 6. Texas wild-rice. Inflorescence and male and female florets. Drawing courtesy ofTexas Parks and Wildlife Department.

/ ‘6

Parr 43 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecos~’stems Recovers’ [‘Ian 5pring Lake. Using a floating frame one square forms extensive stands in some swift areas of the river today. The consequences of this to Texas meter to measure the area ofvegetative domi- nance, he calculated 1,131 m2 (12,161 fr2) of wild-rice are unknown, but it is possible that Texas wild-rice in the San Marcos River, primarily hydrilla is competing with Texas wild-rice or concentrated in the extreme upper and lower altering its essential habitat. segments of the area known as the upper San Experimental studies (Vaughan 1986) showed Marcos River. that Texas wild-rice grew poorly in Spring Lake at Subsequent data were gathered by Vaughan water depths greater than 2 m (6.6 ft) due to (1986) for several years using Emerys measuring decreased light intensity and shading from other technique. The overall areal coverage in 1986 aquatic vegetation. Rose and Power (1992) noted was 454 m2 (4881 ft2), less than half Emery’s robust growth at 1.6 m (5.25 ft.) in experimental 1976 iigure. reintroduction work. In Vaughan’s experiments, The Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmenthas plants did not survive in moist or alternating wet! monitored area coveragesince June 1989 (Table dryexperimental conditions, only in constantly 4), and coverage has rangedfrom 1,005.4 m2 inundated conditions. Plants grown in an artificia] (10,823 ft 2 (17, 142 ftD(average raceway environment (Vaughan 1986) produced 2) to 1,592.4 m 1,374.3 m2 or 14,794 ft2) (1989-1994). Emery’s seed at water depths ranging from 20-60 cm (7.9 methodology was employed for the first few - 23.6 inches). Other species ofwild-rice require plants very shallow water for germination (Vaughan 5 but was abandoned due to technical 1986). difficulties. Length andwidth was measured on the Power (1990) found that under experimental remaining plants, and percent coveragewas conditions Texas wild-rice seeds germinated estimated within the resulting rectangle. Areal more readily under low oxygen conditions and cover was equal to L x W x % cover. Texas Parks and Wildlife studies have estab- that buried seeds (buried in either clay or sand) germinated more readily than seeds at the lished that the current distribution of wild rice substrate/water interface. Rose and Power (1993, extends from the uppermost part ofthe San Marcos River just below Spring Lake dam 1992) collected seeds from Texas wild-rice in (where neither Emery nor Vaughan had reported culture and conducted experiments on seed Texas wild-rice) and throughout the critical storage and germination. Their studies indicated habitat down to an area slightly below the that fewer seeds germinate as storage time wastewater treatment plant, except for the river increases and, of seeds that germinate, fewer portion between the Rio Vista railroad bridge have successful seedling development (Rose and and the dam above Cheatham Street (Figure 3). Power 1993 and in litt.). Critical habitat has been designated for Texas Habitat wild-rice as “Texas, Hays County; Spring Lake and its outflow, the San Marcos River, downstream to its confluence with the Blanco River.” The plants form large clumps rooted in the limestone sand and gravel river bottom, which overlays Crawford black silt and clay (Vaughan Life History/Ecology 1986). According to Silveus (1933), Texas wild- rice occurred in Spring Lake and its irrigation Associated Species waterways. Silveus also noted that although he expected originally to find the species growing In the upper portion of the San Marcos River, along the margins of the stream, he found the Texas wild-rice occurs with pondweed plants occurring in the swiftly flowing currents (Potarnogeton illinoensis), wild celery (Vallisneria some distance from the bank (after Terrell et al. americana), arrowhead (Sagittariaplatyphylla), 1978), similar to current conditions. While hydrilla (Hydrillaverticillata), hornwort exotic elephant ears occupy river margins rather (Ceratophyllumdemersum) , elodea (Egeria densa), than the regions with swift current, hydrilla and water primrose (Ludwigia repens) (Terrell et (which has also been introduced in recent times) al. 1978, Vaughan 1986). In the lower portion of

Part I 44 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & AssociatedAquatic Ecosystems Recovers’Plan the river, Texas wild-rice is most often found in Conservation and Research Efforts isolated clumps (Terrell et al. 1978, Vaughan 1986). Elephant ears (Colocasia esculenta) (el- Texas wild-rice has been cultivated numerous ephant ear) has invaded the riveredge, and is times with varying results. Terrell etal. (1978) narrowing the river and crowding the other took three small clumps ofTexas wild-rice to aquatic species in many places. Common tree Beltsville, Maryland, in September 1973. The species that shade the river, include sycamore plants were grown in tap water and kept at a

(Platanusoccidentalis) , pecan (Carya iiinoensis), constant temperature of about 23oC (73.4oF). Populus deltoia’es (cottonwood), sugar hackberry Only one of the plants survived. This individual (Celtis laevigata), baldcypress (Taxodium produced about 80 seeds. The plant later died distichum), blackwillow (Salix nigra), American from two-spotted mites. Some of the seeds elm ( Ulmusamericana), Chinese tallowtree germinated, but none grew more than a few (Sapium seb~frrum), and live oak (Quercus centimeters before dying, including ones grown in fiis~formis) (Vaughan 1986). Whether or not San Marcos River water. survival of Texas wild-rice is influenced by the Emery moved four clones of Texas wild-rice degree of shading by the tree canopy is un- from the San Marcos River to the constant known. temperature~ spring-fed raceways at Southwest Texas State University (Terrell et al. 1978). The Reproduction plants became emergent and produced over 1,500 seeds during the summer of 1975. After Texas wild-rice produces new plants either via being kept in 30C (37.4~F) spring water for 105 seeds or stolons. When reproducing sexually the days to break dormancy, the seeds were germi- long rigid decumbant culm (which can reach nated in petri dishes filled with tap water. Seven to 10 days after germination, seedlings were lengths of 3.6 - 4 m (12 feet) or more) bends upward at its nodes, emerges above the current, transplanted to pots containing river gravel, and and produces a 3.2 to 4.7 cm (8 to 12 inch) immersed beneath a few centimeters of water. By August 1976 about 500 clumps of Texas wild- flowering panicle (Beaty 1975). Asexual reproduction occurs where shoots arise at the ends of rice had been produced (Emery 1977 and in stolons. While asexual reproduction has been litt., Terrell et al. 1978). Vaughan (1986) grew Texas wild-rice in the noted and some plants have produced culms for inflorescences, plants have not successfullybeen raceways at Southwest Texas State University as producing (or setting) seed in theSan Marcos well as at various depths in Spring Lake and in River (J. Poole, Texas Parks and Wildlife and P. various soil types and water regimes in fish- Power, Southwest Texas State University, pets. culture ponds at the San Marcos NFH&TC. comm.). Emery and Guy (1979) studied repro- Growth rate was higher in the raceways than in the San Marcos River itself, possibly due to duction in Texas wild-riceand reported the species is predominantlyoutbreeding and wind-polli- increased light and temperature. Plants grown at nated. They found no indication of apomixis different depths in Spring Lake showed the effects (selfing) or any reproductive anomaly. Pollen and of irradiance and depth. Low growth rates oc- megaspore development as well as pollination and curred at the greatest depths (more than 120 cm earlyembryo development appear normal. Pollen (47 inches)). Soil type (either Crawford silt clay fertility is good (8 1.6%), and they concluded the from the banks of the river or Quaternary lime- failure of wild-rice to produce seed in the wild is stone sediment from the river bottom) had no probably not due to any genetic, cytological, or significant effect on growth rate or survivorship. embryological problems, but rather to some However, moisture regime led to dramatic results. extrinsic factor or factors. Plants grown in race- Mortalitywas 100% in both the dry (an intermit- ways at SouthwestTexas State University’s tently wetterrestrial site) and the moist (a con- Aquatic Station successfully bloom and set seed, stantly moist but not inundated site)regime. Plants and seed have been observed to drop in place and grown in 20 cm (7.9 inches) of water or more subsequently germinate (P. Power, pets. comm.).

Parr] 45 ______San Marcos & Coma] Springs &Associated AquaticEcosystems Recovery Plan to other changes occurring in or influencing the were significantly larger than those grown in 20 river. cin (7.9 inches) or less. Thus both water depth II Another joint section 6 study funded by the and amount of light appear significant in the Service andTexas Parks and Wildlife is also growth ofTexas wild-rice. Efforts made to grow Texas wild-rice outside nearing completion. This study examined habitat parameters in the wild for areas where Texas wild- the San Marcos River have been unsuccessful. Current Service policy would not support rice is growing and contrasted them with condi- introduction of listed species outside their tions in other areas where Texas wild-rice is historic range. However, before Texas wild-rice absent. was listed Beaty (1976) attempted to grow plants Herbivory has been noted incidentally by in Salado Creek in Bell County. The plants several workers. Beaty (1976) and Poole (pers. established and produced inflorescences, but comm.) have observed nutria eating plants of local recreational activities plus periodic removal Texas wild-rice, and Rose and Power (1992, ofaquatic vegetation from the stream, destroyed 1993) have observed waterfowl feeding on the all plants. Emery transplanted more than 100 plants. More recently Power has begun quantita- clones ofTexas wild-rice into various central uve monitoring of herbivory on leaves of rein- Texas sites, including the Comal River in New troduced plants. Braunfels. However, flooding washed the plants The potential impacts ofrecrearionists, away before they could become established, and a particularly tubers and swimmers, has been a planting in Spring Lakewas eaten by nutria concern. The Service has recently funded (Beary 1976, Emery 1977 in lie?4. research to examine the frequency and magnitude Rose and Power (1992, 1993) transplanted of impacts from recreational users of the San young Texas wild-rice plants raised from seed Marcos River on Texas wild-rice. into Spring Lake. One hundred and eighty-three young plants raised in raceways were planted in TEXAS BLIND SALAMANDER Spring Lake near the dam (about 3m [8.4 frI (TYPHL OMOLGE RATHBUNJ) deep) in December 1992, and March and July 1993. Five hundred transplants were planted on the northwest side of the lake in 1994. Although Description both reintroduction sites showed a slight increase TheTexas blind salamander was first de- in stem density during 1994, they later showed a decline. The reintroduction may be jeopardized scribed by Srejneger (1896), after the typespeci- by competition with other aquatic vegetation men No. 22686, USNM (U.S. National Mu- and shading by cut vegetation floating down- seum). The type specimens of theTexas blind stream (Rose and Power 1993). Monitoring has salamander were collected in 1895 at the Federal nor been conducted for a long enough period to Fish Hatchery in San Marcos, Texas, where they ascertain trends or predict long-term success. were expelled from an artesian well drilled to Texas Parks andWildlife Department and the supply water to the hatchery (Longley 1978). Service (through the section 6 program) initiated Since that time there has been some disagreement a study in June 1989 to determine areal coverage amongexperts about whether the speciesbelongs in the genus Typh/omo/ge or Eurycea. Wake (1966 of Texas wild-rice on a yearly basis and to mom- tot the plants on a monthly basis to detect major after Chippindale et al. 1993) and Potter and Sweet (1981) have supported recognition of changes in coverage. Monthlyobservations are no longer taken, butTexas Parks and Wildlife has ]3iphlomolge, while Mitchell andReddell (1965) continued annual measurements ofthe areal have supported inclusion within Eu?ycea. extent ofstands (Texas Parks andWildlife Depart- Chippindale et al. (1994), based on studies using morphometric, biochemical, and molecular ment, in Iitt. 1994, see Table 4). Fluctuations in areal coverage ofindividual stands andwithin techniques have concluded that thespecies is individual river segments have been noted and properly includedwithin the genus Eu?ycea, but need to be carefully analyzed to tie such variations have not yet formally published their treatment.

Part I 46 Table 4. Areal coverage (in2) of Texas wild-rice from 1 976 to 1 994 (Vaughan 1 986, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 1992, and Jackie Poole, TP\X’D, in lirt.)

Segment* 1976 1978 1983 1984 1985 1986 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 A 0 0 0 0 0 (1 23.1 77.46 63.39 34.24 38.67 35.31 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 83.48 162.43 237.81 184.7 267.37 455.71 C (one) 554 463.5 251 228 217 209 324.64 477.96 392.02 449.22 540.70 442.64 D(two) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E (three) 55 26 29 27 19 19 81.34 72.4 109.81 71.88 76.68 67.84 F (four) 164 no data 119 83 1(13 92.5 276.57 241.9 271.42 357.88 429.45 270.50 G (five) 68 33 37 8 8 7.5 18.58 18.83 12.88 12.65 20.25 16.91 H (six) 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.4 11.81 8.66 10.15 1.32 4.46 X(seven) 0 0 0 (I 0 0 1.04 0 0 0 0 0 I (eight) 9 no data 4 3 4.5 4 12.87 5.56 1.4 0.21 (1.32 (1.17 J (nine) 49 no data 46 48 68 55 91.08 120.48 117.01 117.7 96.56 76.23 K (ten) 233.5 no data 55 15 69.5 67 77.87 191.07 171.52 122.16 120.58 129.54 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.84 0.43 0.29 0.33 (1.52 1.52 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.53 (1 0 0 0 0 Total 1132.5 Incomplete 541 412 489 454 1005.36 1380.31 1406.21 1361.12 1592.42 150(1.83

* Segments refer to particular sections of the San Marcos River. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (1992) used letters. Vaughan used numbers.

Following are descriptions of the segments: Icehouse dam to University Drive (Icehouse dam Spring Lake dam)

University Drive to Hopkins Road railroad bridge (Hopkins Road RR bridge = MOPAC RR bridge) Hopkins Road railroad bridge to Rio Vista railroad bridge (Rio Vista RR bridge = MKT RR bridge)

Rio Vista railroad bridge to dam above Cheatum St. (= Cheatham) (Dam above Cheatum St. Rio Vista dam) Dam above Cheatum Street to low point on south side of Clover’s Island Low Point on south side of Clover’s Island to just above South 1-35 access road Just above South 1-35 access road to Thompson Island Dam (Thompson Island dam = Thornton dam) Thompson Island Dam to east-west channel through Thompson Island Hays County Road to mill (east channel) (Hays Co. Road = Capes Road) East-west channel through Thompson Island to Hays County Road 1= Hays County Road to just below east and west channels’ confluence Just below east and west channels’ confluence to high tension wire High tension wire to sewage treatment plant outfall Sewage outfall to Blanco River confluence San Marcos & Coma] Springs &Associated Aquaric Ecosystems Recovers- Z’l)ts constant 210C (69.8oF) temperature ofsubrerra- ~ongley (1978) prepared a report that sum- nean waters in the Edwards Aquifer, T rarhbunz is believed to be adapted to this temperature regime d the availablelowinginformationinformationononthisthisspecies.species and may be sensitive to changes in water tempera- 0f the fol tures. However, additional research is necessary to cornes from that report. determine critical temperature minima and The Texas blind salamander is asmooth, maxima for different life stages of this species ~~0pigmented~(ap~j~swhite) troglobitic (cave— (Longley 1978). adapted) species, maximum total length 0oted during Longley’s (1978) studywas 12 cm (4.7 in.). The head is large and broad; eyes are Life History/Ecology reduced (visible as two small dark spots deep beneath the skin); limbs are slender and long; four Little is known of the life history of T toes occur on the fore legs; and five toes occur on rathbuni since its subterranean existence makes it the hind legs. The species does not have reliable difficult to study in its natural environment. external characters that can be used to determine sex. Food Habits

Historical and Present Distribution Observations on captive individuals indicate that T rathbunifeed indiscriminantly on small All collections or sightings ofthe Texas blind aquatic organisms and do not appear to exhibit an salamander occur in Hays County, Texas (Figure appreciable degree of food selectivity. Young T 7). Typhlomolge rathbuniwas first collected from rathbuni feed well on copepods. Larger sala- the artesian well at the Federal Fish Hatchery in manders are documented to eat amphipods, blind

1895. Since then, the species has been found at shrimp (Palaemonetes antrorum) , daphnia, small several other locations including Ezell’s Cave, San snails, and other invertebrates. Cannibalism has Marcos Springs, Rattlesnake Cave, Primer’s also been documented (Longley, in litt., 1994). Fissure, Southwest Texas State University’s artesian well, and Frank Johnson’s well (Russell Reproductive Characteristics 1976, Longley 1978). The species was previously known to occur in Wonder Cave but searches in Due to the presence ofjuveniles throughout 1977 did not locate any specimens (Longley the year, T rathbuniappears to be sexually active 1978). The total distribution2 (25.9 miof2)thisin aspeciesportionmayof all year, which is expectedsince there is little thebe asEdwardssmall asAquifer10 km beneath and nearthe city of seasonal change in the aquifer (Longley 1978). San Marcos. Gravid females have been observed each month of the year (BE. Potter, pets. comm., in USFWS Habitat 1980). Onegravid female contained 39 eggs (Longley 1978). There appears to be a correlation Typhiomo/ge rathbuniis an obligate troglobitic between size (age class), number oftesticular species that occupies the subterranean waters of lobes, and number of times sperm has been the Edwards Aquifer in Hays County, Texas. It is produced (Longley 1978). neotenic (non-transforming) and aquatic through- 75~phIomoIge rathbuni reproduced for the first out its life and lives in water-filled, cavernous time in captivity at the Cincinnati Zoo (Maruska areasin the San Marcos area of the Edwards 1982). Three different spawning events occurred Aquifer. Observations in caves with access to the between December 1979 andJanuary 1980. water table indicate that this salamander moves Clutch size ranged from 8 to 21 eggs per spawn- through the aquifer by traveling along submerged ing. The eggs were unpigmented andwere at- ledges and mayswim short distances before tached to pieces of gravel singly or in clusters of 2 spreading its legs and settling to the bottom of or 3 eggs. Light intensity did not appear to affect the pool (Longley 1978). Due to the relatively embryonic development. However, relatively

Parr] 48 San Marcos & Coma] springs & Associated A~ssatic Ecoss’stems Recover Plan Figure 7. Collections and sighting location of theTexas blind salamander.

I. Rattlesnake Cave

Marco! Southwest Texas State a Univ. Artesian Well I N

Frank Johnson’s Well Ezell’s • Cave

arcos

Willow Springs Creek

Part I 49 San Marcos & Coma] Springs &Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers Plan Conservation Measures constantwater temperature similar to that within the aquifer (21oC [69.80F]) is necessary for normal egg development. The NatureConservancy (TNC) purchased The Dallas Aquarium has also induced T Ezell’s Cave in 1967. In 1972, Ezell’s Cave was rathbunitO breed in captivity (David Schleser, designated as a National Natural Landmark by pallas Aquarium, pers. comm., 1994). Two the National Park Service. individuals were apparently engaged in courtship Personnel at the Cincinnati Zoo and the behavior on May 11,1994, and repeated this Dallas Aquarium have successfully propagated activity on May 15. The first clutch of 13 eggs T rathhuni in captivity. The Dallas Aquarium is was deposited singly on the limestone rocks in developing a captive breeding program for this the aquarium on May 2 1-22. The eggs hatched species. Phorodocumentation ofembryologic and within 12 to 16 days of oviposition, and the larval development will provide information on larvae began feeding within 1 month after the reproductive ecology of the Texas blind hatching. Successful reproduction continues to salamander (Schleser, in litt. 1994). The Service occur atthe Dallas Aquarium. has also recently providedfunding for the San Marcos NFH&TC to collect T rathbuni for distribution to one or two additional facilities to increase thechances for successful captive propa- garion.

Parr] 50 SanMarcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovtryp~ E. RECOVERY STRATEGY

To conserve these species and meet the ation ofvarious human needs (social and eco- r objectives of this recovery plan, consistent with nomic) while implementing recovery of federally the purposes of the Endangered SpeciesAct, the listed plant and animal species that depend on the ecosystems upon which these species depend must EdwardsAquifer and associated aquatic systems. be conserved. These ecosystems include the During the interimperiod while long-term Edwards Aquifer andthe systems associated with water management plans are being developed and Comal and SanMarcos Springs (including spring put in place, it may be possible to grant one or runs, lakes, and rivers). One of the most serious more incidental take permits for levels of take threats to the continued existence ofthese species that do not jeopardize the species or preclude and their ecosystems is decreased water levels in recovery actions. Such a permit can be granted the Edwards Aquifer and loss ofadequate spring- under section 10(a)(1)(b) of the ESA. One flows required to maintain aquatic habitat in the component needed to qualify for such a permit is Comal and SanMarcos Springs and associated an adequate Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). riverine systems. Current water withdrawals are Short-term measures developed by the above mostly unregulated and based on right of capture. planning activities mayform a basis for develop- To recover the five species covered by this plan, a ing an incidental take permit application. mechanism for maintaining existing aquatic The Service should provide guidance and habitats must be in place. In 1993, theTexas support for the planning and permitting process. legislature passed S.B. 1477 creating an Edwards Guidance on the permitting process, logistics, Aquifer Authority to regulate groundwater documentation and responsibilities should be withdrawal. The legislationwas challenged due to given as well as encouraging applicants to initiate Voting Rights Act concerns, which were resolved informal discussions with the Service at an early by the legislature in 1995 with amendments stage. The Service should provide early assistance (H.B. 3189). The legislation has subsequently no answer questions and provide direction about been challenged by the Medina and Uvalde elements needed for a successful application, as County Underground Water District, and was well as strategies and approaches that may be ruled unconstitutional. The state plans an appeal, available. and it is likely that litigation will continue. The In addition the Service needs to develop, Authority’s ability to regulate will depend on through an interdisciplinary approach, refine- resolution ofthese concerns. ments of springflow levels previously provided In addition, to conserve these species and their and guidance on reductions in groundwater use habitat, aquifer levels and springflows must be and aquifer levels that are needed to support the maintained. A variety of tools for achieving species and their habitat. reduced groundwater withdrawal from the aquifer Judging from recent events in the courts it are available. Some possibilities include conserva- appears possible that a state or local agency with non and reuse; creation ofa water marketing the authority to regulate groundwater use may system; development of alternative sources of not be established in a timely manner. In the water for human use; and modification ofdeliv- event that an adequate regional management plan erymechanisms or water use practices. The overall is not developed and implemented, the Service environmental impacts of all of these alternatives should assist in developing a conservation strategy should be considered. Because there are a signifi- for Federal agency conservation actions to main- cant number ofusers dependent on the aquifer tain flows from Comal and San Marcos Springs and aquifer waters that flow downstream, cre- that promotes recovery of the five listed species anon of this plan should involve representation covered by this recoveryplan. from multiple user groups (including Federal and In addition to addressing the major threat of non-Federal entities) to assure equitable consider- loss ofwater quantity to threatened and endan-

Parr I 51 San Marcos & Coma] Springs &Associated Aquatic Ecosysrema RecoveryPJan tool to provide additional assurance that the ger~.ed species~adequateconsiderationwater quality.needsPotentialto be givenandto species will be conserved for the long-term. Genetically representative captive populations ~~j5tingsources ofwater quality impacts to the should be establishedand carefully maintained F aquifer and the Coma1 and San Marcos systems 50 need to be identified and addressed, including that suitable stocks are available for reintroduc such things as point and non-point source pollution or supplementation purposes ifneeded tion; activities in the contributing and recharge Captive populations alone do not constitute zones; potential movement of the bad-water line; recovery nor meet the purpose ofthe Endangered and use ofpesticides, herbicides, and other Species Act “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon whichendangered species and In addition no addressing the broad, regional threatened species depend may be conserved.” and their ecosystems, threats facing these species Therefore, their use should be considered a the recovery strategy also needs to address the precautionary measure, for dire circumstances inore local andsite-specific threats. These threats only, and the primaryfocus should be placed on include such things as presence of nonnative conservation ofthese species’ ecosystems. species~ impacts from recreation, and local Until captive propagation programs are in sources of water quality impacts and habitat place, an up-to-date contingency plan should be alterations (for example, leaking tanks and septic in place that outlines a strategy for bringing systems~ siltation from local construction site representative samples ofeach listed species into runoff). A number of tasks to address these captivity temporarily in the event of a dire threats have been outlined in this recovery plan, reduction in springflows. among them are development of local spring and Conservation of these species and their river management plans, control and/or removal ecosystems will necessitate support and partici- of select nonnanive organisms, and work with pation of a wide variety of people and organiza- local landowners and users. Work with local tions, with varying levels ofknowledge and landowners should include efforts to address site- backgrounds. Therefore, public information and specific threats as well as to enhance and/or maintain habitat for the species. For example, in education is an important component of this the case of the San Marcos salamander, maintain- recovery strategy. ing natural algal and plant communities in Spring Additional research is needed in some areas, Lake and adjacent portions of the San Marcos particularly regarding the species’ specific habitat requirements, assessing threats andhow to address River is important. them, and captive breeding and reintroduction Because of their limited range and the potential for catastrophic events (such as oil or hazard- techniques. ous material spills, severe droughts) or other These species’ populations, habitats, and uncontrollable factors these species will continue threats should also be monitored to assess popula- to be at risk of extinction. Therefore, though the tion trends and assure that no significant decline main strategy of this plan is to reduce that risk in their status occurs. Monitoring is also needed and conserve the species in their native ecosys- to protect thespecies from an irreversible decline tems, this plan includes captive propagation as a and to provide information for periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of recovery actions.

52 PART II

RECOVERY San Marcos & Coma] springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery P]an A. OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA

The objective of this Recovery Plan is to drought of record, at a level that will sustain these species. secure the survival ofthese endangered or threat- 2. Captive, breeding populations for each ened speciesin their native ecosystems. Mainte- species are maintained in such a way nance ofwater levels in the EdwardsAquifer and that genetic floWS that maintain the San Marcos and Comal integrity of each species is insured and there is River ecosystems is vital to the survival ofthese suitable stock for species. Protection of these ecosystems will also reintroductions or supplementarions should a catastrophe eliminate or aid in conservation of numerous candidate species. drastically reduce numbers in their Local threats to each of the species, as well as native ecosystem, and reintroduction broader, regional threats to the ecosystems techniques that are likely to be success- continued integrity, are addressed in this plan. ful have been developed. only by addressing both types of threats and directing conservation activities toward remedy- 3. Local threats have been successfully ing both can the goals of this plan be attained. removed or minimized (e.g., impacts Recovery criteria foreach species follow. from nonnative species, recreation, habitat alteration, or local water quality prob- RECOVERY CRITERIA lems).

San Marcos Salamander, 4. Healthy, self-sustaining populations of each species are established throughout their historic ranges, and these popula- San Marcos Gambusia tions are being maintained. ‘Whether this Because of the limited distribution of the San has been attained should be evaluated Marcos salamander and the San Marcos gambu- based on the criteria that follow for each sia, and the potential for a catastrophic event that species: could eliminate these species. the potential for full recovery leading to downlisring or delisting of San Marcos Salamander these species is low. Elements that threaten the continued survival of these two species must be Estimated conditions indicating healthy, self- controlled before downlisting or delisting these sustaining populations of the San Marcos sala- species could occur. However, much can be done mander were obtained from Tupa and Davis to increase the chances of long-term survival of (1976) and Nelson (1993). the San Marcos salamander and the San Marcos gambusia (if the latter species still exists). The • Sampling should occur at least once a objective of this plan for these two species is the year following the methodology used by continued existence of healthy. self-sustaining Nelson (1993), in the appropriate populations of these species in their native ecosys- substrates. tems. Criteria for whether this objective is being obtained are whether the following conditions • The following minimum density have been achieved: estimates of salamanders in the rock substrate at Diversion and Deep springs 1. Adequate flows and water quality are and algal mats at the upper end of assured to continue from the San Spring Lake in front of the hotel should Marcos Springs and downstream be observed. through the San Marcos River, even in a

1’.irt II 53 San Marcos & Carnal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recove~ p~ 1. Adequate flows and water quality are in algal mats: 116/rn2 (1249 Cr2) assured to continue from the San in Diversion Spring: 25/rn2 (269 Ct2) Marcos and Comal Springs downstrean-~ in Deep Spring: 8/rn2 (86 Ct2) through their respective rivers and chan nels, even in a drought ofrecord, at a level • Juvenile (<20 mm snout-vent length) that will sustain the species. salamanders should make up at least 75 I percent of the total salamander 2. Captive, breeding populations of both population. the Comal and San Marcos populations are being maintained in such a way that • Suitable rocky substrates (sand and genetic integrity of each species is gravel interspersed with large limestone assured and there are suitable stocks fo~ boulders and devoid of muddy or reintroducrions or supplernentations detritus-laden substrates) should occur should a catastrophe eliminate or at the sampling sites with the minimum drastically reduce numbers in their areal coverage listed below. native ecosystems.

algal mats: 317 m2 (3408 if) 3. All measures identified in this plan to Diversion Spring: 14 in2 (151 if) remove or minimize “local” threats have Deep Spring: 19 rn2 (206 if) been successfully implemented (e.g., impacts from nonnative species, recre- San Marcos Gambusia ation, habitat alteration, or local water quality problems). Estimated conditions indicating healthy, self- sustaining populations of San Marcos gambusia 4. Healthy, self-sustaining populations of are listed below. both populations exist throughout their historic ranges in both the Cornal and • A ratio of pure San Marcos gambusia to San Marcos systems and are being hybrids of 10:1 or fewer hybrids (that is maintained. Whether this has been 10% or fewer hybrids). attained should be evaluated based on the criteria that follow: • If the species can be found, additional indicators for criterion #4 (such as • Monitoring of fountain darters status of habitat and population num- and submergent vegetation in bers and distribution) will be deter- both the San Marcos and Comal mined. systems should be conducted annually to verif~,’ acceptable populations are being main- RECOVERY CRITERIA tamed.

Fountain Darter • Methods used to sample fountain darters should be similar to Because of the limited distribution of this those used by the USFWS in species the potential for full recovery and their Comal and San Marcos delisting is low. The fountain darter will be habitat and flow requirements considered for downlisting, from endangered to study, i.e., use of drop nets and threatened, when the following conditions have underwater observation. been achieved: • Fountain darternumbers and densities by microhabitat type

Part II 54 San Marcos & CarnalSprings &Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plan should occur in densitiessimilar and there is suitable stock for reintroduc- to or greater than that described tions orsupplementations should a by the USFWS in the Comal catastrophe eliminate or drasticallyreduce in 1993 and in the San Marcos in numbers in their native ecosystem, and 1994 (work in progress: Habitat reintroduction techniques that are likely and Flow Requirements Study for to be successful have been developed. the Comal and San Marcos Systems. USFWS Austin Eco- 3. All measures identified in this plan to remove or minimize local threats have logical Services Office). been successfully implemented (e.g. Areal coverage of submergent impacts from nonnative species, recre- vegetation by species (including ation, habitat alteration, and local water filamentous algae, mosses, and quality problems). higher plants) should be 4. Healthy, self-sustaining, and reproductive monitored annually (in July or populations are established throughout August) and should not be the historic range, and these populations significantly different from the are being maintained. Whether this has submergent plant community been attainedshould be evaluated based described in 1993 and 1994 as on the criteria that follow: characterized in studies conducted by the USFWS, TPWD, Wild-rice plants should be and cooperators. present with at least the following areal coverage and The estimated date for attaining the downlist- distribution: ing criteria of the fountain darter is 2025. This estimate is based on a review of the recovery tasks Spring Lake: 150Gm2 (16,148 ft2) needed and a reasonable time period in which tasks could be achieved. This estimate assumes Segment A: 1400 m2 (15,071 fj2) support will be availableto accomplish all tasks in B: 500Gm2 (53,825 fr2) a timely manner. C: 100Gm2 (10,765 ft2) lOOm2 RECOVERY CRITERIA (1,077 ft2) 500n9 (5,383 ft2) Texas Wild-rice F: 90Gm2 (9,689 fr2) 10Gm2 (1,077 fr2) Because of the limited distribution of this 50 m2 (538 fr2) species the potential for full recovery and 3Gm2 (323 ft2) delisting is low. The Texas wild-rice will be H: I: 5Gm2 (538 ft2) considered for downlisting, from endangered to 400 m2 (4,306 ft2) threatened, when the following conditions have 700 m2 (7,536 ft2) been achieved: lOOm2 (1,077 ft2) 10Gm2 (1,077 ft2) 1. Adequate flows and water quality are assured from the San Marcos Springs 11,930 m2 (128,426 ft2) and downstream through the San Total: Marcos River, even in a drought of Segments are delineated in record, at a level that will sustain the Table 4. These figures are calcu- species. lated to achieve an average cover 2. Captive, reproducing populations are of 75% of the potential wild-rice being maintained in such a way that habitat believed to be present in genetic integrity ofthe species is secured Part II 55 0•~

San Marcus & Comal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery p~ each segment. This percent cover RECOVERY CRITERIA is typical of that found in healthx~ vigorous stands of rice monitored Texas Blind Salamander over the last several years. Flowering, fruiting with Because ofthe limited distribution of the production of viable seed, and Texas blind salamander, the potential for full seed germination in stands, with recovery and delisting is low. However, much establishment of vigorous can be done to increase the chances of long-term juvenile plants should be docu- survival of this species. The Texas blind sala- mented to occur in at least 5 mander will be considered for downlisting, from percent of the stands each year endangered to threatened, when the following for a 5-year period. conditions have been achieved: These criteria provide some degree of assurance that plants 1. Adequate water levels in the aquifer are are successfully completing their assured to continue natural springflows, natural life cycle and opportu- even in a drought of record. nity for cross pollination exists. However, these criteria cannot 2. Adequate water quality in the aquifer is ensure that juvenile plants are assured to sustain this species. actually maturing and reproducing successfully. Neither would 3. Captive breeding populations of this these criteria detect such prob- species are maintained in such a way lems as late onset of juvenile that genetic integrity of the species is mortality or sterility. To docu- secured and there are suitable stocks for ment survivorship and viability reintroductions or supplementations of plants germinated from seed, should a catastrophe eliminate or it would be necessary to track drastically reduce numbers in their individual seedlings to verify native ecosystem, and reintroduction that wild seedlings produce techniques that are likely to be success- viable seed. However, tech- ful have been developed. niques for this sort of detailed tracking of individuals of wild- 4. All measures identified in this plan to rice within stands have not yet remove or minimize local threats have been developed. If such tech- been taken (e.g., localized water with- niques can be developed in the drawals, destruction or pollution of course of monitoring research, local recharge features and caves, local documentation that plants pollution sources, etc). derived from seed are surviving and reproductively successful 5. Healthy, self-sustaining populations of should be added to the this species exist throughout the species’ downlisting criteria. historic range and are being maintained, as indicated by the following measures: The estimated date for attaining the downlisting criteria of Texas wild-rice is 2025. • Sampling should occur at least This estimate is based on a review of the once a year and include the use recoverytasks needed and a reasonable time of collection nets over the spring ~din which theycould be achieved. outlets (see Nelson 1993) and baits (organicmatter such as

56 San Marcos & comal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plan potato peels) to attract amphi- taken in the cave and artesian well pods and T rathbuni in the caves. locations and at least 90% of the population sampled at the spring • T rathbuni should be present locations. These estimates are during the course of search based on data obtained by efforts lasting three weeks each at Longley (1978) and are believed three or more of the following to be representative of healthy, five locations: Ezell’s Cave, self-sustaining populations. Rattlesnake Cave, San Marcos Springs, Primer’s Fissure, and the Reclassification criteria are preliminary and artesian well on SWTSV campus. may be revised on the basis of new information. At least one of the three locations Adequate flows for all species covered in this where T rathbuni is found should plan will be considered to be those given in Table be at one of the two cave loca- 2 that avoid “take” of the listed animals and tions. “damage and destruction” of the Texas wild-rice, unless a permit has been issued for some inciden- • Salamanders less than 3 cm (0.09 tal take. However, in no case should flows that in.) total length should make up would jeopardize any of the listed species or at least 50% of the total sala- adversely modifycritical habitat be considered mander population from samples adequate. Numbers in Table 2 may be modified by the Service based on new information.

Part If 57 San Marcos & Carnal Springs & AssociatedAquatic Ecosystems Recovery Pian B. STEP-DOWN OUTLINE OF RECOVERY ACTIONS

The following outline lays out a plan for 1.23 Compile information on the obtaining the objectives ofthis recovery plan. characteristics of the Comal More detail on specific tasks is given in Section watershed C. Though the Service is responsible for develop- 1.24 Compile data pertaining to ing this recovery plan, it cannot be implemented pesticide and herbicide use in in its entiretywithout assistance from other the San Marcos and Comal stakeholders. Responsible parties to assist in watersheds, including drain- implementing the tasks in this plan have been age into caves containing the identified in the implementation schedule (Part Texas blind salamander III). This plan does not commit any“responsible 1.25 Identify and determine effects parry” to carry out a particular recovery taskor of pollutants from point expend funds. Likewise, the implementation source discharges and other schedule does not preclude or limit others from discharges on listed species participating in the recovery of the species covered and their habitats in this plan. 1.26 Assess water quality in the San Marcos aquaticecosystem and 1.0 Specific research and information needs determine possible sources of negative impacts 1.1 Identifyindividual and population 1.27 Assess water quality in the needs and habitat requirements Comal aquatic ecosystem and determine possible sources of 1.11 Determine food habits negative impacts 1.12 Identify diseases andparasites 1.28 Assess adequacy of existing 1.13 Determine reproductive aquifer water quality protec- parameters tion provisions 1.14 Determine survivorship 129 Determine negative impacts patterns by nonnative species and 1.15 Identifyhabitat characteristics develop control mechanisms and requirements (including where necessary flow, temperature, and channel conformation require- 1.3 Determine aquifer characteristics and ments, and other parameters) recharge patterns and zones that 1.16 Conduct searches to locate influence flow from San Marcos and San Marcos gambusia Comal Springs lA Develop captive breeding and reintro- 12 Determine the nature and extent of duction techniques for all species local threats

1.21 Determine impacts from 2.0 Manage, maintain, and enhance the species’ tourism enterprises and recre- populations and habitats throughout their ational use of the springs, lakes, presentand historic ranges and rivers upon the listed species 2.1 Working with affected stakeholders, 1.22 Compile information on the implement an Aquifer Management characteristics of the San Plan to ensure sufficient habitat Marcos watershed (aquifer levels and springflows) are

Part II 58 San Marcos & Carnal Springs &AssociatedAquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plats provided to recover the five listed 2.5 Implement measures necessan? to species. protect water quality in the aquifer 2.6 Encourage management of spring, lake, r 2.11 Working with stakeholders, river, and cave habitats by private develop and promote a individuals and others comprehensive short and 2.7 Establish and maintain captive stocks long-term regional plan for at appropriate facilities aquifer management that 2.8 Reduce pollution loadings to San considers all users Marcos and Comal aquatic habitats 2.12 Provide Service guidance and and caves with Texas blind salamanders support for the regional 2.9 Restore damaged habitats and enhance aquifer management planning marginal habitats effort 2.10 Control and/or remove select nonna- nyc organisms from the San Marcos 2.2 Encourage Federal agencies to under- and Comal aquatic ecosystems take or actively promote conservation activities under section 7(a)(1) of the 2.11 Maintain andimplement acontingency ESA plan to bring species into captive 2.3 Develop a Federal agency conservation refugia ifan emergency exists strategy in the event that task2.11 is not implemented or is ineffective in 2.12 Provide regulatory protection ensuring necessary springflows

2.31 Continue to support proactive 3.0 Monitor populations, habitats, and threats Federal agency conservation actions 3.1 Monitor populations and habitars 2.32 Continue to support private 3.2 Monitor threats proactive conservation actions 2.33 Aggressively pursue Federal 4.0 Public information andeducation agency compliance with obligations for informal and 4.1 Produce educational materials and formal consultations under inform a variety of audiences section 7(a)(2) of the Act 4.2 Encourage public participation in 2.34 Examine the potential effec- conservation efforts tiveness of State and Federal legal action, and prepare to initiate such action ifan emergency appears imminent

2.4 Develop and implement local spring and river management plans

2.41 Develop and implement Management Plan(s) for the San Marcos system 2.42 Develop and implement Management Plan(s) for the Comal system

Part II 59 San Marcos & Comal Springs &Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery pj~,, C. NARRATIVE OUTLINE FOR RECOVERY ACTIONS

1.0 Specific researchand information needs. will be needed. Impacts and control mechanisms need to be determined in advance of outbreaks so Additional information and data are needed that corrective management strategies may be to assist in completing certain recovery actions. implemented ifa debilitating parasite infestation or an uncontrolled disease outbreak occurs. 1.1 Identifrindividual and population Conditions that may foster stress and disease needs and habitat requirements. outbreaks should also be described so that such conditionscan be avoided. The biological~ physical, and chemical attributes affecting and influencing the survival of the 1.13 Determine reproductive param- five protected species covered by this plan are not eters well understood, although efforts toward a greater understanding of these parameters are a major A study of the reproductive cycles and thrust of previous, on-going, andplanned re- patterns for the species should be accomplished search. A great deal of progress has been made in to better understand the natural fecundities of several of these task areas, and several additional the species and factors influencing the number studies are currently underway. These are dis- of offspring each species can produce. From cussed in detail under the General Conservation this information it may be possible to optimize Measures section and under each species account’s conditions, thereby improving natural reproduc- Conservation Measures section. tive rates of these listed species. This information will also be helpful in evaluating recovery criteria 1.11 Determine food habits and recovery status ofpopulations. Work currently underway examining reproduction is The food habits of the fountain darter and discussed under individual species accounts. the San Marcos salamander have been examined, and the food habits of the Texas blind 1.14 Determine survivorship salamander have been observed in captivity. patterns However, the foods taken by the San Marcos gambusia have not been determined. An examina- The factors influencing the survivorship of tion ofthe food requirements of these species each of the protected species are inadequately should be made. This research should describe understood. Information concerning the distribution of preferred and highly desirable survivorship is needed, as is information on food items on a seasonal basis. The availability optimal conditions for enhancing survivorship of food items or nutrients also should be quanti- of these species. Studies should include analyses fied seasonally. This information will be helpful of factors potentially limiting survival, such as when managing the species and/or the ecosys- predation, competition, and water quality. The tems. role of predators on the survival of the protected species has not been studied in detail, 1.12 Identifydiseases and parasites although fountain darters have been found in stomach contents oflargemouth bass (Micropterus Little information on diseases and parasites of saimaides) taken during winter months. Addi- the five listed species is available. The effects of tional information that may be useful for foun- these on population survival could be adverse. tain darters includes the density andtypes of Populations should be periodically surveyed for vegetation needed for (1) survival of darters from the incidence of disease and parasites. If signifi- various types of predators and (2) prey base for cant, or potentially significant, additional work darters. For Texas wild-rice these studies should

Part ii 60 San Marcos & Comal Springs & Associard Aquatic Eco~vsrcttts Rccovcrv PI.IT~

1.21 Determine impacts from evaluate the fate of seeds produced and the alsO 0~seeds in contributing to reproductive tourism enterprises and 1role recreational use of the springs. IadUltS in the system. These studies will provide lakes and rivers upon the .frlflation needed formanaging the species and listed species restoration and reintroduction work. As our of the species biologyand the Use of the San Marcos River by swimmers, virOfl”~’~ variables that influence survivor- tubers, canoeists, and others is significant and is ship improve, tools such as population viability believed to impact listed species directly and analYSiS (PVA) mayprovide useful insight needed indirectly. Tourism enterprises max’ have irn- for ~~nagement andplanning purposes. pacts from activities related to their operations. 1.15 Identify habitat characteristics Recreation has increased dramatically over the and requirements (including years (Bradsby, 1994). The Comal River is also flow, temperature, and chan- heavily used for recreation. The extent of the nel conformation require- effects of these uses on the San Marcos and ments, and other parameters) Comal aquatic ecosystems is unknown. How- ever, it is believed that at least part of the repro- Although general characteristics of the habi- ductive difficulties of the Texas wild-rice stems tats used by these species are known, more directlyfrom human use of the San Marcos Rivcr specific information is needed. Studies should be for recreational activities as emerging seed heads conducted to determine the specific aspects ofthe are knocked over or damaged by recreationists. environmental parameters influencing the survival Recreational impacts on the protected species of these species to best manage these populations. (either directly or through adverse impacts to their Studies ofthe relationship between instream habitats) in the San Marcos andComal aquatic features andspecies habitatare ongoing and are ecosystems should be determined and potential detailed under the General Conservation Mea- means to avoid adverse effects developed. This sures section. information should be useful in developing management plans under task2.4 and in working with 1.16 Conduct searches to locate landowners and users as part of task 2.6. Work San Marcos gambusia underway examining these impacts is detailed under individual species accounts. Individuals of this species must be located before some other tasks can begin. San Marcos 1.22 Compile information on the gambusia have not been located in the San characteristics of the San Marcos River for over 10 years. However, a new Marcos watershed approach is proposed conducting directed habitat manipulation/restoration (as advocated Even though the San Marcos ecosystem is under task 2.9) in areas where the species was principally a springrun, runofffrom the sur- formerly found. By recreating what are believed rounding watershed strongly influences the to be optimum conditions it is hoped that any water quality and biota of the river. Conse- existing individuals may be attracted and quently, knowledge of the characteristics of the concentrated, to increase chances for detection watershed is necessary for its management. A and survival. description of the watershed should include the size, topography, slope, runoff patterns, soil types 1.2 Determine the nature and extent of and characteristics, land use patterns and acreages, local threats and climatic characteristics.

Attempts should be made to identify the source and extent of local threats, so that significant threats can be addressed.

u (1 N,

San Marcus & Comai 5prings & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plai 1 1.23 Compile information on the rice has not been found recently below the characteristics of the Comal outfall. The city of San Marcos is considering r watershed expanding the wastewater treatment plant from the current flow of6.25 MGD to 9 or 10 MCD. A description ofthe Comal watershed, similar Needed research is underway to determinesome to that called for in task 1.22 forthe San Marcos, of the effects ofthe sewage effluent. Other is also needed. discharges also occur into the San Marcos and Comal ecosystems and these should be evaluated 1.24 Compile data pertaining to fortheir impacts on the species and their habitats. pesticide and herbicide use on For example. the A.E. Wood State Fish Hatchery the San Marcos and Comal is currentlyexamining the potential impacts of watersheds, including drain- their operation to listed species in the San age into caves containing the Marcos. Texas blind salamander 1.26 Assess water quality in the Pesticides, herbicides, and other chemical San Marcos aquatic ecosystem compounds could negatively impact the San and determine possible sources Marcos and Comal aquaticecosystems’ biota in of negative impacts degrees of severityrangingfrom subtle to catastrophic. Information should be compiled Key components of water quality should be pertaining to chemical related fish or plant kills. sampled at points throughout the San Marcos The use and potential impacts of agricultural aquatic ecosystem. Information compiled as and non-agricultural herbicides and pesticides in part of task 1.22 should assist in determining the upper San Marcos and Comal watersheds sampling points. Sampling should also be should be evaluated, including attention to designed to determinethe source of any signifi- inage that may impact caves with the Texas cant negative impacts. find salamander. 1.27 Assess water quality in the 1.25 Identify and determine effects Comal aquatic ecosystem and of pollutants from point determine possible sources of source discharges and other negative impacts discharges on listed species and their habitats A study similar to that called for in task 1.26 for the San Marcos ecosystem should also Point source discharges include wastewater be conducted in the Comal ecosystem. Informa- and stormwater outfalls, commercial discharges, tion from task 1.23 should be useful in deter- parking lot drainage discharges, detention pond mining sampling points. discharges. seepage discharging from dumps, etc. Discharges into the Comal and San Marcos 1.28 Assess adequacy of existing River systems may introduce pollutants that are aquifer water quality protec- harmful to listed species, and may cause tion provisions changes in the physical characteristics of depth, flow, and sediments that may directly or indi- A review of all aquifer water quality protec- rectly alter habitat. For example, records show tion provisions and an evaluation of their the historic range of both the fountain darter adequacy should be conducted. An evaluation and Texas wild-rice extends below the outfall of of possible sources of catastrophic contamina- San Marcos wastewater treatment plant. tion should also be conducted. This analysis .ough it is unclear howthey were distributed in should identify all potential sources possible, this area or howabundant they may have been in the likelihood ofthe catastrophe. the extent of the past, today fish are not abundant and wild- ecosystem damage likely to occur (such as Part II 62 San Marcos & Coma] Sprinci & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Reces’erv Plan

Because the San Marcos and Comal aquatic it would hit - at the spring openings. ecosystems are tied intimarelx’ to the flow of the dOwnstream etc.). Provisions for protecting San Marcos and Comal Springs, respectivelx~ against both catastrophic and chronic water q’tialitY problems should be included. Recom- and the springs to the Edwards Balcones Fault mendations should be made for any shortcomings Zone aquifer, additional information detailing the hydrologic characteristics and trends of the aquifer f0und. preliminary work done examining this the General Conservation is essential. Numerous agencies. including the issue is noted under U.S. Geological Survey, Edwards Underground Measures section. Water District, Edwards Aquifer Research and 1.29 Determine negative impacts Data Center, Texas Natural Resource Conserva- by nonnative species and tion Commission. Texas Water Development develop control mechanisms Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of where necessary Reclamation, Natural Resource Conservation Service, andvarious other organizations and Arelatively large number and variery of groups, have conducted and are continuing to nonnative species have been introduced into conduct investigations into the functioning ofthe the San Marcos and Comal aquaticecosystems. aquifer andits watershed, as noted in the Intro- Some of these introduced species are affecting duction. Additional information on the function- listed species; however, the level and signifi- ing of the aquifer in the San Marcos and Comal cance of these interactions are unknown in regions and specifically studies that deal with many cases. Some nonnative species may be those factors that can influence the flow from the competitors or predators or otherwise nega- San Marcos and Comal Springs are needed to tively impact the listed species through habitat evaluateany ofthe flow-related recoveryactions. modification or other influences. It is important This information should also be helpful in to understand the effect these nonnative plants evaluating the potential for contamination of the and animals are having on the protected species springs. so that necessary remedial actions can be determined and implemented. In addition, 1.4 Develop captive breeding and reintro- information that may be useful in developing duction techniques for all species control strategies needs to be obtained. Some life history information on nonnatives, espe- Captive breeding and reintroduction tech- cially those parameters such as critical life niques have been developed for the fountain stages, overlap in habitat use, foods, and other darter. In addition, captive breeding of various factors that may affect the survival and recov- gambusia species has been successfully under- ery of listed species will need to be collected. taken; however, no additional work on the San Attention should be given to those nonnarive Marcos gambusia will be possible until the species most likely to be impacting listed species is found (see task 1.16). No one has species, such as the giant ramshorn snail, been successful at captively breeding the San elephant ears, tilapia, and nutria. Emphasis Marcos salamander. Texas blind salamanders should be placed on developing control tech- breed in captivity readily, though the young are niques for those nonnative species that pose a very fragile and require a good deal of attention significant threat. Work currently underway (Srreett Coale, Dallas Aquarium and Ed examining impacts of nnonnativespecies is Maruska, Cincinnati Zoo, pers. comm., 1995). discussed in the General Conservation Mea- Additional research is underway for both of sures section. these species. Research developing methods for seed storage (short and long-term) is a high 1.3 Determine aquifer characteristics and priority for Texas wild-rice as aquatic species recharge patterns and zones that are known to have special needs for tempera- influence flow from San Marcos and ture, moisture, oxygenation, etc. These techniques Comal Springs need to be worked out as soon as possible given

Part ii 63 p San Marcos & Comal Springs &AssociaredAquatic Ecosystems Recove,~p~ potential for catastrophically low flows. Culti- Local, state, and Federal entities and the vated plants and seed could be used for research public should work together to develop and purposes (if the research contributes to the species implement aplan that maintains adequate habi~ conservation) as well as reintroduced into the San tats (aquiferlevels and springflows) in the Ed- Marcos River in carefully chosen sites. Though wards Aquifer, Comal, and San Marcos Springs work is underway to develop reintroduction to sustain nativeplant and animal populations techniques for Texas wild-rice more work is and provides for human needs. Some mechanism needed to increase chances ofsuccess. Similarly, formaintaining aquifer levels sufficient to main- for the other specieswhere reintroduction tech- tain essential to assure success of this plan in niques have not been developed (salamanders and maintaining adequate springflows, otherwise all San Marcos Gambusia) additional work is the efforts of the involved parties could be offset needed. by parties who choose not to participate in the implementation of the plan.Accomplishment of 2.0 Manage, maintain, and enhance the species’ this initiative will require the cooperation of all populations and habitats throughout their parties who have the ability to control ground- presentand historic ranges water withdrawals. Through cooperation progress toward recovery can be made while social and Recovery of these five species will require economic values of the aquifer are also conserved. efforts aimed at specific aspects of each species’ The Texas State Legislature has made a biology in conjunction with efforts addressing significant contribution to this effort by enacting the continued need to maintain habitat in the legislation (S.B. 1477, as amended by H.B. 3189 Edwards Aquifer and to secure flows from the in 1995) creating the EdwardsAquifer Authority. San Marcos and Comal Springs. Natural popula- However, the ability of the Edwards Aquifer tions of the Texas wild-rice, San Marcos gambu- Authority to control groundwater withdrawals sia, and San Marcos salamander occur only in has been legally challenged by the Medina and the San Marcos aquatic ecosystem. The foun- Uvalde County Underground Water District(s), tain darter inhabits both the San Marcos and and the resulting dispute has made the prospects Comal aquatic ecosystems. The fountain darter for State control of water withdrawals from the population in the Comal River is believed to Edwards Aquifer uncertain. stem from a successful reintroduction of this Until such time that the Service revises or species from stocks obtained from the San refines the springflow numbers provided to the Marcos River after its apparent extirpation from Court in the case of Sierra Club vs. Secretary of the Comal River. This population is given the the Interior (No. MO-91-CA-069, U.S. Dist. full protection of the Endangered Species Act, Ct., W.D. Texas) (see “Threats” and Table I for just as the population in the San Marcos is. these flows), adequate springflows should be Both populations are important for the survival considered to be those above which take of listed and recovery of the fountain darter. For the species would occur, unless a permit is issued to Texas blind salamander, which lives in the allow some incidental take. In any case, flows aquifer, accomplishing the recovery objectives should be maintained above the level where will focus on maintaining adequate water adverse modification of critical habitat would quality and quantity in the aquifer, which is also occur or where jeopardy to the species would important for the other four species. result. To achieve maximum reliability and mini- 2.1 Working with affected stakeholders, mize potential adverse environmental and implement an Aquifer Management economic impacts, the plan should not rely Plan to ensure sufficient habitats heavily on any single strategy. The plan should (aquiferlevels and springflows) are be multifaceted, using a diversityof techniques provided to recover the five listed and approaches. The plan may include such things species. as conservation and reuse measures, limits on groundwater withdrawal, emergency groundwater

Part ii 64 San Marcos & ComalSprings &Associated Aquatic Ecosvsrenss Recovery Plan :iofl plans with springflow “trigger supporting the species of concern and for the local human community. Iunder given conditions (such as low Leaders representing diverse users ofthe I...... ;r,n), creation of awater rights market- changes in delivery systems or man- EdwardsAquifer should work together with ~ practices~ use of groundwater models, biological and technical experts to develop and actively promote an aquifer-wide management and development ofalternative sourcesof water plan. This group should provide the leadership for human use. State and loc~ entitiesshould be the primary necessary to help all water users understand the parties involved in developing thisWater Manage- need to save water and motivate users to achieve rnent Plan, with publicparticipation. However, the necessaryreductions in use of Edwards Aquifer waters. 50me Federal agencies also contribute to Edwards The plan should include strategies capable Aquifer water withdrawal, directlyor indirectly. of achieving significant reductions in groundwa- jn addition, representativesof Federal agenciescan ter use that can be implemented quickly and help insure compliance with Federalregulations, should address immediate needs, as well as short- and have valuable technical expertise and re- term strategies that may take longer to produce sources to offer. Under Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, Federal agencies are supposed to use their significant results but can help reduce dependency authorities to further the purposes of the ESA, and on the aquifer within atime-frame and long-term involvement in aplanningeffort ofthisnature strategies that providepermanent solutions and would be an appropriate activity formany Federal accommodate future plans for the region. agencies. Using a diversity of techniques will help to Consideration should be given, while meet all of these needs. Immediate strategies developing this plan, to potential impacts to might include campaigns to reduce landscape other sensitive species and ecosystems, in watering and household water use and a carefully addition to those covered by this recovery plan. staged emergency reduction plan tied to aquifer. Strategies should be examined for implications levels (that is capable of achieving sharp red to the long-term protection of water quality in tions when necessary). Short-term strategies the overall Edwards Aquifer. Evaluation of efforts might include retrofitting programs for existing to minimize economic and social effects should plumbing and water delivery systems, increasing examine distant, indirect, and long-term impacts efficiency of irrigation equipment, promotion of in addition to local, direct, and short-term xeriscaping, development of wastewater reuse impacts. systems, water use audits and design improvements for industrial processes, funding programs 211 Working with stakeholders, for assistance to present users for water efficiency develop and promote a improvements, and development of small-scale comprehensive short- and catchment systems for buildings. Long-term long-term regional plan for solutions might include techniques like revisions aquifer management that of water marketing systems, and development considers all users of multiple alternative water sources. There are undoubtedly other strategies that can be em- Activities needed to protect the habitat for ployed as well, and the examples above should listed species are similar to those needed to not be considered limiting. protect human needs for abundant clean water. While long-term strategies are being initiated Local and regional economies are closely tied to short periods oflower springflows might un- the quality and quantity of water available. This avoidably occur. If flow levels drop below take similarity of interests provides an opportunity to levelsan incidental take permit under section create a productive problem-solving coalition to lG(a)(l)(B) of the ESAwould be needed to conserve the natural resources needed to ensure a permit some level of “take” that does not jeop~.- viable future both for the biological communities dize the species. The Aquifer Management Plan should include all provisions necessary to qualify

Part ii 65 Sari Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Ai2iuaric Ecosystems Recove~ pj~ for a 10(a) (1)(B) permit, includingproviding a aquifer management planning comprehensive habitat conservation plan (HCP). effort Other requirements will include measures to assure the successful implementation ofthe plan The Service should take a more proactive role (suchas, a mechanism for State and local enforce- in support of regional planning efforts. ment of groundwater use restrictions, financial Because one of the goals/objectives likely instruments, management agreements, etc.). The to be included in aquifer management is the court monitor has begun work on preparation of development of an endangered species permit a preliminary issues document (detailed under the application, the Service should be involved General Conservation Measures section). Refine- early on in the process. providing guidance for ment of this document into a draft HCP, its HCP applicants for this region. This guidance acceptance by the Service, and granting of an should assist in developing a successful, incidental take permit would provide significant multiparty, regional application with maximum relief from uncertainty for the participants. Such a benefit. Conservation needs for this area include a permit could limitliability and legal action that number of complextechnical problems. and mote might otherwise occur iftake occurs duringthe guidance is needed than might be required for implementation ofconservation measures. most permits. This guidance should indude The Aquifer Management Plan and any explanations of the logistics ofthe process. regional or locally developed HCP should responsibilities ofthe applicants (including neces- identify responsible parties and their roles. The saiyfinancial commitments), and the types of plan should be clear about how actions called for documentation that are needed. In addition, while will be implemented and when (for example, it is not the responsibility ofthe Serviceto draftthe under what flow and storage conditions, habitat conservation plan supporting the applica- weather patterns, etc.). tion for apermit, the Service should provide some Significant progress toward developing and technical direction andguidance for a regional implementing a diverse regional plan has been HCP or other HCPs to assistin the development made, but there is still a need to complete a of an acceptable application package. The Service comprehensive plan for assuring adequate should provide direction concerningthe level of springflows. A team approach is needed to take that might be addressed through such a coordinate diverse activities, share information permit, a reasonable time-period forthe permit to and resources, and plan cooperatively and cover, the elements that the Service feels would comprehensively to develop and implement have to be included, conservation opportunities or solutions region-wide. The working group can strategies that might be fruitful, issues that must be build on experience and accomplishments to addressed, and supporting analyses needed in the date to achieve better cost-effectiveness and plan. In addition applicants should be encouraged more widespread benefits. to initiate informal discussions with the Service as Work done to date (outlined in the General early as possible in the development process to Conservation Measures section), such as the achieve maximum efficiency and benefits. Court Monitor’s emergency reduction plan and The Service, working with affected stake- the attorney-devised municipal water emergency holders, needs to develop better guidance about reduction plan, provide a model for additional reduction in groundwater use that would be work. Coordination and extension of individual sufficient to insure that human use does not municipalities efforts to create water conserva- cause springflows to fall to levels that would tion ordinances, wastewater re-use plans, and to compromise the survival and recovery of the develop alternative sources ofwater could cost- species of concern or cause jeopardy. It is impor- effectively increase benefits for the entire region. tant to develop operational criteria for the short- term. It is also important to continue to collect 2.12 Provide Service guidance and additional information so that models can be support for the regional refined and provide more reliable analyses that will allow long-term criteria to be developed.

Part 11 66 Sari Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aw.stic h osvsserils Recovers I These conservation activities could take the There ha-s been considerable diversityin form of technical assistance or implementation of 10~,inionS on levels of groundwater use that specific tasks that directly benefit the aquifer or its listed species and their habitats. would preserve needed springflows under various conditioflS. To provide needed technical guidance All Federal agencies, especially those whose sill require an interagency team of biologists, activities affect, directly or indirectlv, the quan- geOlogists~ hydrologists. economists, and water tiry or quality of water in the Edwards Aquifer resource planners. This group should examine and associated spring ecosystems, should take baseline information and existing models and actions within their authorities to conserve the listed species and the ecosystems upon which the buildgen~uponwaterotherreductioneffortsplans)to dateto develop(such asbetteremer- guidance on aquifer levels needed under varying species depend. Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA says conditions to support the survival and recovery of all Federal agencies shall use “their authorities in the species. furtherance of the purposes of this Act by In addition, the Service should continueto give carrying out programs for the conservation of advice on potential direct and indirect impacts of endangered speciesand threatened species... proposed conservation actions on fish and wildlife Other Federal agencies may have statutory authority under laws other than the ESA that resources. For example, there may be impacts to cave species if recharge enhancement causes give them opportunities to assist in the protec- flooding or scouring of these caves or subterra- tion of the listed species and their ecosystems. nean voids, recharge could cause contamination There are complementary functions in protect- harmful to subterranean aquatic species, using ing human health and in conserving habitat for alternative water sources could influence the listed species, for example. The EPA has author- maintenance of adequate freshwater inflows to ity under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking bays and estuaries, and the use ofalternative Water Act, FIFRA and CERCLA for actions that water sources may impact species in the rivers can benefit endangered species as well as protect between the springs and the bays (such as Cagle’s human health. Similarly the Department of map turtle). These concerns about other direct and Agriculture’s mandates for preventing pollutlt~ indirect impacts should be addressed. from agricultural practices would benefit endan- The Service should provide guidance and gered species sensitive to such pollutants. Situa- support for water management planning efforts tions where there are authorities granted to an to ease the vulnerability of the Edwards aquifer agency under its primary mission that may also resources, as part of ongoing integrated efforts benefit endangered species should be consid- to assist both State and Federal water planning ered by these agencies in setting up programs to and management agencies. Water management benefit listed species. By working cooperatively. planning in Texas should require integrated agencies can ensure minimal harm and maxi- planning for both regional and river basin efforts mum potential benefits from their activities in (including specific interbasin transfer issues as the course of performing their duties under both well as more widespread planning efforts such as their enabling legislation and the ESA. the Trans-Texas Program). These evaluations Examples of Federal agencies that could help water planners in evaluating feasibility of provide technical information or expertise plans, incorporating conservation actions, and in include USFWS, USGS, USDA, the U.S. Army minimizing social and economic impacts of Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, recovery activities. and the National Biological Service. Their assistance could be invaluable in the conserva- 2.2 Encourage Federal agencies to tion planning process. Many of these agencies, undertake or actively promote conser- and others, can also undertake recovery tasks vation activitiesunder section 7(a)(I) of with direct benefits.

the ESA An example ofaFederal agency taking ~. to benefit the conservation of the ecosystems would include the Department of Defense. San

Parr II 67 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated A 1uaric Ecosystems kecoven’ p~ Antonio military bases are currently implement- their efforts to reduce groundwater withdrawals. ing a wastewater reuse system for landscape Examples of this might be community efforts to watering and an aggressive campaign to reduce reduce landscape watering and promote xeriscape water consumption in their facilities. Similarly, landscaping. development ofwastewater reuse the Department ofAgriculture might be able to plans, and publiceducation campaigns. stimulate and promote increasing the use ofwater efficient irrigation equipment. 2.33 Aggressively pursue Federal Agencies taking beneficial actions need agency compliance with recognition and support. Agencies identified as obligations for informal and having the potential to take proactive conserva- formal consultations under tion measures should be contacted and encour- section 7(a)(2) of the Act aged to do so. According to section 7 of the ESA, Federal 2.3 Develop a Federal agency conservation agencies must insure that any action that they strategy in the event that task 2. 11 is authorize, fund, or carrv out in the Edwards not implemented or is ineffective in Aquifer region is not likely to jeopardize the ensuring necessaryspringflows. continued existence of any listed species. All Federal agencies have an obligation to comply A cooperative approach, with a State and with section 7(a)(2) requirements of the ESA local plan developed primarily by the primary and should initiate consultation with the Ser- aquifer users is preferable to Federal regulatory vice for all actions that may affect listed spe- action. Local users, leaders and agencies may cies. have valuable background and expertise that The Service should continue to follow up will be helpful in developing and implementing on notifications they have provided to Federal a balanced, long-term solution that achieves agencies whose actions may directly or indi- conservation objectives and minimizes social rectly impact the survival of the listed species and economic impacts. In addition, for such a or adversely affect their critical habitat. plan to be effective, State and local enforce- If no adequate and enforceable Aquifer ment of groundwater use limits should be in Management Plan is developed by State and local place. Federal agency representatives should entities (task 2. 1), these Federal agencies may continue to work with State and local managers ultimately have to withhold permits or funds for and regulators and support their efforts. How- actions likely to jeopardize the species. The ever, if an adequate state or local solution is not point at which any permits or funds may have implemented, Federal agencies must do what to be withheld or modified would be deter- they can to assure that springflows are pro- mined by these Federal agencies during inter- tected. agency section 7 consultations, with the issuance of a biological opinion pursuant to section 2.31 Continue to support proactive 7(b). Federal agency conservation actions. 2.34 Examine the potential effectiveness of State and Federal These are described in task 2.2. legal action, and prepare to initiate such action if an 2.32 Continue to support private emergency appears imminent proactive conservation actions. The State created the Edwards Aquifer Authority to regulate and enforce groundwater The Service and other Federal agencies should use of the Edwards Aquifer region. Due to the continue to encourage and assist individual current State litigation over the EAA, it is not agencies, organizations, municipalities, etc. in known when the EAA may function. State

Parr II 68 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plan guidance whereverpossible on how local entities aP~egulateroved groundwaterand enforce groundwaterdistricts have theuse limitsauthority can conduct their desired activities (such as vegetation control, sediment removal, bank I~~~cluding taking appropriate legal action) (Ellis, stabilization, recreation, etc.) without negatively 5~ The Service should be prepared to support i99 impacting listed species. ln some cases funding State~ regional. or local authorities who may assistance may be available for management initiate legal action ifnecessary and obtain injunc- projects that result in an improvement of habitat cion~ against water users to prevent springflows for the species of concern. froni falling to levels that would jeopardize the species. Because of the time it would take for the 2.41 Develop and implement aquifer to respondto cutbacks, these injunctions would have to be in place far enough in advance Management Plan(s) for the ~oguarantee curtailment of groundwater use in San Marcos system rime to preventjeopardy. Consideration should be given to filing injunctions when “take” levels Develop and implement a plan. as described are reached, unless it’s determined that this is not under 2.4, for the San Marcos Springs and River and Spring Lake. This task may entail develop- soon enough to prevent jeopardy. Current Service estimates should be used for take and jeopardy ing separate plans for different parts of the levels (Table 2). system due to multiple landowners. Guidelines developed for the plan might include (but are 2.4 Develop and implement local spring nor limited to) issues that need to be addressed and river management plans like use of the San Marcos River by recrearionists, aquatic plant management, Work with specific cities and towns, their control of nonnative species. bank stabilization, local landowners, and/or the local general litter control, point source discharges. etc. public to develop plans. including management Guidance should be developed to protect the guidelines. These plans should incorporate both listed species and their habitat from uninten- general and site-specific management guidance tional harm by the public. Hopefully, public for restoring, protecting. and maintaining the cooperation will aid in conservation of these health of the local ecosystems for the listed species and the public will not be inordinately species and addressing local threats to the restricted in their use of the aquatic ecosystems. species. Plans should also include the lakes at the headwaters of both the San Marcos and Examples of areas where developing man- Comal rivers and examine recharge and cave agement guidelines to protect the species would features in the area that may be significant for be helpful include aquatic plant management in subterranean species. Maintaining the health of Spring Lake, where vegetation cutting. control these ecosystems also promotes the health and and removal needs to be planned in a way that well-being of the local community since it is compatible with the needs of fountain darters maintains water quality for human uses as well. and San Marcos salamanders, as well as Texas Plans should address potential problems like wild-rice. Similarly, management techniques recreational activities and their impacts, point might be developed to protect the species and and non-point source pollution. nonnative their habitats from impacts from recreationists species. siltation, silt or gravel removal, and (e.g.. tubers, canoeists, swimmers, and fisher- vegetation management. Plan objectives should men). Methods to manage impacts to streamside be to avoid impacts whenever possible. or areas and sensitive zones in the river may be minimize them to an insignificant level. Work- developed to protect fountain darters and wild- ing cooperatively with land managers. ap- rice. lr may be possible to re-route recrearionists proaches can be developed that minimize social to avoid impacts in certain areas/sections ofthe and economic costs for users and managers and San Marcos River during critical or sensitive preserve sustainable social and economic periods in the life history of these species. benefits from the resource. Plans should include 69 San Marcos & Coma] Springs &Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery p~ A project undertaken by Dr. Glenn Longley made to determine ifthere is a need for site- r (SWTSU) under the Section 6 Program to specific management plans to reduce potential develop management recommendations should water quality concerns for these systems as well. provide some useful information to assist in accomplishing this task. The ciry of San Marcos 2.6 Encourage management of spring, lake and Southwest Texas State University are explor- river, and cave habitats by private ing a partnership to develop a detailed manage- individuals and others. ment plan. The Lions Club (owners of a major tube rental operation) and the Service have Through ownership of adjacent lands, early initiated discussion examining possible recre- water rights agreements, and other legal agree- ational impacts by tubers and management ments the San Marcos and Comal ecosystems options. have a mixture ofpublicand private ownership and influence. Many private owners, exercising 2.42 Develop and implement good stewardship, can help preserve the San Management Plan(s) for the Marcos and Comal aquatic ecosystems. If Comal system. uninformed, however, serious negative impacts could result, often unintentionally. Landowners Develop and implement a plan, similar to with recharge features, cave habitats, shoreline that described under 2.41, for the Comal properties, etc. should be encouraged to prevent Springs and River and Landa Lake. This may pollution, destruction, or other adverse modifi- entail developing separate plans for different cations of these features. A program should be parts of the system due to multiple landowners. developed to provide information and assis- Work on this task was initiated in 1995 through tance, and develop a cooperative effort with a partnership involving the city of New landowners and others to ensure the integrity of -~Braunfels, the Service, the National Fish and these ecosystems. Efforts should also be made Wildlife Foundation, the Guadalupe Blanco to gain the cooperation of recreational users of River Authority, the Lower Colorado River the San Marcos and Comal aquatic ecosystems Authority, New Braunfels Utilities, and the since they have a large influence on the biota of Nature Conservancy to develop a management the ecosystems. plan for the public areas of the Comal system. 2.7 Establish and maintain captive stocks at appropriate facilities 2.5 Implement measures necessary to protect water quality in the aquifer Because of the limited range of the listed species, a catastrophe could be disastrous for Based in part on information obtained in each of them. Genetically representative cap- task 1.28, as well as any other available infor- tive stocks of each species (including candi- mation, measures should be implemented to dates where feasible) should be kept in at least protect water quality in the aquifer. A prelimi- two facilities. Protocol should be developed for nary assessment of adequacy of existing regula- maintaining these stocks in such a way that tions to protect the aquifer and a preliminary there would be suitable stock for reintroduction examination of contamination in the San or supplementations if needed. This would Antonio area have been done, and both include entail careful attention to the genetic make-up recommendations for improvement, as dis- of the captive stock, control of disease in cussed in the General Conservation Measures captivity, etc. section. This work should be expanded. In addition, river basins outside the San Marcos 2.8 Reduce pollution loadings to San and Comal contribute recharge waters to the Marcos and Comal aquatic habitats Edwards Aquifer. Whilethese areas are predomi- and caves with Texas blind sala- nantly ruralat present, an evaluation should be manders Part ii 70

______.‘ian Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquati~ E.. osssteiui. Re~ cs’erv I 2.10 Control and/or remove select nonna- Water quality continues to be a concern in the rive organisms from the San Marcos s and Comal Rivers due to urbanization and Comal aquatic ecosystems San Marco ifl the 5~~tounding areas. Catastrophicsingle Nonnative organisms. with their actual and ~~cidents as chronic and persistent pollution are increasinglylikely to occur. These potential effects on the listed species, are not a natural influence on the listed species or their must be minimized to increase the chances of long- term survival ofthe listed species. For example, ecosystem(s). A program of selective removal ~eWmeans ofhandling wastewarer, stormwater and/or other control mechanisms, based on and street runoff (especially from IH-35 bridges in information gained in 1.29 and any other San Marcos), and other pollutant sources may be available information, should be initiated to need~d. Railroad crossings pose a threat to water insure that impacts to the listed species from these qualitY from catastrophic and small spills. and nonnatives are removed or reduced to an insignifi- current efforts in the city of San Marcos to reroute cant level. Efforts to reduce the likelihood of rail traffic should be supported. In San Marcos, further plant or animal introductions should also be stormwater runoff and occasional spills ofsewage made. from both the wastewater treatment plant and Low flow conditions may provide an oppor- from leaky collection systems currently are dis- tunity for control of some nnonnativespecies charged into the San Marcos River. As the city more easily or effectively, especially if non- has become increasinglyurbanized, these prob- destructive techniques can be developed. At lems have increased in frequency and severity. low flows nonnative species may be more Information gained from tasks 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, exposed and concentrated and easier to elimi- 1.25, 1.26,1.27, and 1.28 should be useful in nate, and some nonnative species are believed carrying out this task. to have their greatest detrimental impacts during low flows. However, this is also the time 2.9 Restore damaged habitats and en- that any remaining individuals of listed speci hance marginal habitats will be most stressed and vulnerable. A full evaluation of potential adverse impacts to the To enhance the species’ populations and physical and biological constituents of the habitats and to accomplish the goal of maintain- system would need to be done before proceeding the species throughout their historic range ing with control of nonnatives during low flow will require some restoration of damaged conditions. This is needed to ensure that listed habitats and improvement of marginal habitats. species are not harmed and that system recov- For example, for Texas wild-rice the area from ery is nor impaired. delayed, or precluded. Spring Lake to Rio Vista dam provides the largest amount of potential habitat, though 2.11 Maintain and implement a contingency significant potential habitat exists below the plan to bring species into captive dam as well and2 orthere1076.5is evenfr2) ofa potentialsmall amounthabitat refugia ifan emergency exists at(aboutpresent100belowm the San Marcos wastewater treatment plant. For the San Marcos gambusia A contingency plan was developed for remov- restoration of the shaded but open substrate ing additional individuals of listed speciesfor habitat of the San Marcos River downstream maintenance and captive propagation. The from the IH-35 crossing of the river should be contingency plan is currently being revised, and attempted. For the fountain darter, among other will include all of the listed species as well as some areas, the potential for restoration and enhance- other unique or rare species ofconcern. The goal ment of habitat downstream of the San Marcos of the plan is to provide secure, genetically wastewarer treatment plant should be evalu- representative material ofwild populations. T ated. revised plan includes some proactive measures subterranean specieswhere action must be initiated before flows fall. This plan should be consid-

Part H 71 San Marcos & Coma] Springs &Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovey ~ ered a last-ditch effort, to prevent extinction of Federal agencies during interagency section 7 the species and provide material forrestoration consultations. 1~ efforts. At present, for some species our ability to Regulatory agencies and law enforcement ~cessfullyrestore populations to the system divisions should be provided with current captive material is limited because reliable information concerning the identification and I captive breeding and reintroduction techniques ecological requirements of each of the species so are not yet worked out. The contingency plan and that negative impacts to these species from captive propagation cannot provide for the individuals or projects can be identified and recovery of the species as directed under the ESA. abated. While captive propagation mayprovide for survival ofspecies in the short-term, it does not 3.0 Monitor populations, habitats, and threats meet the full purpose of the ESA, which is to protect the ecosystem upon which these species To assess trends in population dynamics of depend. This plan should be updated as needed the five listed species and to assess the effec- and incorporate the latest information on genet- tiveness of recovery actions, each of the five ics, disease control, and other factors related to species and their habitats should be monitored captive propagation for reintroduction purposes. and their distribution and populations censused The plan should clearly identify who will do on a regular basis. None of these species is what, when, and how. expected to be delisted in the foreseeable future. Therefore, to protect the species from an irre- 2.12 Provide regulatory protection versible decline, monitoring efforts for threats and the species’ habitats, should also be under- The protective provisions in the Endan- taken. gered Species Act and regulations should be e.a~forced, as well as any other regulatory protec- 3.1 Monitor populations and habitats provisions, including State and local ones. a rovisions in the ESA include “take” prohibi- Because each species is uniquewith its own tions, among others. Enforcement of these particular set of population parameters, the provisions involves such things as section 7 specific protocol involving each species should consultations with Federal agencies; and review be unique to the particular population in ques- of section 10 permit applications~ performance, tion. Populations of the San Marcos gambusia and compliance; and Fish and Wildlife Service need to be located before they can be moni- law enforcement. tored (see Task 1.16). Texas wild-rice, San According to section 7 of the ESA, Federal Marcos salamander, Texas blind salamander, agencies must insure that any action they and fountain darter (both in San Marcos and authorize, fund, or carry out in the Edwards Comal) should be monitored at least annually. Aquifer region is not likely to jeopardize the More specific information on sampling proce- continued existence of any listed species. Thus, dures is contained in Part II.A. in the discus- to ensure their actions do not cause jeopardy sions on recovery criteria. As recovery actions these Federal agencies may ultimately have to proceed and more data are acquired, these decide whether to withhold permits or funds for recommended schedules may be modified. In actions likely to jeopardize the species, if no monitoringeach species, appropriate methods adequate and enforceable Aquifer Management should be used to minimize interference. This is Plan is developed (see task 2.33). If an effective especially important with regard to the San Aquifer Management Plan is implemented, this Marcos gambusia, as this species is critically in could enable continuation of Federal activities dangerof extinction, if it still exists. tout jeopardizing the continued existence of species. The point at which any permits or 3.2 Monitor threats funds may have to be withheld, or other actions need to be taken, will be determined by these

Part II 72 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosvsten,s Recovery 11w This taskshould include such things as Audiences targeted should include policy makers, monitoringaquifer levelsand springflows, water as well as school children. Information should be quality~ and condition of the species’ habitat (such included on what’s needed for species conserva- as vegetation and substrate), as necessaryto detect non, including major actions like groundwater threats before they result in significant and/or pumping limits, as well as those things individu potentially irreversible impacts to the species. als can do themselves (like conserving water and Other threats also need to be monitored, and may not releasing nonnarivespecies into the systems). include such things as nutriagiant ramshorn snail, Economic and social consequences offailing to andtilapia populations, levels of recreational use in protect the aquifer and its species should be certain areas, amount and areasof runoffimpacts, included. Projects to achieve this might include and siltation. Monitoring ofthe populations and factual briefing materials for public policy makers habitats conducted as part of task 3. ~ may also and regulators, information packets for teachers, serve as an alert to threats affecting the species information kiosks forrecreanionists, brochures, and their ecosystems. museum and aquarium displays and interpretive materials about the species and their vulnerabilirx’. 4.0 Public informationand education etc. Live displays of the species are very effective and should be allowed if it is determined that It is imperative that the public become aware they will be providing information to a signifi- ofand sensitive to the need to protect these cant audience, and will be properly cared for. Live unique and fragile aquatic systems, and the display material should come from propagated problems associated with ensuring the survival of stocks wherever possible, but collection from the the Edwards Aquifer and the San Marcos and wild might be permissible ifcollection of a few Comal aquatic ecosystems and their unique flora individuals will not do unacceptable harm to the and fauna. Means should be developed to inform species in the wild. the public and to gather public support for protecting theseendangered and threatened 4.2 Encourage public participation in species and their ecosystems. Materials produced conservation efforts for this objective should be directed toward Increasing the public’s general awareness of the For conservation of the listed species to occur, listed species and their plight, actions that would the public must be involved in recovery activities. result in their conservation, and the human Support programs for environmentally sensitive benefits and costs ofprotecting or not protecting activities associated with the Edwards Aquifer and the ecosystems upon whichthese species depend. the San Marcosand Comal aquatic ecosystems The social and economic benefits of good stew- need to be developed and/or continued. These ardship should be illustrated. Attention should be could be of the form of “Aquifer/River Aware- given to the big picture and showing the interre- ness” events specificallydesigned to enhance the latedness of the spring systems to everything from public’s awareness and empathy toward the the contributing zone of the Edwards Aquifer, to conservation needs of the species and their ecosys- the quality of local drinking water, to the contin- tems. Acitizens’ committee could be established ued support of economies dependent on these to coordinate local efforts, provide input and river systems, andto the bays and estuaries direct citizen attempts in fostering awareness for downstream. the uniquenessof these aquaticecosystems. In addition, the public may also be invited to 4.1 Produce educational materials and participate on Implementation Planning Teams to inform a variety of audiences identify specific ways to accomplish certain significant recovery tasks, while minimizing A variety of approaches should be used, economic and social costs. The plans called fc (including multi-media) so that all segments and task2.4 may also be good vehicles for participd age groups of the public are aware of and in- non oflocal landowners and other interested formed of the message discussed under 4.0. parties.

Part II 73 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plai, ‘1 D. REFERENCES CITED r

cridge, RE. and P.1. Fonteyn. 1981. Council Int.: Symposium on aquatic weeds. 3: Naturalization of Colocasia esculenta (Araceae) 79-85. in the San Marcos River, Texas. S.W Nat. Bogart, J.P 1967. Life history and chromosomes 26(2):2 10. of some of the neotenic salamanders of the Armour, C.L. 1991. Guidance forevaluating and Edward’s Plateau. M.A. Thesis. University of recommending temperature regimes to protect Texas at Austin, Texas. 79 pp. fish. Instream Flow Information Paper. USFWS Bradsby, D.D. 1994. A recreational use survey of Biological Report. 90(22) l.3pp. the San Marcos River. M.S. thesis, Southwest Bailey, RM., andWA. Gosline. 1955. Variation Texas State University. San Marcos, Texas. 82 and systematic significance ofvertebral counts pp. in the American fishes ofthe familyPercidae. Brandt, T.M., J. Schulse, and D.M. Schleser. Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. No. 93. 44 1993. Laboratory culture of the San Marcos pp. salamander, Euiycea nana. Interim Report. Baker, J.K. 1957. Euiyrea troglodytes: a new blind October 1993. salamander from Texas. TexasJ. Sci. 9(3): 328- Brown, WH. 1954. The Texas dwarf neotenic 336. salamander. Aquarist (San Antonio Aquarium Baker, J.K. 1961. Distribution of and key to the Society) 3(3):85-89. neotenic Eurycea of Texas. S.W Nat. 6(1):27- Brown, B.C. 1967. Eurycea nana. Catalogue of 32. American Amphibians and Reptiles, p. 35. Ball, J., W Brown, and R Kuehne. 1952. Landa Brune G. 1981. Springs ofTexas. Vol. 1. Branch- Park Lake is renovated. Texas Game and Fish Smith, Inc., Fort Worth, TX 566 pp. 10:8-10. Burr, B.M. 1978. Systematics ofthe percid fishes Jeaty, H.E. 1972. Zizania texana Hitchc. (Texas ofthe subgenus Microperca, genus Etheostoma. wild-rice): A Rare and endangered species. Bull. Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist. 4:1-53. Unpublished manuscript. Baylor Univ., Waco, Burt, WH. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1964. A Texas. 31 pp. Field Guideto the Mammals. Houghton Mifflin Beary, H.E. 1 975. Texas wild-rice. Texas Company, Boston. Horticulturist 2(1): 9-11. Chippindale, PT. and D.M. Hillis and A. Price. Beary, H.E. 1976. Transplanting Zizania texana 1992. Central Texas salamander studies. (Texas wild-rice) in Bell County, Texas. Section 6 Interim Report. U.S. Fish and Unpublished report. Baylor Univ., Waco, Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas. Texas. Chippindale, PT., D.M. Hillis and A.H. Price. Berkhouse, C. and J. Fries. 1995. The critical 1992. Central Texas neotenic salamanders thermal maximum of San Marcos (Eu?ycea and Typhiomolge): Taxonomic status, salamanders. National Biological Service relationships. and genetic differentiation. Information Bulletin No 46. 2 pp. Section 6 Interim Report. U.S. Fish and Bishop, S.C. 1941. Notes on salamanders with Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas. descriptions of several new forms. 0cc. Pap. Chippindale, PT., D.M. Hillis, and A.H. Price. Mus. Zool., Univ. Mich., No. 45 1:6-9. 1993. Central Texas salamander studies. Draft Bishop. S.C. 1943. Handbook of salamanders. Section 6 Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Comstock PubI. Co., Ithaca, New York. xiv + Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas. 555 pp. Chippindale, PT., D.M. 1-lillis and A.H. Price. Blackburn, D., T.M. Taylor and D.L. Sutton. 1994. Relationships, status, and distribution of

1971 . Temperature tolerance and necessary central Texas hemidacryline plethodontid stocking rates of Marisa cornuarietis for aquatic salamanders (Eurycea and Typhlomolge). Final weed control. Proc. European Weed Res. Section 6 Report, July 1994. Part Ii 74 4L San Marcos & Coma] 5Pt~~~ 5 & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plan Edwards UndergroundWater District. I 992a. Colleffe~ B.B. 1962. The swamp darters of the subgenus Hololepis (Pisces, Percidae). Tulane Report of the technical data revie~’ panel on the water resources of the south central Stud. Zool. 9:115-211. Texas region. 307 pp. Collette, B.B. 1965. Systematic significance of breeding tubercles in fishes of the family Edwards Underground Water District 1992b percidae. Proc. U.S. NatI. Mus. 117:567-614. lnvestigarion of the fresh/saline water Collette, B.B., and P. Banarescu. 1977. interface in the Edwards Aquifer in New Systematics and zoogeography of the fishes Braunfels and San Marcos, Texas. Report 92.. of the family Percidae. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 02. 18 pp. 34:1450-1463. Edwards Underground Water District. 1993. Collette, B.B., and L.W Knapp. 1966. Catalog Urban Development on the Edwards Aquifer of type specimens of the darters (Pisces, Recharge Zone. Report 93-09. 40 pp. Percidae, Etheostomatini). Proc. U.S. Natl. Ellis, G.M. 1995. The Law Governing Water Mus. 119:1-88. Districts, Chapter 49, Water Code. Texas Correll, D.S. and H.B. Correll. 1975. Aquatic Water Law Conference. November 30 & and wetland plants of the southwestern December 1, 1995. austin, Texas. United States. Stanford Press, California. Emery, WH.P. 1967. The decline and Crowe, J.C. 1994. Detailed hydrogeologic maps threatened extinction of Texas wild-rice of the Comal and San Iviarcos Rivers for (Zizania texana Hitchc.). S.W. Nat. 12:203- endangered species habitat definition, Texas. 204. M.S. thesis, The University ofTexas atAustin, Emery, WH.P 1977. Current status ofTexas 154 pp. wild-rice. S.W. Nat. 22:393-394. Distler, D.A. 1968. Distribution and variation Emery, WH.P. and M.N. Guy. 1979. of Etheostoma spectabile (Agassiz) (Percidae, Reproduction and embryo development in Teleostei). Univ. Kans. Sci. Bull. 48:143-208. Texas wild-rice (Zizania rexana Hitchc.) Bull. Dote, WE. 1969. Wild-rice. Can. Dept. Agric. Torrey Bot. Club. 106:29-31. PubI. 1393. 84 pp. Evermann, B.W and WC. Kendall. 1894. Dowden, D.L. 1968. Population dynamics of Fishes of Texas and the Rio Grande basin, the San Marcos Salamander, Eu~ycea nana. considered chiefly with reference to their M.A. Thesis, Southwest Texas State geographic distribution. Bull. U.S. Fish University, San Marcos, Texas. 44 pp. Comm. for 1892: p. 57-1 26. Edwards, R.J. 1976. Relative and seasonal George, WO., S.D. Breeding, and W H. abundances of the fish fauna in an urban Hastings. 1952. Geology and groundwater creek ecosystem. M.A. Thesis, Univ. of Texas resources of Comal County, Texas. U.S. Geol. at Austin, Texas. 84 pp. Survey Water Supply Paper 1138. Edwards, RJ., E. Marsh, and C. Hubbs. 1980. Gilbert, C.H. 1887. Descriptions of new and The status of the San Marcos gambusia, little known etheostomatoids. Proc. U.S. Nat. Gambusiageorgei. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Mus. 10:47-64. Service Endangered Species Report 9. 34 pp. Greater San Marcos Economic Development Edwards Underground Water District. 1989. Council. 1994. San Marcos: An economic Compilation of hydrologic data for the and demographic profile. January 1994. 6 pp. Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio area, Texas, Gregory, RL. and M.L.A. Goff. 1993. New 1988, with 1934-88 summary: Bulletin 48, Braunfels, Comal County, Texas. A pictoral 157 pp. history. Roger Nuhn, Editor. The Donning Edwards Underground Water District. 1991. Company, Publishers. 192 pp.

Compilation of hydrologic data for the Guadalupe - Blanco River Authority. 1988. The Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio area, Texas, Edwards Aquifer: Underground River of 1990, with a 1934-90 summary. Edwards Texas. 63 pp. Underground WaterDistrict Bulletin 50, Guyton, WF. and Associates. 1979. December 1991, 169 pp. Geohydrology of Comal, San Marcos, and

Part ii 75 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associ~teJ Aquaric Ecosystems Recovery P1ai Hueco Springs. Tex. Dept. Water Res. Rep. Hubbs, C. and K. Strawn. I 957b. The effects of Ir 234. 85 pp. light and temperature on the fecundirv of the Hitchcock, A.S. 1933. New species and new greenthroat darter, Etheosroma lepidum. names of grasses from Texas. Jour. Wash. Ecology 38:596-602. Acad. Sci. 23:449-456. Hubbs, C. and K. Strawn. 1957c. Survival ofF Hitchcock, A.S. 1950. Manual of the grasses of hybrids between fishes of the subfamily the United States. Government Printing Etheosrominae. J. Exp. Zool. 134:33-62. Office, Washington, DC. Jordan, D.S. and B.W. Evermann. 1896. The Home, F.R., T.L. Arsuffi, and RW Neck. 1992. fishes of North and Middle America: a Recent introduction and potential botanical descriptive catalogue of the species of fish- impact of the giant rams-horn snail, Marisa like vertebrates found in the waters of North cornuarietis (Pilidac) in the Comal Springs America, north of the Isthmus of Panama. Ecosystem of Central Texas. S.W. Nat., Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 47:1-1240. 37:194-214. Jordan, D.S. and B.W Evermann. 1900. The Hubbs, C. 1954. Corrected distributional fishes of North and Middle America: a records for Texas fresh-water fishes. Tex. J. descriptive catalogue of the species of fish- Sci. 6:277-291. like vertebrates found in the waters of North Hubbs, C. 1957. Distributional patterns ofTexas America, North of the Isthmus of Panama. fresh-water fishes. S.W Nat. 2:89-104. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 47:3137-3313. Hubbs, C. 1958. Fertility of F1 hybrids between Jordan, D.S. and C.H. Gilbert. 1886. List of the percid fishes. Etheostoma spectabile and E. fishes collected in Arkansas, Indian Territory, lepidum. Copeia 1958:57-59. and Texas, in September 1884, with notes Hubbs, C. 1959. Laboratory hybrid and descriptions. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 9:1-25. combinations among etheostomatine fishes. Jordan, T., D.T. Roberts, and D.M. Schleser. Tex. J. Sci. 11:49-56. 1992. Captive reproduction of Eurycea lubbs, C. 1967. Geographic variations in neotenes, the Comal Springs Salamander at the survival of hybrids between etheostomatine Dallas Aquarium. American Association of fishes. Bull. Tex. Mem. Mus. No. 13. 72 pp. Zoological Parks and Aquariums Regional Hubbs, C., and C.M. Laritz. 1961. Occurrence Conference Proceedings. of a natural intergeneric erheosromarine fish Jurgens. K. 1951. The distribution and ecology hybrid. copeia 196:231-232. of the fishes of the San Marcos River. M.S. Hubbs, C., RA. Kuehne, and J.C. Ball. 1953. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. The fishes of the upper Guadalupe River, .3.3pp. Texas. Tex. J. Sci. 5:216-244. Klemt, WB., T.R Knowles, G.R. Elder, and Hubbs, C. and A.E. Peden. 1969. Gambusia T.W. Sieh. 1979. Ground-water resources and georgei sp. nov. from San Marcos, Texas. Gopeia model applications for the Edwards 1969 (2):357-364. (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer in the San Hubbs, C. and V.G. Springer. 1957. A revision of Antonio Region, Texas. Tex. Dept. Water the Gambusia nobilis species group, with Resources Rep. 239, 88 pp. descriptions of three new species, and notes Kuehne, R.A. 1955. Stream surveys of the on their variation, ecology, and evolution. Guadalupe and San Antonio rivers, Texas Texas J. Sci. 9:279-327. Game and Fish Comm. IF Rep. Ser. No. 1. Hubbs, C.,J.M. Stevenson, andA.E. Peden. 56 pp. 1968. Fecundity and egg size in two central Linam, G.W, K.B. Mayes, and K.S. Saunders. Texas darter populations. S.W Natur. 13:3Gb 1993. A Habitat Utilization and Population 324. Site Estimate of Fountain Darters (Etheostoma ‘iubbs, C. and K. Strawn. 1957a. Relative fonticola) in the Comal River, Texas. Texas variability of hybrids between the darters Journal of Science, 45(5):341-348. Etheostomaspecrabile and Percina caprodes. Linam, L.A. 1993. A reassessmentof the Evolution 11:1-10. distribution, habitat preference, and Part II 76 San Marcos & Coma] Spriisgs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery That. Balcones Research Center, Austin, Texas population size estimate ofthe fountain darter 78712. 94 pp. (EtheostomafOnticola) in the San Marcos River, Mitchell, R.W, and J.R. Reddell. 1965 Ernycea Texas. Section 6 report. Texas Parks and tridentifera, a new species of troglobitic Wildlife Department, Job 2.5. March 12, salamander from Texas and a reclassification oi 1993.3~ pp. Typhlomolge rathbuni. Texas J. Sci. 17(1): ~ongley~G. 1975. Environmental assessment, 12-27. upper San Marcos River Watershed. Contract Neck, R.’W. 1984. Occurrence of the striped No. AG-48-SCS 02156 for the Soil ram’s horn snail, Marisa cornuariezis, in central Conservation Service. Environmental Texas (Ampullariidae). Nautilus 98: 119-120. Sciences of San Marcos, Texas. 367 pp. Nelson, J. 1993. Population size, distribution, Longley’, G. 1978. Status of the Texas Blind and life history of Euiycea nana in the San Salamander. Endangered Species Report 2. Marcos River. M.S. Thesis, Southwest Texas U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Albuquerque, State University, 43 pp. NM. 45 pp. Norris, WE., Jr., PA. Grandy. and WK. Davis. Longley, G. 1991. Status and trends of the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer in 1963. Comparative studies on the oxygen the San Antonio Region. pp. 4-18 In: consumption of three species of neorenic Proceedings of South Texas Irrigation salamanders as influenced by temperature, Conference. Guy Fipps, (ed.) 146 pp. body size, and oxygen tension. Biol. Bull. 125(3): 523-533. Mackay, M.R. 1952. The spermatogenesis of the neotenic salamander Eu?ycea nana Bishop. Page, L.M. 1974. The subgenera of Percina M.S. Thesis. University of Texas at Austin, (Percidac: Erheostomatini). Copeia 1974(1): Texas. 35 pp. 66-86. Maclay, R.W. and L.F. Land. 1988. Simulation of Page, L.M. 1977. The lateralis system of darters flow in the Edwards Aquifer. San Antonio (Etheostomatini). Copeia 1 977(?): 472-475. Page, L.M., and G.S. Whirt. 1972. Lactate Region, texas and refinement of storage and flow concepts. U.S. Geological Survey Water- dehydrogenase isozymes, malare Supply Paper 2336, 48pp. dehydrogenase isozymes and tetrazolium Marsh, E. 1980. The effects of temperature and oxidase mobiliries of darters phoroperiod on the termination of spawning (Etheostomarini). Comp. Biochem. Physio. in the orangethroar darter (Etheostoma 44B: 611-623. spectabile) in central Texas. Tex. J. Sci. Potter, F. and S. Sweet. 1981. Generic 32:129-142. boundaries in Texas cave salamanders, and a Maruska, E.J. 1982. Presentation to the redescriprion of Typhiomolge robusta American Association of Zoological Parks (Amphibia: Plethodontidae) Copeia 1981:64- and Aquariums. Cincinnati Zoo, Cincinnati, 75. OH. I0 pp. Power, P.J. 1990. Effects of oxygen McCoig, G.M., J. A. Cradir. and L. Fox. 1986. concentration and substrate on seedling Property ownership. water rights and growth of Zizania texana (Texas wild-rice). recreational use of the San Marcos River. city M.S. Thesis, Southwest Texas State of San Marcos. 62pp. University. 3Spp. McKinney, D.C. andJ. Sharp. 1995. Springflow Puenre, C. 1976. Statistical analysis ofwater-level augmentation of Comal Springs and San springflow and stream flow for the Edwards Marcos Springs, Texas: phase I- feasibility Aquifer in south-central Texas. U.S.G.S. Rep. study. Texas Water Development Board. 58 pp. McKinney, D.C. and D.W Watkins. 1993. Pulich, W Jr., S. Perry and D. German. 1994. Management of the Edwards Aquifer: A Habitat and land use inventory and chan’ critical assessment. Bureau ofEngineering detection analysis of the San Marcos River Research, University of Texas at Austin, corridor. In: Spain, B. (ed.) The San Marcos

Part U 77 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Pl~ River: a case study. Texas Parks and Wildlife (Osteichthyes: Percidae). Amer. MidI. Natur. Department. Austin, Texas. 169pp. 98(2):365-375. Research and Planning Consultants. 1994. Schwerman, N.H. 1967. A morphological study Analysis of water supply alternatives for the of the external features, viscera, integument, EdwardsAquifer region. Sierra Club Report. and skeletons ofEurycea nana. Unpubl. M.A. 56 pp. Thesis. Baylor University, Waco, Texas. Rice, G. 1994. Contamination of the Edwards 26 pp. Aquifer in Bexar County. AGUA report. San Schleser, D., D. Roberts, L. Ables, and C. Antonio, Texas. 25 pp. Yancey. 1994. An update on Comal Springs Rose, F. and P.J. Power. 1992. Performance salamanders (Eur’ycea neotenes) reproduction, report on management and continued and a preliminary report of courtship and research on Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana). reproduction of the Texas blind salamander Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (Typhlomolge rathbuni) at the Dallas Aquarium. Region 2. Paper presented at the Amphibian Taxon Rose, F. and P.J. Power. 1993. Performance Advisory Group by the Dallas Aquarium. report on management and continued New Orleans. 11 pp. research on Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana). Seaman, D.E. and WA. Porterfield. 1964. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Control of exotic weeds by the snail Marisa Region 2. cornuarietis. Weeds 12:87-92. Rosen, D.E., and RM. Bailey. 1963. The Silveus, WA. 1933. Texas grasses. The Clegg poeciliid fishes (Cyprinodontiformes), their Co., San Antonio, Texas. 782 pp. structure, zoogeography, and sysremarics. Spain, B. (ed.) 1994. The San Marcos River: a Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 126:1-176. case study. Texas Parks and Wildlife Rothermel, S.R, and A.E. Ogden. 1987. Department. Austin, Texas. l69 pp. Hydrochemical investigation of the Comal Stejneger, L. 1896. Description of a new genus and species of blind, tailed barrachian from and Hueco Spring systems, Comal County, the subterranean waters of Texas. Proc. Nat. Texas: Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Center RI -87, 182 p. Mus. 18: 619-621. Russell, B. 1976. Distribution of Troglobitic Strawn, K. 1955. A method of breeding and Salamanders in the San Marcos area, Hays raising three Texas darters. Part I. Aquarium County, Texas. Texas Association for J. 26:408-412. Biological Investigations of Troglobitic Strawn, K. 1956. A method of breeding and Eurycea (BITE) Report 7601. 3Spp. raising three Texas darters. Part II. Aquarium Schenek, J.R 1975. Ecology of the fountain J.27:l1, 13-14, 17, 31-32. Sweet, S.S. 1978. The evolutionary darter, Etheosromafonticola (Osreichthyes: Percidae). M.S. Thesis, Southwest Texas development of the Texas Euiycea (Amphibia: State Univ., San Marcos, Texas. 100 pp. Plethodontidae). Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. Schenk,J.R., and B.G. Whiteside. 1976. Calif., Berkeley, California. 450 pp. Distribution, habitat preference and Taylor,J.N.,WR. Courtenay,Jr., andJ.A. population size estimate of Etheostoma McCann. 1984. Known impacts of exotic fishes in the continental United States. In: fonticola (Osteichthyes: Percidae). Copeia 1 976(4):697-703. Distribution, Biology, and Management of Schenck,J.R, and B.G. Whiteside. 1977a. Food Exotic Fishes, W.R. Courtenay, Jr. and J.R. habits and feeding behavior of the fountain Stauffer, Jr., (eds.). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. pp. 322-373. darter, Etheostomafonricola (Osreichthyes: Percidae). Southwest. Nat. 21(4):487-492. Technical Advisory Panel. 1990. Technical factors henck,J.R., and B.G. Whiteside. 1977b. in EdwardsAquifer use and management. Reproduction. fecundity, sexual dimorphism Prepared for Special Committee on the and sex ratio of Etheostomafonticola EdwardsAquifer. 57 pp.

Part Ii 78 Sari Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aqriauc Lcoss-s,e,ris NC “z-r~ ~.- Quality, Urban Drainage and Flood Control rel1 E E.. WH.P. Emery. and H.E. Beany. District, Denver, Colorado. w ‘~ 978. ObservationS on Zizania texana (Texas U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1964. Survey wil&rice). an endangered species. Bull. report on Edwards Underground reservoir: TorreyBot. Club 105:50-57. Guadalupe, San Antonio and Nueces rivers Texas Almanac. 1973.Texas almanac and state and tributaries, Texas. Main Report. Fort industrial guide. 1974-1975, A.H. Belo Corp., Worth. 198 pp. Dallas. 704 pp. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1982. 1980 census Texas Department of Water Resources. 1977. of the population. Vol 1. Characteristics of continuing water resources planning and development for Texas. Phase I. Draft. the Population. Chap. B. General Population characteristics. Pt. 45. Texas. 791 pp. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1989. Interim report on conservation of the upper U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1972. San MaXcOs ecosystem: Texas wild-rice Memorandum: San Marcos Pool of Edwards (Zizaflia zexana). Submitted to U.S. Fish and Underground Aquifer. Bureau of Reclamation Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, (Southwest Region). 8 pp. N.M. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1973. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1992. Memorandum: Performance of Edwards Performance report on conservation of the Aquifer when subjected to a rapid increase in upper San Marcos River ecosystem. Submitted well discharge. Bureau of Reclamation to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, (Southwest Region). Looseleaf n. p. Albuquerque. N.M. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1974. Texas Water Commission. 1989. Ground-water Memorandum: Performance of Edwards quality of Texas-an overview of natural and Aquifer when subjected to increasing well man-affected conditions. Austin, Texas. discharge. Bureau of Reclamation (Southwest 197 pp. Region). Looseleaf n. p. Texas Water Development Board. 1968. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. Final Reconnaissance of the chemical qualities of Watershed plan and environmental impact the surface waters of the Guadalupe River statement. Upper San Marcos River Basin, Texas. Report 88. Austin, Texas. Watershed, Comal and Hays Counties, Texas. Texas Water Development Board. 1990. Water Soil Conservation Service. for Texas: Today and Tomorrow. Austin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Texas. Technical Support document for water Texas Water Development Board. 1992. Water quality-based toxics control. PB9 1-127415. for Texas: Today and Tomorrow. Austin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Selected Texas. vertebrate endangered species of the seacoast

Texas Water Development Board. l992a. of the United States - the Texas blind Projections of Population and Water salamander. Biological Services Program. Demands. Austin, Texas. FWS/OBS-80/0l .14. Thorkildsen, D., and P. McElhaney. 1992. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Model refinement and applications for the Endangered Species Permit Report. Austin, Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer in Texas. the San Antonio Region, Texas. Texas Water U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Development Board Report 340. July 1992. Endangered Species Permit Report. Austin, 33 pp. Texas. Tupa, D.D., and WK. Davis. 1976. Population U.S. Geological Survey. 1967-71. Water resource dynamics of the San Marcos salamander, data forTexas. Part I. Surfacewater records. Eurycea nana Bishop. TexasJ. Sci. 32:179-195. U.S. Geol. Surv., Federal Bldg., Austin, Texas. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. 1992. U.S. Geological Survey. 1995. Water resourc Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Vol. 3. data Texas water year 1994. Volume 3. L Best Management Practices, Stormwater water-dam report TX-94-3

Part II 79 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plan r Vaughan, Jr., J.E. 1986. Population and Wanakule, N. 1990. Stochastic drought analysis autecological assessment of Zizania texana ofthe Edwards Aquifer. EdwardsAquifer Hitchcock (Poaceae) in the San Marcos Research and Data Center No. Rl -90, San River. M.S. Thesis, Southwest Texas State Marcos, Texas. 32 pp. Jniversiry. Wanakule, N., and R. Anaya. 1993. A lumped Wake, D. 1966. Comparative osteology and parameter model for the Edwards Aquifer. evolution of the lungless salamanders, family Texas Water Resources lnstiture, Technical Plethodontidae. Mem. So. Cal. Acad. Sci. Report No. 163. Texas A&M University. 4:1-1 11. 84 pp. Wanakule, N. 1988. Regression analysis of the San Wiley, E.O. 1981. Phylogenetics: The theory Marcos Springflows and water levels of the and practice of phylogeneric systematics. index well in San Antonio. Edwards Aquifer John Wiley and Sons. New York. 439 pp. Research and DataCenter No. RI -88. San Marcos, Texas. 34 pp.

Part II 80 r

PART III

RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE San Marcos & coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plan The Implementation Schedule that follows would be incurred in the absence ofa conserva- outlines actions and estimated costs for imple- tion program. Apportionment of costs between I menting this recovery plan. It is a guide for City planning and development functions and meeting the objectives discussed in Part II of this ESA compliance is extremely difficult For tasks plan. This schedule indicates task priorities, task of this nature the Service has included in its numbers, task descriptions, duration oftasks, cost estimate only the Portion of Costs allocat.. responsible agencies, andestimated costs. These able to endangered species tecove.-v not the actions, when complete, should accomplish the entire cost of the task. objectives of this plan. The Service has identified Cost for some tasks in the recovery plan ate agencies and other potential “responsibleparties” nor yet determinable, because they depend on to help implement the recovery of these species. the nature of the strategies selected for use in the This plan does not commit any “responsible regional Aquifer Management Plan or local party” to actually carry out a particular recovery management plans that are not yet developed. task or expend the estimated funds. Likewise, this These tasks where expenses cannot yet be calcu- schedule does not preclude or limit other agencies lated are represented in the costs column with or parties from participating in the recovery the designation NYD for “not yet determinable”. program. The terms “ongoing” and “continuous” appear The total estimated cost of recovery, accord- in the implementation schedule. The term ing to each priority, is provided in the Executive “continuous” is used to denote tasks that are Summary, not in the implementation schedule. expected to require constant attention throughout In the implementation schedule (Part III) the the recovery process, and therefore have an estimated monetary needs forall parties involved indefinite duration. The term “ongoing” is used in in recoveryare identified for the first 3 years only. the recovery plan to identify tasks that have Estimated funds for agencies include only project already been started, but are not yet complete. specific contract, staff, or operations costs in excess of base budgets. They do norinclude Priorities in column one of the following budgeted amounts that support ongoing ordinary implementation schedule are assigned using the responsibilities. following guidelines: In this recovery plan, several tasks outlined

are driven by multiple social and economic needs Priority I - An action that must be taken to in addition to endangered species recovery. For preventextinction or to prevent the species from example. developing alternative water supplies declining irreversibly in theforeseeable future. to meet the projected future needs of cities and

towns over the Edwards Aquifer area is a task that Priority 1. - An action that by itself will not must be implemented to provide for future prevent extinction, but which is needed to carry community security and growth as well as out a priority I task. endangered species recovery. Protection of water

quality in the aquifer and in the Comal and San Priority 2 - An action necessaryto prevent a Marcos ecosystems is necessary to protect human significant decline in species population/habitat as well as endangered species interests. Imple- quality, or some other significant negative impact mentation costs of some tasks or task elements short ofextinction. may actually be largely offset (or even cost-

saving) for the entities implementing them. For Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to meet example, water conservation programs have the recovery objectives. expenses associated with them, but the reduction in demand for additional water may also save money by reducing the costs of developing new water supplies, water treatment capacity and operations for municipal use, and wastewater treatment capacity and operations that

Parr Iii 82 San Maccos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecoss’ste,ns Recovery PIaJ

The following abbreviations used in the NFWF - National Fish and Wildlife Foundation r Implementation Schedule: NGO - Nongovernmental Organizations SA - Cirv of San Antonio

ADC - Animal Damage Control (USDA) SMNFH&TC - San Marcos National Fish BR- U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Hatchery & Technology Center

NRCS - Natural Resource Conservation Service EAA - Edwards Aquifer Authority SM - City of San Marcos EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency SMRF - San Marcos River Foundation EUWD - Edwards Underground Water District SWTSU - Southwest Texas State University FWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service TDA - Texas Department of Agriculture ES - Ecological Services TNC - Texas Nature Conservancy LE - Law Enforcement

PAO - Public Affairs Office TNRCC - Texas Natural Resource Conservation

WM - Water Management Commission

TPWD - Texas Parks and Wildlife Department GBRA - Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority TSL - Texas State Legislature GW’D - Ground Water Districts

LCRA - Lower Colorado River Authority USGS - U.S. Geological Survey

NB - City of New Braunfels (including New Braunfels Utilities, in some cases)

Part lii 83 eSAN MARCOS/COMAL RECOVERYPLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

COST ESTIMATES PRIORITY I TASK# TASK TASK RESPONSIBLE ($ 000) DESCRIPTION DURATION PARTY COMMENTS

12.11 Assemble a working group to ongoing ES 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total costs depend develop and promote a TNRCC on number of comprehensive short and TPWD 5.0 5.0 5.0 cooperators, long-term regional plan for SA, SM, NB, BR, strategies selected, aquifer management that USGS,EUWD, and timeframe for considers all users GBRA, GWD, NYD NYD NYD implementation. UVALDE AND in part in part in part MEDINA COUNTIES, TSL,OTHERS

12.34 Examine the potential as EAA Initiated only in effectiveness of legal actions needed GWD absence of adequate such as requesting injunctions SA state or local action and prepare to initiate such NB to curtail action if a crisis appears SM groundwater use. imminent EUWD ES 20.0 20.0 20.0 LE 10.0 10.0 10.0

12.41 Develop and implement ongoing ES 20.0 20.0 management plan(s) for the SWTSU 5.0 5.0 San Marcos system TPWD 8.0 8.0 SM 10.0 10.0 SMRF OTHER LANDOWNERS 7.0 7.0 I. •SAN MARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE COST ESTIMATES TASK TASK RESPONSIBLE ($ 000) DESCRIPTION DURATION PARTY COMMENTS

Provide regulatory protection ongoing EAA Includes ES 5.0 5.0 5.0 consultation work, LE 2.5 2.5 2.5 enforcement TPWD 1.0 1.0 1.0 activities, etc. Most TNRCC 30.0 30.0 are prograrnatic after SM 2.0 2.0 2.0 guidance NB 2.0 2.0 2.0 development.

Encourage public ongoing ES 2.0 1.0 0.5 Uses support from participation in conservation EUWD 5.0 5.0 5.0 task 4.1. efforts SWTSU 1.0 1.0 1.0 SM 1.0 1.0 1.0 NB 1.0 1.0 1.0 TPWD

IdentiFydiseases and parasites 3 ES 1.875 1.875 1.875 SMNFH&TC * 2.500 2.500 2.500 SWTSU TPWD .625 .625 .625 OTHERS

Restore damaged habitats and ongoing ES Dependent on enhance marginal habitats TPWD priority projects SM currently NB unidentified or OTHER NGOs scheduled.

Aa this Recovery Plan goes to print. the San Marcos National Fish Hatchery and Technical Center has been idenrified for possible closure because of budge’ redochofls eSAN MARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

COST ESTIMATES PRIORITY I TASK I TASK TASK RESPONSIBLE ($ 000) DESCRIPTION DURA~ON PARTY COMMENTS (years) YRl jYR2[YR3

12.42 Develop and implement ongoing NB 10.0 10.0 Landowners include management plan(s) for the GBRA 5.0 5.0 Coma1 Co. Rec. Comal River system TNC 0.5 0.5 NYD District No. 1, OTHER 20.0 Schlitterbahn, and LANDOWNERS NYD others. LCRA 4.5 4.5 NFWF 20.0 ES

12.5 Implement measures contin-uous ES Dependent on necessary to protect water EPA conclusions of task quality in the aquifer EUWD NYD NYD NYD 1.28. TNRCC

12.7 Establish and maintain ongoing ES 12.5 5.0 5.0 Dependent on captive stocks Dallas Aquarium results of task 1.4 in SMNFH&TC* NYD NYD NYD part. SWTSU 12.5 10.0 10.0 TPWD-A.E. 8.0 2.0 2.0 Wood 5.0 3.0 3.0 OTHERS NYD NYD NYD

12.8 Reduce pollution loadings to contin-uous ES Costs dependent on San Marcos and Comal EPA conclusions of tasks aquatic habitats and caves TNRCC NYD NYD NYD 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, with Texas blind salamanders SM, NB 1.25, 1.26, 1.27, & LANDOWNERS 1.28

* Aa this Recovery Plan goes to ptint, the San Marcos National Fish Hatchery and Technical Center has been identified for possible closure hccaosc of budget reductions. eSAN MARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

COST ESTIMATES

DESCRIPTION DURATION PARTY COMMENTS PRIORITY I TASK # TASK TASK RESPONSIBLE (S 000) (years) YRl YR2 111 Maintain and implement a ongoing ES 25.0 25.0 30.0 Year 3 reflects costs contingency plan to bring SMNFH&TC * 15.5 15.5 40.0 for an unpredict-able species into captive refugia if SWTSU 23.0 23.0 10.0 low flow period an emergency exists TPWD 10.0 10.0 30.0 when task is Dallas Aquarium implemented. Uvalde NFH Cincinnati Zoo NYD NYD NYD

10 1. 15 IdentiFy habitat characteristics ongoing ES 70.0 150.0 150.0 Supports priority and requirements TPWD 30.0 30.0 30.0 one sub-task 2. 11 in part.

10 1.16 Conduct searches to locate 3 ES 8.0 8.0 8.0 Supports priority San Marcos gambusia TPWD 2.0 2.0 2.0 one task 2.7. SWTSU 1.0 1.0 1.0

10 1.21 Determine impacts from 3 ES 25.0 10.0 10.0 Supports priority tourism enterprises and SM 5.0 5.0 5.0 one task 2.41 recreational use of springs and TPWD 3.0 3.0 3.0 rivers etc. SMRF Lions Club

Aa this Recovery Plan goes to print, the San Marcos National Fish Hasclscrv and Technical Center has been identified br ;ussible closure because ofbudget reductions eSAN MARCOSICOMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

COST ESTIMATES PRIORITY I TASK # TASK TASK RESPONSIBLE ($ 000) DESCRIPTION DURATION PARTY ~2I COMMENTS

10 1.25 IdentiFy and determine effects 5 ES 30.0 50.0 50.0 Supports priority of pollutants from point EPA one task 2.8. source discharges and other NB 10.0 10.0 -some costs covered discharges on listed species SM 20.0 20.0 in EPA permits and their habitats TNRCC -includes TPWD stormwater, utility, and commercial discharge

10 1.26 Assess water quality in the San 2 ES 15.0 Supports priority Marcos aquatic ecosystem and EPA one task 2.8. determine possible sources of EUWD NYD NYD -contributes to negative impacts TPWD 5.0 5.0 management plan TNRCC (2.41) USGS 24.0 5.0 -USGS has supported one year of study.

10 1.27 Assess water quality in the 2 ES 15.0 Supports priority Comal aquatic ecosystem and EPA NYD NYD one task 2.8. determine possible sources of EUWD -USGS has negative impacts TPWD 5.0 supported one year TNRCC of study USGS 24.0 5.0 -contributes to management plan (2.42).

‘As this Recovery Plan goes to print, the San Marcos National Fish Hatchery and Technical Ceo rer has heets identified for possihle clos,,te because of budget reductions. 1

DESCRIPTION DURATION 1~ARTY COMMENTS (yeats) Y~2

10 1.28 Assess adequacy of existing 2 ES 1.0 1.0 Supports priority aquifer water quality WM 5.0 5.0 one task 2.5. protection provisions EPA -contributes to mgt. EUWD NYD NYD plan (sub-task 2.11). TPWD 5.0 5.0 TNRCC OTHERS

10 1.4 Develop captive breeding and 5 ES 58.0 58.0 58.0 Supports priority reintroduction techniques for SMNFH&TC * 25.0 25.0 one task 2.7. all species SWTSU 5.0 5.0 5.0 -costs will decline if TPWD 17.0 12.0 12.0 trials yield success Dallas Aquarium earlier. NYD

10 2.12 Provide Service guidance and ongoing ES 6.25 6.25 6.25 Supports priority (sub- support for the regional one sub-task 2. II. task) aquifer management planning effort

10 2.31 Continue to support proactive ongoing ES .50 .50 .50 Supports priority Federal agency conservation Other Fed. NYD NYD NYD one sub-task 2.11. actions Agencies From base costs in j part. I

* As this Recovery Plan goes to print, the San Matcos National Fish Hatchery and Technical Center has been identified for possible closure because of bridges reductions.

. eSAN MARCOSICOMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

COST ESTIMATES PRIORITY I TASK I TASK TASK RESPONSIBLE ($ 000) DESCRIPTION DURA~ON PARTY COMMENTS (years) YR1 YiR2 YR3

10 2.32 Continue to support private ongoing ES 5.0 5.0 5.0 Supports priority proactive conservation actions Other Fed. NYD NYD NYD one task 2.11 -e.g. Agencies programs Partners for Wildlife.

10 2.33 Aggressively pursue Federal Ongoing ES .50 .50 .50 Supports priority agency compliance with one sub-task 2.11 obligations for informal and from base costs in formal consultations etc. part.

10 3.1 Monitor populations and ongoing ES 10.0 10.0 10.0 Supports priority habitats SMNFH&TC * 3.0 3.0 3.0 one tasks 2.41, 2.42, TPWD 6.0 6.0 6.0 2.5, 2.8, and 2.11 in part.

10 3.2 Monitor threats ongoing ES 15.0 5.0 5.0 Supports same EPA 5.0 priority one tasks EUWD noted for task 3.1 EAA above. Part of basic NB 17.0 5.0 5.0 mission for many SMNFH&TC * 5.0 5.0 5.0 agencies. SM 5.0 5.0 5.0 TNRCC 25.0 10.0 10.0 TPWD 15.0 5.0 5.0 USGS 20.0 4.0 4.0 OTHER NGO’S 15.0 5.0 5.0

* As ~ Recovery Plan goes to print, the San Niarcos National Fish Hatchery and Technical Center has been identified Cot possible closure because of budget reductions. •SAN MARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

COST ESTIMATES PRIORITY I TASK I TASK TASK RESPONSIBLE ($ 000) DU IT DESCRIPTION J RATION PARTY COMMENTS YRl IYR2IYR3

10 4.1 Produce educational materials 3 ES 4.5 4.5 4.5 Supports priority and inform a variety of EUD 4.0 4.0 4.0 one tasks 2.11, and audiences FAA subtasks 2.11, 2.41, TPWD 1.5 1.5 1.5 and 2.42. SM NB SA OTHERS

2 1.11 Determine food habits 3 ES 7.5 7.5 7.5 SMNFH&TC * 2.5 2.5 2.5 OTHERS

2 1.13 Determine reproductive 3 ES 7.5 7.5 7.5 Supports priority parameters SMFH&TC * 5.0 5.0 5.0 one task 2.7. SWTSU TPWD 2.5 2.5 2.5

2 1.14 Determine survivorship 3 ES 7.5 7.5 7.5 patterns SWTSU TPWD 2.5 2.5 2.5 OTHERS

As this Recovery Plan goes to print, the San Marcos National Fish Hatchery and Technical Centet has been identified for possible closure because ofbudget reductions. eSAN MARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

COST ESTIMATES PRIORITY # TASK ~ TASK TASK RESPONSIBLE ($ 000) DESCRIPTION DURATION PARTY J COMMENTS (years) yg~

2 1.22 Compile information on the 2 ES 2.0 2.0 TPWD has characteristics of the San EPA compiled a great deal Marcos watershed SCS of useful information SM 1.0 1.0 already. TPWD 1.0 1.0 USGS 1.0 1.0

2 1.23 Compile information on the 2 ES 2.0 2.0 characteristics of the Comal EPA watershed NB 1.0 1.0 SCS TPWD 1.0 1.0 USGS 1.0 1.0

2 1.24 Compile data pertaining to 2 ES 2.0 2.0 USGS is examining pesticide and herbicide use in EPA pesticides in water the San Marcos and Comal SCS samples. watersheds, etc. TDA TNRCC TPWD 1.0 1.0 USGS

2 1.29 Determine negative impacts 5 ES 70 70 70 by non-native species and TPWD 20 20 20 develop control mechanisms SMNFH&TC * 30 30 30

OTHERS

* As” ‘~ecovery Plan goes to print, the San Marcos National Fish Hatchery and Technical Center has been identified for possible closure because of budge’ redu’ztjon’. echnical Center has been idenrjn~d hr possibic c/osure because ofbodg~~ reduce, 0,,,

•SAN MARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

COST ESTIMATES I PRIORITY # TASK# TASK TASK RESPONSIBLE ($ 000) DESCRIPTION DURATION PARTY COMMENTS (years) YRl I Yg2 YR3 2 1.3 Determine aquifer 3 WM 5.0 5.0 5.0 Contributes to characteristics and recharge EUWD management plan patterns and zones, etc. TNRCC sub-task 2. 11. - this USGS task may involve other responsible parties.

2 2.2 Encourage Federal agencies to continu-ous ES 0.50 0.50 0.50 funded by base undertake or actively promote budget in part. conservation activities under Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA

2 2.6 Encourage management of ongoing ES 5.0 5.0 0.5 Costs reflect initial spring, lake, river, and cave TPWD 1.0 1.0 development costs. habitats by private individuals SM 1.0 1.0 Activities would and others NB 1.0 1.0 then be incorporated TNRCC in basic program LCRA 0.5 0.5 services. SMRF OTHER NGOs

2 2.10 Control and/or remove select ES [)ependenr 011 non-native organisms, etc. ADC results of task 1.29. SM NB TPWD

- S >,, tor I s been identified for possible .los, re beca se ofbudget reducrio’15 San Marcos & coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Pias~ APPENDIX SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED

FISH: Dr. Clark Hubbs, Department of Zoology, I the University ofTexas at Austin Kirk Patterson, San Antonio Dr. Tom Brandt Sierra Club and Clark Hubbs. attorney P.M Dr. Clark Hubbs Dr. Randy Moss Schenkkan Dr. Bill Seawell Society for Conservation Biology. Univer- sity of Texas, Austin Student Chapter, L. Ramakrishnan SALAMANDERS: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Ms. Janet Nelson Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Ms. 4.- Casey Berkhouse 5’ Jackie Poole Joe Fries Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Dr. Dr. Ed Maruska Andy Price Janet Nelson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘4 Dr. Andy Price Anthony F. Maciorowski David Schleser George Veni, George Veni and Associates INVERTEBRATES: All comments were considered when C revising the draft plan. The Service appreciates C Dr. David Bowles the time that each of the commenters took to Dr. Cheryl Barr -C review the draft and to submit their comments. Dr. Tom Arsuffi C The comments discussed below represent a 5-) composite of those received prior to the close of TEXAS WILD-RICE: C -C the public comment period. Comments of a I- similar nature are grouped together. Substantive -C Paula Power C comments regarding the approach, methodol- C ogy, or financial need called for in the draft HYDROLOGY: plan, or suggesting changes to the plan are addressed here. Comments received relating to Steve Cullinan the original listing decision or about the Endan- George Ozuna gered Species Act (ESA) in general that did not Dr. George Veni relate to the recovery of the species specifically covered in this recovery plan are not discussed Comments were received from the individu- here. Comments regarding simple editorial als and agencies listed below: suggestions such as better wording or spelling and punctuation changes, were incorporated as City of New Braunfels, David Wharley appropriate without discussion here. City of San Antonio and San Antonio Water Comments received are retained as a part of System Board, Joe Aceves the Administrative Record of recovery plan Dr. Bob Edwards, San Marcos/Comal development in the Ecological Services Field Recovery Team Leader, Department of Office, Austin, Texas. Biology, UT Pan American, Edinburg Texas / Environmental Defense Fund, Peter Emerson

Ap penclix 94 San Macos & coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recover 5- PAL, TECHNICAL ISSUES yielded data showingthe occurrence offountain darters throughout the Comal system down to the confluence with the Guadalupe River, with Background Geography, high densities in several areas. Service surveys in Geology, arid Hydrology the San Marcos have shown fountain darters to be present from Spring Lake down to an area Comment: The proper technical name for between the city wastewater treatment plant the portion of the Edwards Aquifer discussed in outfall and the confluence with the Blanco River. the recovery plan is: San Antonio Segment ofthe This recent information has also been added to Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer. In the the plan. first use in the document this exact name should For recovery planning purposes consider- be giveh, and noted that all subsequent refer- ation is given to historical accounts, past scien- ences will usethe abbreviated “Edwards Aquifer.” tific records, current distributions as evaluated Service Response: To avoid confusion from recent sampling efforts, and potential (but concerning the geological and hydrological area uninhabited) habitat that is important for the covered by the Recovery Plan, this suggestion recovery of the species. The general area of has been incorporated in the plan. greatest importance for recovery of Texas wild- rice, and the San Marcos salamander is included Comment: A better map is needed for in their critical habitat designations, which are Figure 1 and Figure 3. described in detail under each species. For the Service Response: The figures have been fountain darter the habitat areas in both the San improved. Marcos and Comal systems are very important. For the Texas blind salamander only limited Comment: It would be helpful if the information is available, and for the San Marcos distribution of the species were displayed on gambusia there has been difficulty finding any maps. remaining individuals, so the area needed for and recovery for these species is unclear. Comment: I disagree with the statement Comment: The discussion offountain that the San Marcos River flows mostly over a darters should be expanded to identify the firm gravel bottom. I would characterize it as a specific locations and preferred habitats in the mud/silt bottom. Comal Springs ecosystem. The plan should state Service response: Crowe (1994) mapped that the highest density is in the natural channel the substrates ofthe Comal and San Marcos below the discharge from Landa Lake, and the rivers and shows the majority of the substrate as flow regime there. gravel or gravel/sand composition (her Figure Service Response: This information is 38). However, the Service did not mean to imply available in the Plan text and in cited references. that the substrate is not variable. As noted by Traditional dot-style distribution maps showing Crowe, substrate is highly correlated with flow only sites where collections have been made velocity, and where velocities are low, mud and could be misleading if they led readers to accumulates. The substrate can also be varied discount the possibility of the occurrence of the near the banks from bank erosion or reduction species in other areas as well. in flow velocities, or near stormwater drainage In a similar vein, detailed discussions of areas by siltation from runoff. Because of these present localities of high densities of individuals factors and in the interest of clarity and under- may misrepresent natural fluctuations in the standing the text in this section has been ex- system, the importance of individuals that occur panded. The Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife in other areas, or the importance of areas with Department, and other agencies are also cur- potential habitat (or restorable habitat) for the rently studying river habitat, induding substrates, future recovery ofthe species. In the case ofthe and eventually more detailed information about fountain darters, recent Service surveys have

Appendix 95 San Marcus & coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery PI.’i

substrate in the Comal and San Marcos rivers will period of record (particularly periods of low become available. flows). We know that there have been periods of low flow, some of relatively long duration, and I comment: It might be useful to summarize this is noted in the plan. However, the number of the information on the San Marcos and Comal times that flows have been below a particular 5ysrems (such as flow regime, discharge, runoff, point is not particularly useful in terms of inter- listed species~ candidate species, introduced preting biological impacts. Historical records species~ algal cover, etc.) in tables or graphs so (especially forthe San Marcos) are somewhat that the reader can more readily discern what incomplete, and the reported flows are corrected environmental and biological features are com- riverdischarges and not actual springflows. mon to both, and which set them apart. Biological interpretation is difficult because there Service Response: Recovery Plan guid- is almost no information available about habitat ance stresses that background material should conditions in the river (e.g., dry and wet spots) at be briefand concentrate on laying out the the time, population information for the species pertinent issues and tasks necessary to address ofconcern, and human activities such as diver- them in a way that presents basic technical sions, discharges, number and distribution of information needed but is also accessible to wells, and pumping levels. non-technical readers such as landowners, More important in terms of the survival and public officials, and local land managers. Hydro- recovery of the species is the actual springflows logical information for the Edward Aquifer and needed today to maintain necessary habitats, the San Marcos and Comal Springs and rivers which the Service has estimated and is working (such as time-series discharges, flow regimes, to refine. These needs can then be evaluated in runoff data, etc.) is too voluminous to include terms of current sizeable and increasing aquifer in the plan in graphical or table form. This withdrawals, increasing frequencies and dura- information is readily available in several of the tion of low flows, and the potential for the cited references. permanent loss of flow from the springs. Comparative species lists may be helpful in demonstrating differences and similarities in the Comment: Many people are used to systems, and a table of listed and candidate thinking in terms of the J-17 well reference for species and major introduced species has been aquifer levels (a well located in Bexar County, included in the plan, along with some summary near San Antonio). Table I should include an statistics on springflows. estimate of the J-17 levels that correspond to “take” and “jeopardy” numbers. Comment: The draft text on page 8 gives Service Response: While the Service discharge data only from 1973-1975. What is the acknowledges that many use the J-1 7 well as an significance of this time period? It seems it index of aquifer levels, the Service does not would be more helpful to include the maximum, believe that this should be the preferred or minimum,and mean discharges for the entire standard index for monitoring aquifer levels in period of record. terms of maintaining necessary springflows for Service Response: The Service agrees and the species of concern. The Service’s take and the text in this section has been revised. jeopardy levels were evaluated in terms of springflows needed to maintain the species in Comment: You should note in the plan their natural environment. While the correlation that the flows at San Marcos Springs have been between J-17 and flows at Comal Springs is below 200 cfs 25 times since 1957 with dura- good, a good correlation between wellJ-17 and tions as long as 294 days. San Marcos Springs the San Marcos springflows has not been estab- flows have been below 100 cfs 42 times since lished. Further, local pumping centers (e.g., San 1917, including one period of 454 days. Marcos municipal water wells) could affect Service Response: The Service has reviewed springflows in a manner that would not be data regarding flows in the river systems for the reflected in well J-17 levels. Similarly. local

Appendix 96 San Macos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recove,-~, pj~ recharge events in Hays County may affect Service Response: Because ofthe character.. r springflows, yet not significantly alter aquifer istics of the EdwardsAquifer (which include I levels in Bexar County relatively rapid flow through underground A more direct and accurate method of caverns), there has been debate among hydrolo monitoring Comal and San Marcos springflows gists regarding whether it should be termed an is desirable. Working cooperatively the USGS aquifer or an underground river. This difference and the Edwards Underground Water District in terminology could have ramifications in terms have established a stream gage just below Spring of water-rights law in Texas, the right of the Lake that would measure San Marcos springflow State to regulate the water, and which state plus runoff from Sessom and Sink creeks. Dry agency would have regulatory authority. Recog- Comal and Blieders creeks in New Braunfels are nizing the tremendous movement of water also being gaged. These gages will give a much through the aquifer and its significance as a better understanding of springflows and flood natural resource, the Texas Water Commission events. Local wells in Comal and Hays counties dedaredthe EdwardsAquifer an underground that have been used in the past to monitor local river (TWC Rules, 17 Tex. Reg. 6601-6620) on aquifer levels and estimate springflows provide September 25, 1992. In May of 1993, however, valuable information and should continue to be a Senate Bill (S.B. 1477) passed in the State monitored as well. legislature dedaring that the EdwardsAquifer is a Citations have been added to the text to distinctive natural resource in the state, a unique assist those who wish to examine correlations aquifer, and not an underground stream. Info rma- between springflows and J -17 well levels. non about the declaration of the Edwards Aquifer as an underground river, and the State Comment: Some references calculate that Legislature’s subsequent declaration, has been only 50-57% of the water recharging the Ed- added to the text. wards Aquifer comes from the Nueces River basin, not 78%. Water Quality Service Response: The Service is aware that references varv in their calculations ofthe amount Comment: Hydrologist George Rice re- of recharge contributed by the basins west of cently reviewed USGS and State data and found Bexar County, and the accuracy of these estimates 54 wells in Bexar County have reported mercury is unknown. To more clearly reflect the lower end and chlorinated solvents. Few had levels above of these estimates, we have changed the language that permitted in drinking water standards, to read “Cinvesrigators have estimated that 50- however, 20 years ago there were virtually no 78%” rather than “up to 78%.” reports of these contaminants. This suggests a steady degradation of the aquifer water supply, The discussion of San Marcos Comment: and if it continues contamination greater than Springs does not include their local recharge drinking water standards will be common within area. This should be included, as it is relevant to 20 years. water quality protection discussed later in the Service Response: Rice’s report examined recovery plan. contaminants in wells sampled from 1982 to Service Response: This information has 1992, and this information has been added to been added to the discussion. the plan. It should be noted that no early measurements are available for comparison, Comment: The plan should state that the though the correlation between elevated con- Edwards Aquifer is an underground river, factu- taminants and expanding urbanization (increasing ally and legally. It flows at rates several thousand potential sources of pollution) is suggestive of times those of most aquifers, through caverns recent contamination. Rice also made no specific large enough that they have supported the evolu- projections forthe next 20 years. tion of unique fish, salamanders, and invertebrates.

App~~nJix 97 San Maxcos & Coma] Speings& Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recoverx- Plan

Comment: In water quality discussions, ensure that new data are taken into account in J motor vehicle accidents should be added as a implementing specific tasks under the plan. ~orenrial major source of pollution to the spring In addition to concerns about the bad water line, the plan also discusses the concern that if 5ystem. Service Response: The draft had noted aquifer levels fall, deterioration of water quality may occur due to the decreased dilution poten- the potential for tractor-trailer accidents to cause significant contamination; the more tial for any contaminants in the system. We general impacts from motor vehicle and railroad have modified the text to emphasize how accidents have been added to the plan. serious a potential change in water chemistry could be to the species, and the close link Comment: The plan should specifically between preservation of the environments of state that declining water levels in the Edwards endangered species and the health of the human due to excessive pumping not only threaten environment. Comal and San Marcos springflows and dependent species, but also threaten to poison the Comment: Task 1.24 compiling informa- Edwards as a human drinking water supply. The tion on pesticide and herbicide use in the Comal plan should provide a detailed description of the and San Marcos watersheds should also include risk that the bad-water line will move if exces- data collection on use of these chemicals in sive pumping lowers aquifer levels below a surface watersheds that drain into the caves critical point, including discussions and findings known to contain Texas blind salamanders. from the court proceeding in Judge Bunron’s Service Response: Language has been added court together with any recent final published to this task to clarify the need to collect this work that sheds additional light on the matter. information as well. The plan must note thatJudge Bunron has found that even ifthe needs ofthe species were disre- Comment: Task 1.3 discusses determining garded entirely this human water quality concern aquifer characteristics and recharge patterns and requires that pumping be limited to that necessaty zones that influence springflows. You also need to maintain flows at the Comal at all times. to monitor the general water quality trends in and the aquifer for potential impacts on spring quality. Comment: The draft discusses the possibil- Service Response: This is covered under ity that the bad water line could move without task 1.28 (which calls for assessing water quality any data to substantiate this. USGS review of in the aquifer and providing for protection wells at Comal and San Marcos Springs during against both catastrophic and chronic water the droughts of 1989 and 1990 found no evi- quality problems), under task 2.5 (which calls dence of change in water chemistry due to for implementing measures deemed necessary to decreased springflow and lowered water levels at protect the quality ofwater in the aquifer), and that time. under task 3.2 (which calls for monitoring water Service Response: The draft plan discusses quality). the possibility that the bad water line could move in the threats section under water quality. Fish The discussion covers what is known about this threat at present and directs the interested reader Comment: In the fountain darter back- to additional information. Additional informa- ground section, under “Habitat,” you need to tion has been included about the risk of move- add constant temperature to the list of requirement of the bad-water line, and a discussion of ments. You discuss it as critically importanrin the USGS data from 1989 and 1990 has been passages before and after this one and it should be added. Information available at present is not listed as a requirement. definitive. As more information becomes available the Service will carefully evaluate it and

Appendix 98 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recove~- Plan Service Response: We agree temperatures system. Fish released by the Texas Parks and should be addressed as a habitat requirement. Wildlife Department following treatment with Research has shown that temperatures vary in toxins for nonnative species control in the both systems, including the lakes. As noted in Comal River were wild individuals trapped and the text there is a typical gradient of slightly held for a very short time for this purpose. This increasing temperature variability from the operarion~ which did not eliminate the natural headwarers to the lower reaches. However, population of the Comal, was a management significant deviations from this temperature technique. It w~s not an experiment and did not regime may be a real problem. To better reflect constitute a reintroduction. this, the language “Constant water temperatures Comal Springs went dry in the drought of within the natural and normal river gradients” the 19SOs, and this is generally believed to have has been added to the list of habitat require- resulted in the extirpation of the natural popula- ments. tion because individuals were not found in subsequent repeated sampling. However, the Comment: The loss of 46% of the alleles question of whether the natural population was in the hatchery strains of E. fonticola suggests completely eliminated can not be definitively this species may be especially vulnerable to answered. Fountain darters from the San genetic drift. It would be helpful to give the Marcos were introduced into the Comal system number of fishes used to initiate the hatchery in 1975 and 1976 as a conservation measure, to culture. Ar any rate, effective population size restore the wild population, and to maintain the ~vouldbe an important consideration in future distribution of the species over its historical hatchery breeding efforts. range. This stocking was successful in restoring Service Response: The Service agrees fountain darters to the Comal, where they are that this is an important concern and has now abundant and relatively widespread. funded studies to clarify the genetic variability Having the species present in both systems in the species. Preliminary results indicate that affords greater protection against extinction fountain darters in the wild have considerable than if the species were in a single river system. genetic variability. Provisions for adequately Preliminary genetic analysis has shown some sampling genetic diversity and maintaining genetic differences between the Comal and the captive stocks is a task covered in the plan~ as San Marcos populations. well as in the contingency plan revision cur- Because of the importance of having two rently underway. The text in the plan has been populations in assuring the species doesn’t go expanded to include a little more information extinct and the possibility that the Comal about the previous history of captive breeding. population was never entirely extirpated, the Service has decided not to designate it as an Comment: It is erroneously presumed in experimental, nonessential population. The the plan that the population at the Comal must Service regards the Comal population and its receive full protection under the ESA. It should habitat as significant and essential to the survival be designated as “experimental non-essential” of the species over its historic range. to minimize social and economic impacts of the plan, and to provide yourselves greater regula- Comment: The recovery plan notes that tory flexibility for this population. the most important habitat requirement of the Service Response: The Secretary of the fountain darter is “adequate springflows,” yet Interior was given the authority by Congress to Dr. Bobby Whiteside and Dr. Randy Moss have decide whether populations released prior to testified in court that the fountain darter re- October 13, 1982, are experimental and whether quires water of”a certain quality” but that the the population is essential to the continued source does not have to be springflow. existence of the species in question. Service Response: The testimony of Dr. The Service has thoroughly reviewed the Whireside and Dr. Moss specifically pertained to situation of the fountain darters in the Comal water quality needs of the fountain darter, and

Appendix 99 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associamej Aqu.sti; Ec,svsmem, Reovery p~4,

0or to its overall survival and habitat needs in the Texas at Austin by Dr. Clark Hubbs in 1979, and 7 ~jld. While the fountain darter may physiologi- fish from that captive population were used to establish a captive population at the Service\ cally be able to survive in waters other than those Dexter Fish Harcherv in 1980. In spite of derived from the San Marcos or Comal Springs, maintaining populations at two localities, both rhis does not mean that the species overall habitat captive populations later became contaminated needs for long-term survival in the wild do not require springflow. The ESA requires not only the with another Gambusia species. the fish hybrid- conservation of the listed species, but also the ized, and the pure stocks were lost. ecosystem upon which the speciesdepends. The Mans,’ researchers have been involved and Service believes that one of the most important have devoted considerable effort in attempts to requirements in preserving the habitat that the locate and conserve populations. Following fountain darter inhabits is to maintain spring- publication of the status report and listing of flows. the species in 1980, the Service contracted for examination of known localities, and to collect Comment: In the species account for fish to establish captive stocks. As noted in the Gambusia georgei, it would seem appropriate to plan, in 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984, Dr. Bob discuss habitat changes in the habitat section, in Edwards searched, quarterly in 1983 and 1984, particular the potential role of the elephant ears, to try to relocate populations and reestablish a even though it was already mentioned in the culture of individuals for captive stocks, and threats section. this work was partially funded by the Service. Service Response: This seems appropriate Not enough pure San Marcos gambusia (and in the context of habitat, and the text has been hybrids) were found to establish a culture, modified. although Dr. Edwards attempted to do so with the few fish available. In the mid 1980s person- Comment: The Service should note in the nel from the Fish and Wildlife Service Fish plan that it knew about the imminent extinction Hatchery in San Marcos also searched unsuc- of the San Marcos gambusia in 1980 (from your cessfully for the species in attempts to locate own status report), yet until December of 1989 individuals to bring into captivity. In 1990 the did nothing except occasional searches for the Service organized three intensive searches species. The Service did nothing to save the conducted by Service biologists and volunteers, species and now it is probably extinct. This but no San Marcos gambusia were found. highlights the importance of acting to save Academic and other researchers, Texas endangered species instead of merely monitor- Parks and Wildlife Department scientists, and ing their decline and extinction. the Service continue to search for the San Service Response: The Service strives to Marcos gambusia during all collection and implement effective recovery actions in addition research with fishes that is done on the San to monitoring wherever possible. The assertion Marcos River. that little has been done to try to save this Currently. as noted as a task in the plan, species is incorrect. The Service has been and funding is also being sought for a study that will remains actively involved in efforts to preserve attempt to restore what is believed to be opti- the species. The text has been further expanded mum habitat in a portion of the river the species to include more detail and clarify the Service’s was known to inhabit, in an effort to attract and concern and activities on behalf of this species. pool or concentrate any nearby individuals that In 1976, even before the species was listed, may remain. the Service contracted for a status survey to try to improve our understanding of the species, Comment: The late Kenneth Jurgens particularly its habitat needs, and promoted reported on the San Marcos fishes about 40 bringing individuals into captivity for breeding years ago, and his work might supplement and study. Individuals taken during the 1976 discussions on page 33. study were held and bred at the University of

Appendix 100 San Marcos & coma] Speings & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recover5- Plan Service Response: This survey has been Service response: The text has been clarified included in our background material in the plan. to avoid misunderstanding ofthe differences berween these raxa. The 1990 Contingency Plan Salamanders that was included as an appendix in the draft recovery plan is currently being revised and will Comment: The statement that Eu~ycea provide for the establishment and maintenance of nana requires thermally constant environments separate, genetically representative captive popula- seems open to criticism given that water tem- tions ofeach raxa. peratures vary with seasonal conditions. Service Response: It is true that there are Comment: Using the terms burrowing or water temperature differences within the river, burying as you have on page 50 may be mislead- particularly between the headwaters and down- ing as the salamanders are undoubtedly inca- stream areas. There are also local areas more pable of actually moving much substrate isolated from the main channel where tempera- around, and instead insinuate themselves into tures fluctuate, although within the upper river interstitial spaces between particles of the as a whole, in any given position the tempera- substrate, or into natural channels, grooves, rure is remarkably stable. The salamanders are crevices, fissures, etc. This could have great distributed in areas close to spring openings, implications in interpretation of their ability to where water temperatures are very stable. One survive actions like physical modifications to of the factors most strongly correlated with springs and spring runs. their microgeographic distribution is water Service Response: The Service agrees and temperature. and for the salamanders this has modified the text to make this clear. appears to be essentially constant in the wild. Comment: The Blanco River gravel quarry Comment: I disagree with and would site is the type locality for another species of delete the statement that small mats of Lyngbya Typhiomolge, but not a collection locality for sp. occur in the immediate vicinity of some of Typhiomolge raz-hbuni, as far as I have been able to the larger and deeper springs in the lake and find. could be the source of specimens collected Service Response: You are correct in that there. The algal mats occur mostly around the the “species” found at the Blanco River quarry hotel area, not in deeper areas. sire has been described as Typhiomo/ge robusta. Service Response: The reference to algal The description is based on very limited data, mats near deeper springs has been deleted. and some researchers feel that the salamander located there may actually be Typhiomolge Comment: It should be made very clear in rathbuni. Because the site is no longer accessible this document, as has been clearly demonstrated and no additional specimens have been col- by Chippindale et al., that the population of lected for examination it has not been possible salamanders at Comal Springs is not conspecific to resolve the taxonomic questions about with Ezuycea nana. The statement on p. 45 that salamanders from this locality. Because of this Chippindale et al. found the two populations to taxonomic uncertainty the reference to the be distinct despite morphological similarities is Blanco River quarry site as a location for T misleading because the report shows clear rathbuni has been deleted in the final plan. morphometric differences. The contingency plan in the appendix needs to make this distinction Comment: Without quantification, the clear as well, and needs to deal with the implica- phrase in the discussion ofsetting up captive rions of these differences in providing for captive refugia that preserve “...generic integrity of refugia of the taxa as well. Because these are .species. ..“in paragraph 2 on page 68 and on different species, they should not be kept to- p.78 paragraph 3 is not useful. gerher in the same refugium to avoid any possible Service response: The phrase about main- contamination between them. taining genetic integrityis important to include

-\pper~dix 101 San Marcos & Coma] Speings & Associated Aquatic Ecoss-stems Recover Plac Comment: Critics will be quick to point because it makes it clear that the purpose of captive stocks is to protect and maintain a repre- our that apomixis (selfing) is not generally sentative population of individuals from the wild, considered a “reproductive anomalv~” to serve restoration and possible reintroduction Service Response: The reference was nor in efforts ifneeded. This is a very different situation the context of the plant kingdom in general. but than maintaining a captivegroup of individuals in the context ofthe genus and its known repro- simply for display or education. It is qualitative ducrive strategy However, to avoid misunder- because we lack information needed to give standing, the word “other” has been changed to numbers of individuals from exact localities (or “any.” similar information) supported by reports of the levels of genetic variability found in the wild. Comment: In examining areal coverage of Nevertheless, the language provides important Texas wild-rice the table includes data up to guidanceabout the parameters under which 1993, but the text included data only up to 1989. captive propagation programs will need to be set 1994 data are available and the text and graphics up and managed. As more detailed information should use the most current information becomesavailable it is expected that the contin- available. gency planwill be revised to provide more exact Service response: Text and tables have been guidance. updated to reflect the most recent data available.

Texas Wild-rice Comment: ln considering the recovery criteria outlined for Texas wild-rice, it seems Comment: In the species account for that documenting flowering alone will not Zizania texana it would be good to reiterate the ensure that the species is completing its natural various factors, such as recreation, introduced life cycle in terms of sexual reproduction. This species (like hydrilla and nutria), etc. that are would also require evidence of fruiting, in situ likely impacting the populations of this species. seed germination, and establishment of new Service Response: The Service makes an seedlings. This may take more than 5 years. effort to avoid repetition in recovery plans, to Service response: Although it is unknown make them concise and readable. None of the to what degree and under what conditions species accounts have a general discussion of healthy populations of wild-rice recruit new known and potential threat, as these are covered plants from seeds, it is undoubtedly an impor- in B. Threats to the Species and their Ecosystems. rant part of the life cycle at some point in terms However, in the case of hydrilla, it is germane of maintaining the species as a whole. The text to discuss known changes in habitat, and the has been expanded to include more complete text has been modified to reflect this. reproductive criteria, and a discussion of its basis. Comment: In the habitat section on wild- rice the statement is made that some tree Comment: The requirement that flowering species shade the river “possibly to the exclu- be occurring in at least three of the identified sion ofTexas wild-rice.” Do you mean to imply segments in your delisting criteria is not enough. that native trees are a threat to wild-rice? This occurs sometimes now, and we know that Service response: The passage refers not to the species is not reproducing sexually in any the trees in particular but to the dense shade in viable manner. I recommend that you consider some areas, which some think may influence the requiring that at least 5% of the stands within ability ofTexas wild-rice to grow there. The text the critical habitat area should be successfully has been clarified. sexually reproductive each year for a 5 year period (and this may be an underestimate). Service response: The Service agrees, and the recovery criteria have been modified to reflect these recommended changes.

Appendix 102 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery pj~ Comment: Section 2.9 (habitat restoration) These figures are to be used as a base reference of the step-down outline emphasizes the segment point against which to evaluate the relative of the San Marcos River below Rio Vista dam. health of the populations. Higher levels are This may be fine for other species, but for Texas desirable and not precluded. For monitoring and wild-rice, the section of the river from Spring evaluation purposes, annual monitoring is T Lake to the Rio Vista Dam provides more than considered essential, at a minimum. three times the amount of potential habitat than does the remainder ofthe river. Comment: The executive summary does Service response: The text has been modi- nor include recovery criteria for the San Marcos fied to clarify the relative degree of potential gambusia. San Marcos salamander, andTexas habitat.available above and below Rio Vista Dam Blind salamander. Since the plan does nor provide and in the lower reaches ofthe critical habitat criteria for downlisting or delisring, it should area. specifically state herethat the potential for recovery is limited. Recovery Criteria Service Response: It is stared in the plan that the potential for full recovery of these Comment: In your recovery criteria sections species is low. A sentence has been added to the for each species when discussing target criteria the executive summary to reflect this. However, it statement “all measures identified in this plan to should nor be concluded that significant progress remove or minimize ‘local’ threats have been toward increasing the chances of long-term successfully implemented.” This item is too recovery cannot be made for these species. In vague. You should give a list of the “local” threats this final plan, downlisting criteria have been that need to be removed or minimized. This is given for the Texas blind salamander. The San needed to give the reader a clear picture of the Marcos salamander is listed as threatened, and items of concern. therefore no downlisring criteria are needed. The Service Response: These local threats are plan states that the San Marcos gambusia has not discussed in the Recovery Strategy section. To been found in over 10 years and may be extinct. improve clarity, language including example Where specific downlisting and delisting criteria activities has been added to the criteria sections could nor be formulated for a species. criteria for as well. measuring progress is given in the plan. These criteria are too lengthy and complex to be Comment: The target density estimates for included in the executive summary. the San Marcos salamander should probably be provided in the form of ranges to be observed Comment: Your plan suggests that for a minimum of two or three consecutive years delisring is unattainable in the foreseeable rather than as single numbers at a single point in future for all five species, because of potential time, more like the strategy for wild-rice. catastrophic events. This means you have not Service Response: The guidance given for met your statutory requirements. You must find the San Marcos salamander is not criteria for a way to protect the species and their critical considering downlisting, as theyare for Texas habitat in any and all events. It is your job to wild-rice. The interim objective for the sala- delist, and the plan is supposed to describe howit mander for the period of this recovery plan is the will be done. If none of the actions you propose continued existence of healthy, self-sustaining are sufficient to delistthey should not be required populations of these salamanders in their native at all. habitat. To provide measurable factors to deter- Service Response: Actions outlined in mine the success of the efforts outlined in the recovery plans are intended to provide guidance plan to prevent decline, guidance is given for and coordination for recoveryefforts. While it is annual monitoring, with figures given represent- the ultimate objective ofthe recoveryprocess to ing our best knowledge of healthy populations. provide for listed species comprehensively enough that theycan be delisred, this is not always

Appendix 103 San Marcos & Coma] Spvings & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems R,-c~verv FLat.

~05siblewithin the projected life of a particular on the area to be included, the planned activities of the applicants, and the alternatives presented to pecovety plan. When this is the case, Service avoid impacts to the species. The Service works recovery plan guidance states: “If the prospect of with permit applicants so that conservation reclassification 15 uncertain, ameasurable interim objective may be used.” actions in habitat conservation plans are consistent Recovery plans are evaluated for the need with recovery objectives. While it is not feasible to include specific to revise every 5 years, and plans that don’t need significant revision may be used for longer criteria for an incidental take permit in the than five years. For the San MarcoslComal plan recovery plan, the Service recognizes the need it is estimated that another revision will be to develop better guidance and support for needed within 5-10 years. Because delisting is incidental take permit applicants. Task 2. 12 has not projected to be feasible within the reason- been added to the plan to address that need. able life of this recovery plan, interim measurable objectives for increasing protection for the Contingency Plan and species~ increasing population stability, and Captive Populations increasing the probability of survival, are given in the plan. For three of the species (Texas wild- Comment: Many of the proposed contin- rice, fountain darters, and Texas blind sala- gency plan activities, such as genetic studies, manders) it is believed that recovery actions should begin immediately and not wait for should be attainable that would allow water levels to drop into the critical zone. downlisting from endangered status to threat- Service Response: The contingency plan ened status. attached to the draft recovery plan was devel- In selecting criteria for judging recovery oped in 1990 and is currently being revised. The progress, several of the elements included are Service recognizes the need for many of these essential for the prevention of extinction of the studies to be done in order to provide informa- species, and the Service feels that these are tion needed to guide collection and captive essential criteria for measuring progress made in breeding programs. Genetic studies of the stabilizing the species. fountain darter are underway. proposals have been developed for other identified information Comment: Your recovery guidance states needs, and several of them have been recently that “concise and measurable recovery criteria funded. are essential, they represent the central pillar of recovery.” Therefore, the plan must state the Comment: When downlisting is felt to be specific requirements of a state or regional plan possible, the year 2025 is given as the estimated that would be adequate to justify issuing an year for downlisting. There should be some incidental take permit. discussion of the basis for that date. Service Response: Recovery criteria and Service Response: This is simply the criteria for issuing permits are not the same Service’s estimate of a reasonable time period thing. Recovery criteria deal with the species as needed to achieve the necessary recovery tasks a whole, over its entire range, and cite measur- outlined ifcontinuous progress is made. Language able conditions that are believed to be necessary to has been added to the plan to clarify this. demonstrate increased stability, or complete recovery of a species, before downlisting or Comment: Task 2.10 calling for bringing delisting can be considered. Incidental take species into captive refugia in an emergency permits are issued in response to requests that appears to exclude the Texas blind salamander. come in from an applicant, not as part of a Service Response: It is true that the original downlisting or delistingevaluation. Take permit contingency plan did not include provisions for applications may be submitted for a variety of the Texas blind salamander. The contingency plan specific activities and varyinggeographic areas. is currently being revised and will have provisions Therefore, specific requirements vary and depend

Appendix 104 San Marcos & coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers’ Plar. for the Texas blind salamander. However, because rives or fully meet the intent for conservation of the Texas blind salamander is subterranean, in the the species under the ESA. But in fact the recov- event of verv low flows, it may be very difficult ery plan as a whole fails to do these things, and to get any additional individuals to bring into would depend on captive populations to maintain captive populations. Problems such as this are one the species in a drought of record. The recoverv reason the plan also has task 2.7, which calls for plan must come up with a strategy that does not setting up genetically representative captive stocks require captive populations and can protect the atappropriate facilities for all listed species as species in the wild in both ordinary dry times and soon as possible. The contingency plan coopera- in droughts of record. tors have recognized this and the new plan will and recommend captive populations for the Texas blind salamander be maintained at all times, not Comment: Captive populations are an just during low flows. Their recommendations inappropriate conservation strategy. are verv similar to the sort of actions intended Service response: Recovery plans by under Task 2.7. Because ofthis potential overlap themselves are guidance documents and cannot the text for task 2.11 (which was task 2.10 in the assure the survival of listed species or protection draft) has been modified to reflect this broader of habitat. To assure survival the plans must be scope, more inclusive of both tasks 2.7 and 2.11. implemented in a timely manner. The Service believes that the implementation of the tasks Comment: If we face a major aquifer outlined in this plan will be sufficient not only emergency. shouldn’t emergency conservation to assure necessary springflows for the species measures for the candidate species of the Comal and their habitat, but also to deal with other be considered by the Service? threats, and the restoration needed to stabilize Service Response: In revising the contin- listed species and prevent their extinction. gency plan, the Service and its cooperators have However, the Service acknowledges that made the decision to include the Comal sala- there is uncertainty in implementation of recov- mander in captive refugia as well as the listed ery plans. Many elements of recovery plan species. Contingency plan cooperators are implementation are not under the Service’s examining the potential to take action on behalf control. There are fiscal, logistical, and regula- of the riffle beetle and other invertebrates to see tory limitations. Implementation of recovery if it is feasible to establish some sort of captive tasks by parties outside the Service is not re- stocks. There is so little information on the life quired (with the exception of some Federal cycle of the invertebrate species and how to agency obligations). Implementation of tasks maintain them in captivity (much less how to identified as Service responsibilities are depen- reintroduce them later) that it may be impos- dent on adequate funding. Some tasks will sible to do so at the present time. Further require changes in public attitudes and behav- studies are needed. iors. For other tasks the necessary technical expertise has not yet been developed. Comment: In the plan in discussing take and In addition, it is not realistic to propose that jeopardy numbers you state that flows should be the Service can achieve recovery alone. Progress maintained above jeopardy levelsor adverse toward recovery takes the cooperation of numer- modification of the critical habitat, yet the ous other parties, particularly in complex, wide- recovery plan itself fails to ensure that therewill ranging situations such as this one. The Recovery always be flows in the critical habitat. Plan includes many tasks that clearly state they must be cooperative and will require many and partners. While the Service cannot mandate recovery Comment: In the draft plan, you state that plan implementation, it can and does conscien- captive populations cannot fulfill recovery objec- tiously and energetically promote implementation and undertakes as many tasks as possible. Signifi- A ppc ni is 105 I 5~ ls4aecos & Coma] Spvings & Assoc~ted Aquatic Ecosyttein, R~cosx.’y Plan Comment: Th~ plan hypoth~ cant progress has been made forthese species, as 5~~ that -outlined under conservation measures throughout decreased flows may exacerbate the Problem the plan. imposed by nonnative species includingthe giant The Service does havelegal powers it can use ramshorn snail, without any data to support this ro help prevent take, jeopardy, and adverse hypothesis. modification of critical habitat. Tasks directing Service Response: The Recovery Plan that regulatory protection should be provided text details several independent observations were included in the draft in task 2.11 (now over time (by Home et al. 1992, Arsuffi pets. task 2.12). However, an additional task (2.3) comm., and Linam et al. 1993) that support the has been added to the plan to clarify Federal concern that the ramshorn snail may be a options and the approach that would be taken if significant threat, especially during low flows. sufficient progress toward recovery is not made. This information is based on observations of The Service believes that captive popula- the snails, their relative abundance, and their tions are a part of a valid conservation strategy, impacts on vegetation during low flows. Addi- when used in the context of planning for resto- rional research is needed to better understand ration in the wild. Even if springflows were the snails and their relationship to essential assured the Service would still recommend that habitat for the listed species. Conducting this genetically representative captive populations research is included as a task in the recovery be established and maintained. Captive popula- plan. Dr. Arsuffi of Southwest Texas State tions are needed for some species to provide University has undertaken some quantitative material for restoration work called for in the studies. The text language has been clarified and Recovery Plan. In addition, if some unavoidable additional citations have been added to this catastrophic event lowered wild populations to section. the point they are were longer viable in the wild or they were totally eliminated, captive stocks Comment: Appendix 1, the contingency would allow us to prevent the total loss of the plan, discusses activities to occur when species and attempt restoration. springflows cease. This would provide an opportunity to work in the dry channel to remove Habitat Protection exotic species that stress or threaten the native and Management species. Some chemical treatments may be possible to eradicate nonnatives, and still have Comment: Task 2.5 encourages manage- rime to break down or wash away before natives ment of spring and river habitat, but does not are returned to the system. Some discussion of include cave habitat. eradication treatment for nonnatives should be Service Response: Language has been included in the plan. added to the plan to clarify the need to work Service Response: The Contingency Plan with landowners to protect cave habitat and includedin the original recovery plan is being recharge features. revised, and cooperators have discussed the potential for exotic species control. There was Nonnative Species concern that low flows, while they might call for intervention on the part of species of concern, Comment: The recovery plan should might not actually present the best time for explain what would constitute “significant control of nnonnativespecies. The persistence of control of certain nonnative species” that would individuals of listed species during low flows will allow springflow determinations to be modified. depend on the extent and duration of drying. As Service Response: The Service has added a springflows fall the river systems are nor ex- sentence to this footnote to further clarify what is pected to dry out uniformly. Most remaining meantby “significant control.” organisms would be extremely stressed, and actions taken with chemical or other means to treat nonnative species would likely also be Appendix 106 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovec-. P1~Ti destructive ofsurviving native organisms~ listed 1 934 to the present. and discussed projections for and otherwise. This would nor be a good increasing pumpage in the future, with a perma approach if the crisis was short duration and nent loss of flow at Comal and San Marcos survivable, even by low numbers of native Springs as a result. individuals. Survivors would be pivotal in the Projections about when the Comal would go ability of the natural system to restore itself dry in a drought of record, with or without quickly. pumping, varv from source to source, depending Further, we do not yet know how best to on assumptions and models used. control many of these species, especially under In today’s situation, however, pumping is low flow conditions, and it is difficult to de- undoubtedly a factor in whether and when the velop guidance in advance. Including specific springs go dry and for how long. Groundwater nonnatis’e species control projects in the Con- withdrawals are a primary concern. Pumping tingency Plan could be detrimental if evaluation levels threaten springflows during mildly dry and planning are not adequate. years, at least intermittently, and all future projections show that without intervention the Water Quantity springs eventually are likely to go dry. Both intermittent and permanent loss of springflow Comment: The plan should emphasize the are unacceptable for the preservation of the importance of human activity, especially endangered species’ ecosystem and their survival overpumping, as the cause of the principal threat and recovery. to the Comal and San Marcos, and the historically increasing nature of that threat. It should Comment: The plan should note that state specifically that the Comal would not have during years of at least mild drought, springflows gone dry in the drought of record except for drop very rapidly. This is why an enforceable human withdrawals, and the San Marcos would emergency withdrawal reduction plan is needed nor reach jeopardy levels except for human that triggers well before springs reach a “take” pumping. level. and Service Response: The Service has added a comment about the potential for rapid de- Comment: The plan should note that dines in flows from Comal Springs in the projections show that the Comal Springs will go background section. Because of the logistics of dry on their own in a drought of record, even implementing reduction measures, in situations without any pumping. Pumping restrictions will where flows are dropping rapidly it is possible not prevent the springs from going dry in a that emergency reduction measures will need to drought of record. have implementation triggers at levels before “take” is reached, in order to prevent jeopardy. and The need to develop these operational scenarios and prepare to implement them is discussed in Comment: You are incorrect in assuming the final plan under tasks 2.11 and 2.34. that pumping limits will provide a recovery plan. The purpose of a recovery plan, however, is You have ignored computer simulations that not to prescribe measures that will prevent any show that the aquifer will go below 100 cfs at possible “take” of a listed species. The recovery San Marcos in many droughts~ even in the plan sets forth the long-term measures that are absence ofany pumping in the region. most likely to enable the Service to downlist or Service Response: The background text delist a species. Some degree of “take” under section on water quantity stated that loss of section 9 of the ESA may be permissible through springflow is tied inseparably to water usage from issuance ofan incidental take statement under a the EdwardsAquifer, noted the increase in section 7 consultation or a section 10 incidental withdrawal from the San Antonio area from take permit, in conjunctionwith Service approval of a habitat conservation plan. Appendix 107 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecoss-stenis Rec~,s’ers’ Pici. Comment: Loss ofspringflows is nor a can be projected for other areas as well. That both ‘C’CpflIfl~iY threat,” it is the “most serious” threat springs are in danger of dryingup intermirtentl~’, to these species. and progressively until they ceaseflowing alto- Service Response: The Service prefers to gether is also not debated. Better recharge and use the term primary. Loss of springflows is not discharge data sets are needed, and more work is the only threat that could cause the extinction of needed to gather additional information and these species. The decline of the San Marcos refine models before accurate and more consistent gambusia is thought most likely to have been interpretations can be expected. The essential caused by habitat alteration and loss and/or the point our of all of these investigations and impacts of exotic species. A catastrophic event projections is discussed in the “threats” section such as an accidental spill of a toxic chemical under water quantity. The plan states that even from a railway bridge or roadway crossing could with a low (and unlikely) rate of growth for this also be serious. The recovery plan is responsible region overal, demands on the Edwards Balcones for identifying and attempting to address all such Fault Zone aquifer will far exceed the recharge potentially serious threats. over the long-term. Clearly a new approach to meeting water demands in the area will be Comment: The plan should provide at least needed to avoid overuse of the aquifer and loss three projections of San Antonio’s increased of its biological resources and integrity, let alone demands, by the San Antonio Water System, by the economies that are presently dependent the Texas Water Development Board, and by upon it. Research and Planning Consultants, Inc. Comment: The plan should state, as Judge and Bunron has found, that to provide for flow at the Comal Springs, pumping must be reduced in a Comment: The Texas Water Development repeat of the drought of record to a level of only Board’s model is not the only. or even most 200,000 acre-feet/year. reliable, predictor of the impacts of pumping on Comal springflows. Other models and projec- and tions include: Thornhill (1992), TBEE Educa- tional Consultants (1994), and Center for Re- Comment: Some people feel that under S.B. search in Water Resources (1993). All show more 1477 the new EdwardsAquifer Authority cannot drastic impacts than TWDB, with Comal reduce pumping below 400,000 acre-feet/year. Springs drying up or falling below “take” and Therefore the plan needs to state that Judge “jeopardy” levels in milder droughts and for Bunron found that pumping even 350,000 acre- longer periods. feet/year in a drought of record will dry up the Service Response: More citations for the Comal Springs for years. interested reader to explore background information have been included in the plan, includ- and ing reference to most of these reports. However, it is not the purpose of the background section Comment: It is obvious that pumping will to provide a detailed and voluminous literature have to be reduced in average years to less than review, data display. and evaluation of all previous 400,000 acre-feet/year and roughly 200,000 work. This would result in a burdensome and acre-feet/year in serious drought years. unwieldy plan. Guidance directs that plans briefly Service Response: For the recovery ofthe and concisely state the problems, issues, and tasks species the first priority has been to identify the needed to be resolved. levels of springflow needed forthe continued That the city of San Antonio’s water demand subsistence and recovery of the listed species in will increase significantly as it grows is not their ecosystems. The Service has used the best debated. San Antonio is not the only user of available information to evaluate and provide aquifer waters in the area, and increases in demand an estimate ofwhat these springflows are, and has

Appendix 108 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recove~, pj~ been candidthat these numbers could change as the flexibility needed to address the numerous more detailed information becomes available. The variables involved. plan includes these estimated springflow levels It is clear, however, that an enforceable needed, and the Service is conducting additional state/regional/local plan or plans to reduce studies to refine these estimates. pumping would be needed to prevent unaccepr It is beyond the scope of this plan to defini- ably low springflows. Reduction in current use tively determine the limits of groundwater use or levels would be needed to ensure that aquifer pumping needed to protect springflows and levels do not approach unacceptable minimum subterranean habitat. There has been consider- levels in dry periods or periods of intense able diversity of opinion on levels of groundwa- demand. In a repeat of a drought of record the rer use that would preserve needed springflows reduction in pumping that would be needed to under various conditions. The Service recognizes sustain springflow would be even more severe, the need to improve guidance on the likely levels and wording has been added to the text to be of reduction in groundwater use needed to sure that this is clearly understood. Task 2.1 provide necessary springflows. Additional states that to assure adequate springflows and analysis and assistance are needed. Task 2.11 aquifer levels a mechanism for controlling has been added to the plan and is designed to groundwater withdrawal is needed, as well as provide additional technical guidance by con- the development and implementation of an vening an interagency team of biologists, Aquifer Management Plan that would achieve geologists, hydrologists, economists, and water necessary groundwater use reductions. resource planners. This group will examine Task 2.1 has two tasks (2.11 and 2.12) which baseline information and current models, and have been added to the plan. Task 2.11 calls for a build upon other efforts to date (such as pro- representative working group including users, posed emergency reduction plans) to develop regulatory agencies and biologists and technical better guidance on aquifer levels needed (under advisors to development and implement this varying conditions) to support the survival and comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan. It is recovery of the species. expected that the interagency team examining Relating springflow levels to exact levels of needed aquifer levelsand providing technical groundwater use limits needed to protect against guidance (task 2.12) will be working closely with low aquifer levels is dependent on a number of the working group developingthe comprehensive factors. Different modeling efforts have shown Aquifer Management Plan. different results depending on the assumptions and mathematical relationships used to develop Comment: It is obvious that to protect the them. Determinations of needed limits on species and springflows a regulatory authority groundwater use must be based on an evaluation with jurisdiction over all pumping will be of factors including proposed amounts and times required. of use, projected future withdrawal needs, ServiceResponse: The Service agrees that availability of alternative water supplies, and there needs to be a State mechanism for regulat- other concerns ofconservation agencies and ofthe ing groundwater withdrawals, as was stated in the community. Undoubtedly. models may be draftplan in the recovery strategy section and refined, and adequate plans regulating ground- under task 2. 1. The State legislature passed water use may evolve in response to our experi- legislation in 1993 creating the Edwards Aquifer ence and continued monitoring of the aquifer. Authority, with regulatory powers. However, the Over time we expect to gain a better under- legislation was unimplementable due to legal standing of the response of the springs to re- challenges based on Voting RightsAct concerns charge, pumping levels, local weather patterns, about adequate representation for the regulated and changes in water use profiles. Stating a area. The Service is hopeful the Edwards Aquifer particular target level for pumping in the plan Authority will soon be operating. In 1995 the could be misleading, and would not provide for legislature addressed these problemswith an amendment to the legislation, but implementa-

Apj~endix 109 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecoss-srenis Recoserv Pici. 1non has again been challenged in the courts, this without the need for pumping controls or time by the Medina and Uvalde Counrv Under- alternative water supplies.” ground Water Districts. Recently a State court judge ruled that the legislationwas unconstitu- and tional under Texas law, an appeal is expected, and litigation may continue. If no State plan can be Comment: The draft plan focuses solely on implemented under the 1993 legislation, then the controlling groundwater pumping without any Service will have to examine other means of consideration for the existence of other alterna- protecting the species. Information updating tive techniques that might contribute to conser- legislative and court action in 1995 has been vanion of the species, with more minimal social added to the text. and economic impacts. Service Response: The important point Comment: An emergency reduction plan regarding the development of an Aquifer Man- must be in place, enforceable, and ready to agement Plan is that it should use a multifaceted reduce pumping quickly in crisis situations. The approach. The Aquifer Management Plan would Service can and should provide an emergency derive greater reliability and minimize potential withdrawal reduction plan that defines specific adverse impacts through significant diversifica- trigger levels for emergency pumping reductions. tion. The recovery plan states that the plan may The plan should include cutting our all outdoor include conservation, water reuse such as watering (agricultural and municipal) and this wastewater use, constant monitoring and should happen at trigger levels well above jeop- regulation of aquifer withdrawals, groundwater ardy. use emergency reduction plans, limited use or and retirement ofwater rights through a marketing system, recharge enhancement, and develop- Comment: The plan should describe ment of alternative water sources. The text specific institutional arrangements by which San under task 2.1 has been modified to emphasize Antonio military bases can be assured of water our recommendation of a multifaceted ap- that is not dependent on the Edwards. proach. However, the Service does not believe it is and appropriate or within ins statutory duties to dictate exactly how this objective is met. The Comment: Alternative water supplies must appropriate Service role is to provide technical be developed to enable users of Edwards water to support and biological evaluations to help reduce their dependance on the aquifer. The only evaluate the suitability and feasibility of locally sources ofwater that are large enough, cost- and regionally developed plans in terms of effective, and environmentally acceptable are whether they are likely no be able no protect the interbasin transfers. species of concern. Current Service policy provides for the and involvement of stakeholders in planning the implementation details of specific recovery Comment: The plan should specifically actions in order to minimize social and economic address the projected potential and limits of burdens to local communities whenever pos- agricultural, municipal, and industrial conserva- sible. Emergency groundwater use reduction tion and wastewater re-use. This should be plans should be developed by those who have discussed in detail relating studies, projections, the authority to impose and enforce emergency and potential achievements and limits. They have reductions in groundwater withdrawal, and by the potential to contribute significantly to reduc- those from the community no be regulated. As ing water demand in a cost effective way. How- noted previously. considerable progress has ever, they cannot provide in “savings” the amount been made in local and regional planning since ofwater projected to be needed in the area the draft recovery plan was prepared.

Appendix 110 Sari Marcos & Coma] Springs & AssociatedAquatic Ecosystems Eccovery Plar The Department ofDefense has indicated an Comment: The plan should discuss the interest in making arrangements to obtain water Service’s position on recent proposals for from sources that do non depend on the aquifer. streamfiow augmentation. In is non addressed. In is appropriate forspecific details ofsuch Some interests believe that augmentation can arrangements to be developed by the appropriate allow pumping no continue unregulated. Department of Defense authorities, not the Recovery Plan. and The plan acknowledges under task 2.1 that development of alternative sources of water is an Comment: Your river management plans appropriate and potentially promising part of an should include provisions for local recharge and approach to aquifer management. The task also augmentation. nones the appropriateness of strategies for water conservation and wasnewaner reuse. Conservation and strategies and wasnewarer reuse should be pursued aggressively no derive the maximum Comment: Your plan should call for the savings possible. These approaches can contrib- development of injection, local recharge. aug- ute significantly to reducing demand on the mennation directly into streambeds, and recircu- aquifer. The Service acknowledges, however, lation of springflow. The recovery plan needs to than conservation alone is non likely to be include a whole chapter on these various strate- sufficient no meet projected water demands for gies and their relative cost vs. shutting down the the area through savings, hence the recommen- aquifer and going to other sources ofwater. dation that the plan include other strategies as well. and Current assessments regarding the potential contributions and limits of various approaches Comment: Studies for the Edwards Under- might be modified following additional review, ground Water Board have shown that augmenta- evaluation, and fine-tuning. Rather than include tion techniques in atleast five different configura- them in the present Recovery Plan, a review of rions are feasible for keepingwater in the critical these issues is included as part ofthe deliberations habitat, even during a drought ofrecord. Your of the working group called for in new task 2.11, plan, to be fair, must include these techniques. and the evaluations of the technicalsupport team Service response: The Service wrote to the included in new task 2.12. Decisions regarding Texas Water Development Board (Sept. 1, 1994 the appropriate contributionto groundwater use and January 23,1995), commenting on the reduction to be realized from these techniques is McKinney and Sharp draft report “Springflow also best left to these groups during the develop- augmentation of the Comal Springs and San ment ofthe comprehensive Aquifer Management Marcos Springs, Texas: Phase I--Feasibility Plan. Study (Draft).” We stated that augmentation alternatives described involving injection wells, Artificial Augmentation infiltration galleries, aquifer baffles, and direct addition to spring fed lakes are not feasible in Comment: In discussions of supplement- terms of providing adequate protection for listed ing the region’s water supply, recharge enhance- species dependent upon the Edwards Aquifer, ment/dams is a major option which is unmen- with additional comments on our reasons for nioned except for cautions that possible impacts concern. These augmentation approaches are on sensitive cave species must be considered. unlikely to preserve the biological integrity of the Recharge enhancement should be included in the ecosystems of concern, and do non address the options discussed. underlying problem of excessive demand on the and aquifer. Other more feasible approaches involve actions directly addressing this problem, therefore providing a long-term solution to these problems.

Appendix ill San Maicos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recos-ery EI.’ 1 As stated above, the Service believes that the parameters for the species involved. Task 1. 15 most effective regional Aquifer Management Plan (determining survivorship patterns), would xvi!! be one using a multifaceted approach no logically include these sorts of investigations. reduce groundwater demands on the aquifer. While regional and local recharge enhancement Comment: Although the Recovery Plan opportunities mayhave some potential benefit, will specifically address only currently listed they must be carefully evaluated. The Service does species, candidate species from the Comal non believe that recharge alternatives can be Springs need protection too--and some of them adequately evaluated until data are developed and may end up being listed in the future. By pro- analyzed that address potential impacts to the necting the habitat of the fountain darter will we Texas blind salamander and water quality issues be protecting the site specific habitats of the (such as the potential forcontamination, and Comal Springs salamander and the riffle beetle? likelihood that recharge enhancement waterswill Service Response: Generally in appears equilibrate to normal aquifer conditions without than this would be the case. If the decision is harm no the species). A careful evaluation is made to proceed with listing these species. no needed of the realistic potential for recharge major changes in the recovery plan would be enhancement to provide anysignificant water to needed to provide protection for them as well, the aquifer during drought periods. Impacts to as the threats faced are similar. However, fish and wildlife at the point of recharge, from springflow levels where take and jeopardy decreased flows in rivers and streams downstream would occur for these species may differ from of recharge, and other impacts no drainages that those given for the fountain darter at Comal, will be deprived of waters normally accruing to particularly because these species are located them (due no diversion to recharge) must be primarily in the spring runs of the Comal. carefully evaluated as well. The text under task 2.1 has been expanded no INFORMATION AND clarify the Service’s position on these augmenta- PUBLIC EDUCATION tion approaches. Comment: While in should not be the Miscellaneous Technical Comments primary emphasis of the recovery plan, the connection between species protection and Comment: As a tool no aid the recovery of people protection should be emphasized. Keep- these species, preliminary population viability ing the aquifer clean and springs flowing for analyses (PVAs) for the Texas wild-rice, foun- these species is also good for people drinking the tam darter, and salamanders should be done. By water and for local economies dependent on the using estimates of biological parameters and river systems. Many people who do not appreci- environmental variability onecan explore by ate a particular organism’s worth or intrinsic computer simulation the consequences of right to protection can appreciate this more unexpected events on the probabilities ofextinc- immediate connection no the need for protection tion. These estimates can be very helpful in of natural resources. guiding management decisions. Service Response: Task 4.0 covering public Service Response: The Service agrees that information and education efforts included the PVA can be a valuable analytical tool and has need to show the human benefits ofprotecting explored the use of PVA techniques for several the ecosystems upon which these species depend. species. In is most useful with comprehensive and This text has been expanded no clarifythe impor- reliable baseline datato support in, and a model nanceof this aspect. configuration that is a good fin no the actual biology of the species and ins habitat. We have found some models limited in their ability to handlelarge brood sizes or otherlife history

Appendix 112 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers Pian POLICY AND Comment: The key no efficient aquifer management, including spring-fed ecosystem IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES maintenance, is transferable, prioritized pumping rights. Comment: The Draft Plan fails no minimize and the social and economic impacts of implementa- nion as directed in the FWS policy statement of Comment: The plan must specifically July 1, 1994. address the potential and limits of water rights Service Response: The Service considers the marketing, and discuss the impediment faced minimization of potential social and economic today because property rights no Edwards water impacts ofrecovery to be important to the success are non currently defined. You should educate of recovery efforts on behalfof listed species and about the concepts, facts, and the law. There is their ecosystems. The Service recognizes that in remarkable consensus among snakeholders about planning for recovery for these species, the the potential usefulness ofa marketing approach. greatest potential impacts are in the area of Service Response: The Service feels that controlling groundwater withdrawals from the there are many waysto achieve limitations on the Edwards Aquifer. and in addressing other human amount ofwater pumped from the Edwards impacts in the ecosystems that may cause habitat aquifer in order no protect the species that alteration or destruction. depend upon in. Transferable pumping rights is Recovery plan tasks no achieve these objectives one water marketing system that could be have been designed no be cooperatively developed employed, and such water rights marketing and implemented in order no take advantage of systems are included as an option in the plan. the input ofconcerned parties for both design and implementation. The recovery plan makes in very Comment: You need no hold a public clear that public involvement in the details of hearing as soon as possible no collect the ideas recovery planning and implementation are and comments of the people on your proposed necessary and welcome under task 2 and ins recovery plan. various tasks. The draft plan also included a Service Response: The draft recovery plan specific objective (4.2) for encouraging public and notices of its availability for public comment participation in conservation efforts. This is done were widely circulated, with a 90-day public in part no facilitate consideration of social and comment period. A notice of availability ap- economic impacts and help minimize them. peared in the FederalRegister. and in addition Implementation of all recovery plan tasks over 850 letters were sent notifying potentially may non involve significant economic or social interested parties of the availability of the plan impacts or require public participation and for public comment. Over 160 copies of the planning. However, in many cases there may be plan were mailed out. Issues surrounding the several avenues that could be pursued no achieve a needs for the conservation and recovery of the particular task, and several involved parties or listed species in the Comal and San Marcos cooperators. When appropriate for the imple- systems have had wide media exposure in the mentation of a particular task, the Service may area and statewide, and have had a great deal of convene affected parties no examine options scrutiny by agencies, organizations, local and available, evaluate concerns and ideas offered, state governmenns~ and interested individuals. The and be certain that implementation supports Service feels that notifications and draft plans sent timely achievement of the task while minimizing out for review and comment have been sufficient social and economic costs as much as possible. no allow consideration and comment of the In order to clarify our intention no minimize people. Only 13 letters of comment were re- social and economic costs while still achieving ceived. A costly public hearing would non be the timely implementation of recovery tasks, we likely no result in anywider consideration of the have added language explicitly stating these goals draft planthan has already been achieved, nor is a no tasks 2.0 and 4.0 and appropriate tasks. public hearing believed to be more effective an

Appei~dix 113 San Marcos & coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers Piax soliciting comments than methods already used. Under these circumstances in seems FWS must The Service prefers no direct ins limited funds comply with NEPA. toward support of on-the-ground recovery Service response: NEPA requirements actions. only apply to discretionary actions of Federal agencies. not no nondiscretionary actions, such Comment: Recovery Plans are subject to as specific court-ordered recovery tasks. The requirements of the National Environmental court’s order was directed specifically an (1) the Policy Act. You have failed to consider the need for the Service no announce the threshold environmental impact of alternatives under “take” and “jeopardy” springflow and aquifer NEPA. A full environmental impact statement water levels, and (2) the need no update the will be required before any Recovery Plan is pun plan no consider Comal Springs and aquifer- into place. dependent species, which the revised plan now Service Response: The Service determined does. The plan itself remains a broad planning in 1986 than, consistent with the Council of document, without specific legally enforceable Environmental Quality regulations implementing duties upon other agencies or persons. Discre- NEPA, recoveryplans are categorically excluded tionary implementation of specific recovery from NEPA requirements forEnvironmental actions called for in the plan would still be Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements expected no go through compliance with the during the developmentand approval process. NEPA process. This exclusion is based on the fact that recovery plans are broad planning documents that list all Comment: You have outlined a vast tasks the Service believes may contribute no the number of studies that the people will pay for recoveryof species and set general policies and that have no obvious connection no protecting priorities for management and treatment of species in droughts. Some explanation of the species. Recovery plans cover tasks that may relevancy of each proposed study should be involve actions by the Service, other Federal included in the plan. agencies, State and local governments, the private Service Response: Drought is non the only sector, or a combination of these. However, issue that must be addressed no assure the conser- recovery plans do not impose any obligation on vation and recovery of the species. Part 1, any agency, entity or person to implement the B. Threats to the Species and Their Ecosystems, tasks listed in the plan. devotes several pages no a detailed discussion of While a recovery plan does non require NEPA other problems that must be examined and analysis for development and approval, actual addressed. Part 1, E. Recovery Strategy, discusses implementation of actions outlined in the plan the need to investigateregional and local threats may. NEPA analysis (and the preparation ofany and additional research needed regarding the needed Environmental Assessment or Environ- biology of the individual species. Lastly, Part II, mental Impact Statements that may be required) C. Narrative Outline for Recovery Actions, is expected to be done by any Federal agency as includes in the text for each task a discussion of theyprepare no actually implement particular the role of each task in furthering conservation recoveryactions, ifappropriate. and recovery.

Comment: Under ordinary circumstances Comment: You mention state legislative recovery plans may not be subject to NEPA action on S.B. 1477 in the draft plan but fail to analysis requirements, because recovery plans are note that the bill was declared void by the Justice broad planning documents without specific Department, and that according no some models implementation obligations or proposals. How- does non come close no protecting the species ever, in this case, as Judge Bunnon has ordered from jeopardy anyway. the preparation and implementation of the plan, Service response: Since the draft plan was in appears that recovery plan development and circulated for review and comment the State implementation are now a nondiscretionary duty. Legislature has convened and passed legislation in

Appendix 114 San Maxcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recove~- p~

1995 (H.B. 3189) amending S.B. 1477 (passed in Plan. He recognized than the Service should 1993 to create the Edwards Aquifer Authority) include those measures that in deemed no be than resolved theJustice Departments concerns “necessary and appropriate” for inclusion in a previously preventing implementation due no recovery plan. The Service provided what was concerns about representation under the Voting requesned~ and clearly states in task 2. 1 than an Rights Act. Implementation of the legislation has enforceable plan should be developed to manage been prevented by new legal challenges brought the water in the Edwards Aquifer (using avariety by the Medina County Underground Water of biologically supportable approaches) no District and others. Recently a State court judge preserve water supplies for the springs (even in a ruled that the legislation was unconstitutional. drought of record). This task also clearly ex- However, in is expected that the state will appeal, presses and includes the obligations mandated and the case likely will be decided by the Texas by the Act for Federal agencies. Supreme Court. In is undesirable for the Recovery Plan no The Service believes that this legislation is a attempt no determine and dictate the specific significant action toward implementation of components or requirements for any State or regulated groundwater withdrawal from the regional regulatory plan to meet this objective. EdwardsAquifer and share the state’s view that Doing so would not provide for the kind of this law should be implemented. The Service is considered, comprehensive planning, continuous hopeful that concerns will be resolved quickly so evolution, and fine-tuningthat will be involved. than in may be implemented. Regulating ground- Current Service policy states that the Service water use in turn is an important part of a intends to minimize social and economic impacts comprehensive plan no maintain adequate water as much as possible while providing forthe supplies in the ecosystems of the Comal and San timely recovery of listed species, by using the Marcos Springs for the survival and recovery of information and input from affected interests no the listed species. develop alternatives for recovery implementation, as well as by seeking their participation in COMPLIANCE WITH recovery implementation. This recovery plan is JUDGE BUNTON’S ORDER consistent with that policy. Regulation and management of the water in Comment: Judge Bunton ordered that the the EdwardsAquifer involves many State, regional, and local agencies with responsibilities and draft plan “ shall include such combinations of authorities regarding water use, both rural and pumping restriction, Federal agency ESA urban. As noted in the Recovery Plan, State and Section 7 cutoff of permits or funds or other local entities should be the primaryparties actions, and other affirmative measures as developing the Aquifer Management Plan. Any appear necessaryand appropriate no protect the plan setting restrictions should be flexible, use aquifer and the species dependent on the aquifer, continuously updated or adjusted projections of even ifa repeat ofthe drought of record begins water supplies and use, and be able to stimulate now, and assuming the continued indefinite and implement programs and projects that are absence of an adequate state or regional plan.” Yen successful in reducing water consumption or the draft plan does non state the specific pumping developing alternativesupplies. In is clear that the restrictions needed no avoid causingtake or design and implementation of an effective plan jeopardy no the species. does non examine specific water supply alternatives, or identify specific should involve the participation oflocal, State, Federal agency section 7 cutoffs. Federal and private entities in a cooperative, regional approach~ consistently monitored and Service Response: Judge Bunnon’s order did enforceable. non require that the Service dictate specific Since the draft was made available for public detailed controls for water conservation, development, and apportionment for the San Antonio commentthe Service has sought the participation segment of the EdwardsAquifer in this Recovery ofother entities and has been workingcoopera- nively no advance the planning and implemenna-

Appendix 115 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosvs,enis Recos-erv P~sr authorities no conserve the species and their nion process. The Service is working in coopera- non with the city of New Braunfels and others no ecosystems, and reminds them of their section — develop a local springand river management plan. obligations to consult under the Act. A new task Judge Bunton appointed a court monitor who (2.2) encourages proactive programs to assist has been examining emergency use reduction species survival. Another new task (2.3) out- plans and a regional conservation strategy that lines the Federal agency approach if no ad- may result in a regional HCP and incidental take equate and enforceable Aquifer Xl anagement permit(s). An Judge Bunnon’s order a committee Plan is developed and nones that agencies max’ oflawyers has also drafted an alternative emer- decide no withhold permits or funds for actions gency reduction plan for municipal and industrial than are likely no jeopardize the species. The water use that is being considered by the city of point an which permits or funds may have no be San Antonio and other municipalities. The State withheld has no be determined by these Federal legislature passed legislation in 1995 (H.B. agencies through the interagency Section 7 3189) amending S.B. 1477 (passed in 1993 no process. The Service does non have the author- create the Edwards Aquifer Authority) that now ity no initiate or compel a consultation. Each has resolved problems previously preventing Federal action agency is responsible for review- implementation and enforcement of water use ing their activities and initiating formal section regulation due to concerns regarding the Voting 7 consultation if appropriate. Rights Act. Hopefully new legal challenges from Again, the focus of the recovery plan is nor the Medina and Uvalde County Underground on particular projects or programs, bun on a WaterDistricts can also be resolved. The text of prescription for long-term improvement in the the revised plan has been modified no reflect status of the species and the prospects for even- these efforts. tual downlisning and delisning. The Service should continue no have an The Service has notified all Federal agencies active role in planning for aquifer management, known no impact water use of the Edwards and the Recovery Plan does provide guidance for Aquifer about their Federal consultation responsi- the planning process. In includes the Service’s bilinies and the potential implications fortheir determination, based on best available informa- activities in the area. There are continuing non, of the spningflows needed no prevent take discussions regarding the best method of and jeopardy. Task 2.1 also gives guidance on fulfilling their obligations and protecting the what kind of restrictive and affirmative measures species of concern. are felt no be useful (and biologically supportable) to protect the aquifer and ins sensitive FEDERAL AGENCY species. The list includes conservation, reuse, OBLIGATIONS limits on withdrawal, implementation of groundwater use reduction plans in trigger Comment: The 1984 San Marcos Recovery situations such as drought, changes in delivery Plan called for vigorous pursuit of a systematic systems or management practices, development procedure of consultation, even though a of alternative sources, and creation of a water commenner on that plan complained that this rights marketing system. New tasks have been appeared no constitute indirect Federal control on added under task 2.1 no clarify the Service pumping. The current draft appears no abandon approach and objectives. The Service has recog- this commitment. nized a need for additional technical guidance and provides in task 2.11 for an interagency and team no be convened to assist in determining aquifer levels and pumping reduction levels Comment: If the Service is convening an needed no maintain springflows under various interagency task force no prepare an overall scenarios. Section 7 Recovery Action Plan, this should be Tasks 2.1 and 2.12 also make it clear that described and the identification ofthe agencies Federal agencies should take actions within their

Appendix 116 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Eccovery Plan

asked no participane~ responsible officials and EdwardsAquifer and ins major spring systems, contacts an each agency. and schedule for meet- under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, which is dis- ings should be included. cussed above. Service Response: The Service has non In the absence of the development and abandoned ins commitment no vigorously en- implementation of an adequate Aquifer Manage- couraging Federal agencies no consult with the ment Plan, Federal agencies should do what they Service regarding their impacts to the Edwards can no assure that springflows are protected. A Aquifer and ins listed species. See the responseno new task in the plan (task 2.3) makes in clear that the comment above for a discussion of Service the Service should continue no encourage agen- efforts and responsibilities regarding section 7 cies no undertake voluntary measures no assist consultations. The Service continues no work species survival and no comply with their non- with cooperative Federal agencies in the consul- discretionary obligations for consultation under tation process. section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, and that the Service The Service believes however, that the itself should continue no do everything in can no rapid completion of a review of section 7 be sure that springflows are protected. obligations with evey known agency whose actions may affect groundwater withdrawals Comment: The draft does non address the may only be critically important in the absence obligations or activities of the Environmental of the development and implementation of an Protection Agency (EPA) no take actions to adequate State and local plan for aquifer man- protect the human water supply, under the ESA, agement. The need for rapid completion of CERCLA, Clean WaterAct, and Safe Drinking section 7 consultations with all such agencies Water Act. The plan should also describe EPA’s would become paramount only if the ongoing current progress, ifany, no assess and prevent the efforts no develop a comprehensive plan an the threat ofthe potential movement of the bad- state, regional, and local levels were abandoned water line. If nothing is being done by EPA the or inadequate. plan should give their explanation for failing no do so. Comment: You do non explain why Fed- and eral agencies should non be considering any means at their disposal no maintain water in the Comment: The Draft plan states that EPA critical habitat. may have statutory authority under Clean Water Service Response: The plan nones in the Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA discussion under task 2.2 than under section than should be used no assist in the protection of 7(a)(1) of.nhe ESA all Federal agencies are no the listed species and their ecosystems. No legal “utilize their authorities in furtherance of the or factual basis is given for this contention. purposes of this Act by carrying out programs Service Response: The draft plan dis- for the conservation of endangered and threat- cusses under task 2.2 than according no Section ened species...,” and points out other agencies 7(a)(1) of the Act Federal agencies should use whose missions and/or administration of their “authorities” no further the purposes of the existing legislation may complement the efforts Endangered Species Actby carrying out programs no preserve listed species. The Service will for the conservation of listed species. and should continue no encourage other Federal agencies no do so in consultation with or with the assistance take proactive measures. The Service welcomes of the Secretary (in this case, Interior). There are other Federal agency’s efforts no assist in assur- also obligations under section 7 no enter into ing water in these ecosystems and has encour- consultation with the Service for actions they aged them no examine their abilities and obliga- fund, permit, or carry out that may affect listed tions no do so. species. in addition, the plan makes in clear that Task 2.2 includesa reference no authorities Federal agencies have obligations no consult for given no other Federal agencies under other actions that may affect the listed species of the environmental legislation including the Clean

Appendix 117 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovers’ Plan WaterAct, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Comment: The Service should address the CERCLA. The Service feels that there are fact that the measures in this plan may be complementary functions in conserving habitat adequate to protect Cotnal and San Marcos for listed species and in protecting human Springs and ~ species, bun are health. Situations such as this, where there are non likely no be adequate to Protect the entire obvious authorities granted no an agency that Edwards Aquifer itselfand the underground may also benefit endangered species, should be Edwards dependent candidate Species some of considered by those agencies in setting up their which are known from only distinct portions of programs no further the conservation of listed the aquifer. species, and should be taken into account in Service Response: This recove,~ plan has decisions regarding such areas as discretionary as ins primary objective to provide for the listed actions, granting variances or exclusions, setting species ofthe San Antonio region of the Edwards permit requirements~ making requests for Aquifer, which includes the Texas blind sala- consultation with the Service under section 7, mander. Conservation measures already under- etc. The idea is that by working cooperatively way are described in the background material for agencies can minimize harm and maximize this species. Specific needs for the Texas blind potential benefits in the course of discharging salamander are included under many tasks. their ordinary duties under both their enabling Many of the tasks outlined no protect water legislation and the ESA. Wording has been quality for the listed species (including the added no section 2.2 no clarify this. Texas blind salamander) will benefit other aquifer-dependent species as well. Comment: The draft plan does non address the Service’s own obligations no list subterra- Comment: The ESA authorizes and re- nean Edwards Aquifer dwelling species, to desig- quires the Secretary no conserve listed species by nate Critical Habitat and no propose and seek utilizing his authority no acquire. including by’ funding forhabitat acquisitions. purchase, “lands, waters, or interests therein.” Service Response: The recovery planning Any adequate plan must address the potential for process is intended to provide guidance for the use of this tool, for example in the purchase of conservation and eventual recovery of Federally irrigation rights. listed species. Evaluations of the need no list Service Response: The ESA does non species and designate Critical Habitat are require the Secretary no acquire property or separate activities conducted under section 4 of water rights no protect endangered species, the ESA. although Section 5 of the ESA authorizes the Habitat acquisition is non mandatory or Service no do so, as appropriate. Neither the beneficial for all listed species. Recovery plans Service nor the Recovery Team identified land may recommend habitat acquisition as a recov- acquisition or water rights acquisition as a ery tool, bun many recovery plans do non in- feasible or high priority recovery strategy for the clude habitat acquisition as a strategy if in is non conservation of these listed species. If water needed no recoverthe species. An this time the users and property owners work cooperatively Service does non believe habitat acquisition is no find a solution no water supply problems and necessary in achieving the tasks needed no other threats, acquisition of property should non protect the species of concern in this plan. be necessary. Currently. water rights in the In is Service policy no take a functional Edwards Aquifer region operate under principles ecosystem approach no species and habitat of the “right of capture,” non under a system of protection. Therefore in recovery planning, transferable, salable water rights. If this system wherever possible, correlated needs of (and changes no a market-based system with salable benefits no) candidate species in the sameecosys- water rights, the effectiveness and desirability of tem are pointed out and included. purchasing water rights for the purposes of protecting listed species or their habitat would be reevaluated.

Appendix 118 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plan would be adversely modified. In this context Comment: In the recovery plan section these terms would referno such declines without where spningflow and aquifer level determina- any consultation being done or alternatives that nions made by the FWS under court order are would prevent the threat ofextinction in place. mentioned as being given to provide guidance no Federal agencies and pumpers to assist them Comment: The Recovery Team is com- in taking appropriate actions no avoid take or posed solely ofbiologists. To comply with the jeopardy. in should also be noted that the U.S. policies on recovery planning and implementa- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held nion published in July, the Service should widen than these determinations have no legal conse- the representation on the team. In should include quence and in no way are a prerequisite no a surface water and groundwater hydrologist and ESA-enforcement litigation. The plan should an economist. restate the caution that these determinations Service Response: This is a recovery team were made in a very narrow context with than has been in existence for many years. A limited data and should non be considered as number of agency representatives also serve as the definitive flow requirements for the spe- consultants no the team. The Service is reviewing cies/ecosystems. the need no revise or expand the team in light of Service Response: Language has been new guidance published in July 1994, and will do added no this section no clarify the preliminary so ifin appears appropriate and necessary. nature ofthese estimates. The Service is currently ln should also be noted, as discussed above conducting additional detailed studies no collect under a comment concerning the minimization additional data needed on flowconditions in the of social and economic impacts. that the imple- Comal and San Marcos. These studies should mennanion of several tasks in the recovery plan help refine these numbers. As more definitive call for a team approach no implementation, information becomes available, the Service has a which will also provide for the involvement of durv to notify the court and State, regional, and all affected interests as outlined in the July 1, local water authorities and otherpumpers ofany 1994, policies. changes no the springflow numbers.

Comment: In discussing recovery criteria IMPLEMENTATION and interim goals where criteria cannotbe deter- SCHEDULE, PRIORITIES, mined, the draft plan noted that flows that would AND COST ESTIMATES “jeopardize” any ofthe listed species or “adversely modify” critical habitat should non be considered Comment: The plan ~houldgive the origin adequate. In seems inappropriate no use these of all the cost estimates you give for each and terms as true “jeopardy” arises only in the context every task. Support for each cost estimate must of a formal section 7 consultation in a biological be included in the plan. opinion with detailed consideration of reasonable Service response: Cost estimates given in and prudent alternativesfor a particular situation. recovery plan implementation schedules are given Service Response: In is true that the terms for the first three years only, and are merely rough jeopardy and adverse modification have specific estimates, given for general guidance in long-term meanings in terms of a formal section 7 consul- planning. Because the details of how specific nation. However, the discussion here is a general recovery tasks will be achieved, and by whom, are one about goals for maintenance and recovery unknown, a detailed and accurate assessment of of the species. In is useful to discuss adequate costs are not possible. Where agencies and mu- flows during the recovery process, and the nicipalities have estimated the costs theyexpect to concept of a lower limit where low flows are severe enough than the extinction of the speciesin incur in their planned activities for preservation of the wild seems imminent, or that habitat neces- endangered species that exceed their usual respon- sary for the survival and recovery of the species sibilinies and activities, theyhave been included.

Appendix 119 San Marcos & Coma] Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recoserv II.c where priority numbers and abbreviations are Comment: The implementation schedule defined, to clan the meaning of the use of the should include a specific time schedule for terms “continuous” and “ongoing.” section 7 (Federal agency) consultations. Service Response: As noted above, the Comment: The city of San Antonio esti- Service does non have the authority no initiate manes ins costs for implementation of alternative section 7 consultations and is non in a position no water supplies no vary between 45 million and predict schedules of when various agency consul- 127 million dollars a year, depending on the nations may occur. The need for a section 7 scenario used for alternatives. In addition an consultation may arise at any time, for any estimated cost of 15-20 million dollars per year number of specific projects or activities which will be incurred for reductions in use through cannon be comprehensively predicted in advance. the development of conservation, reuse, water market and demand management initiatives. We Comment: The implementation schedule feel the implementation schedule should reflect appears no use the term “ongoing” no avoid these costs as well as total costs for all other setting timetables/deadlines for actions that Federal, State, and local governments and private require them and are long overdue, such as parties. developing an aquifer management plan. This is Service Response: The Service has done ins an evasion no representthesetasks as having an best no estimate the potential recovery costs. indefinite duration, instead of imposing dead- However, costs fluctuate widely when one lines for completion after which enforcement considers differences in approaches selected, and actions may be used. even the widely variable alternatives available Service Response: Recovery plan tasks, within a scenario such as interbasin transfers of including estimates oftask durations, are non water. mandatory enforceable actions, as discussed Further, given the obvious limits ofEdwards earlier in previous comments. Information Aquifer water in dryyears, many communities are arrangements and terminologyin Recovery Plan undertaking the developmentof alternative water implementation schedules are nearly standardized supplies no meet future needs based on projected from plan no plan. Task duration in recovery plan growth and needs for economic development, in implementation schedules represents a simple addition no concerns about violations of the ESA. estimate ofhow long in might reasonably take no ESAconcerns in manycases are merely accelerat- complete a task. In is non intended no imply any ing the development ofalternative water sources sort of deadline or point ofimposition ofregula- and are non the tonal basis for projections of tory enforcement. In also does non specify exactly additional water supplies needed. In addition, when the task will be initiated. implementation costs ofsome tasks or task The term “continuous” is used no denote elements may actually be largely offset (or even tasks that in is expected will require constant cost-saving) for the entities implementing them. attention throughoutthe recovery process, and For example, water conservation programs have therefore have an indefinite duration. The term expenses associated with them, bun the reduction “ongoing” is used in the recovery plan no identify in demand for additional water saves money by tasks that have already been started, bun are non reducing the costs ofdeveloping new water yen complete. This means tasks identified as supplies, watertreatment capacityand operations, ongoing, far from being neglected, are tasks than and wasnewaner treatment capacityand operations have been initiated. While in our standard use than would be incurred in the absence ofa conser- the term “ongoing” does non include an estimate vation program. Therefore the true cost ofa oftime remaining no completion, this does not conservation program would be the difference mean that they are considered no be ofan indefi- betweenwater related costs withouta conserva- nine duration or that the Service is avoiding tion program and with the program, non the full timely action. We have added language no the cost ofthe program. Apportionment of such first few pages of the implementation schedule, costs between City planning and development Appendix 120 San Marcos & comal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems Recovery Plan functions and ESA compliance is extremely difficult. Since the comprehensive Aquifer Manage- ment Plan is not completed, and the mix and apportionment of water use for approaches to be used has not been solidified, cost estimates are a sketchy estimate at best and should not be regarded as definitive. Until the plan is completed and analyzed for a reasonable representation of the costs attributable to recovery needs forthe listed species, such unquantifiable costs have been designated as “nor yet determinable.” They have also not been included in the total cost of recovery. However, as more definiteplans emerge and better costestimates become available, theycan be used to revise and update the plan, ifnecessary.

Appendix 121 I