SAN MARCOS & COMAL SPRING& ASSOCIATEDAQUATIC

ECOSYSTEMS(REVISED)RECOVERY

PLANrI

Us.

San Marcos and Comal Springsand

AssociatedAquatic Ecosystems(Revised)

RecoveryPlan

(Short tide: San Marcos/Comal(Revised)RecoveryPlan)

for

San Marcos Gaxnbusia(Gambusiageorgei)Fountain Darter (Etheostomafonticola)San Marcos Salamander (Eu~yceanana)

TexasWild-rice (Zizania texana)Texas Blind Salamander (Typhiomolgerathbuni)

(Original approved: April 8, 1985)

PreparedbyThe SanMarcos/Comal RecoveryTeam

and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceAustin EcologicalServicesOffice

10711Burnet Road, Suite 200Austin, Texas 78758-4455

for

Region 2U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Albuquerque, NewMexico

Approved:

Date: February 14, 1996

United StatesDepartmentof the InteriorFiSH AND WThDLIFESERVICE

Eco1o~izai Serucd Field Q~ic1071’. ~uxnerRe~ad. S.~ire 200

~pJ~ Bank Bide.A.Lstin, TexasT8753

March 22, 1996

CORRECTIONSHEET FORSAN HARCOS/COI4A.L (REVISED) RECOVERY PLAN

The following corrections should be noted to the San MarcoS & ComalSprings 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 WildlifeService. 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 giventhere should be numbered 1-6.

P. 34, column 1, lines 4—5: For clarification, the “—“ on the endof 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 offsetby parties who choose not to participate in the implementation ofthe Aquifer Management Plan.”

P. 114, column 2, line 14: replace “without” with “which does notimpose”

p. 116, column 1, 7 lines from the bottom: “task 2.11” should read“subtask 2.12”.

SanMarcus& ComalSprings & AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecovers’Plan

SAN MARCOS/COMALRECOVERYTEAM

Dr. Robert J. Edwards, LeaderDepartmentof BiologyUniversity ofTexas-PanAmericanEdinburg,TX 78539

Dr. Gary P. GarrettTexasParksandWildlife DepartmentHeartof the Hills ResearchStationJunctionStarRouteBox 62Ingram,TX 78025

Dr. Glenn LongleyDepartment of BiologySouthwest Texas State UniversitySan Marcos, TX 78666

Ms. Jackie PooleTexasParksandWildlife DepartmentEndangeredResourcesBranch3000 So. IH-35 Suite 100Austin, TX 78704

Dr. Dianna D. Tupa11102D-K RanchRd.Austin, TX 78759

Dr. Bobby G. WhitesideDepartment of Biology

Southwest Texas State UniversitySan Marcos, TX 78666

U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceLiaisonMs. Alisa M. ShullUSFWS,EcologicalServicesField Office10711BurnetRoad,Suite200Austin,TX 78758

RecoveryTeamH

SanMarcos& ComalSprings&AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoversPlan

DISCLAIMER

Recoveryplansdelineatereasonableactionsthatare believedto be requiredto recoverand/orprotectlistedspecies.Plansarepublishedby the U.S. FishandWildlife Service,sometimespreparedwith the assistanceof recoveryteams,contractors,Stateagencies,andothers.Becauseof furloughs ofFederalemployeesandongoinglitigation regardingtheEdwardsAquifer andspeciescoveredby thisplan, therewas considerableurgencyto finalize thisplan.Therefore,the normalcritiqueandinput tothefinal versionof the planwas minimal. The Servicedoes,however,appreciatethe RecoveryTeamssubstantialefforts in completingthe earlier draftsof this plan.As is customary,objectiveswill beattainedandanynecessaryfundsmadeavailablesubject to budgetaryandotherconstraintsaffectingthe partiesinvolved, as well as the needto addressotherpriorities.

Recoveryplansdo not necessarilyrepresentthe views nor the official positionsor approvalof anyindividualsor agenciesinvolved in the planformulation,otherthanthe U.S.FishandWildlife Service.They representtheofficial positionof the U.S. FishandWildlife Serviceonlyafter theyhavebeensigned by the Regional Director or Director as approved.Approvedrecoveryplansaresubjectto modifi-cationas dictatedby newfindings, changesin speciesstatus,andthe completionof recoverytasks.

Disclaimer 111

SanMarcos& Cornal Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecovers’ Plan

LITERATURE CITATIONS

Literature citations should read as follows:

U.S. FishandWildlife Service. 1995. San Marcos/Comal (Revised) RecoveryPlan. Albuquerque,NewMexico. pp. x + 93 with 28 pagesof appendices.

Additional copiesof this plan, when finalized, may be purchased from:

FishandWildlife ReferenceService:5430 GrosvenorLane,Suite 110Bethesda,Maryland 20814(800) 582-3421or (301)492-6403

The feefor the planvariesdependingon thenumberof pagesof the plan.

Literature Citationsiv

SanMarcos& CarnalSprings& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPlan

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Service would like to expressits appreciationfor the manyindividuals,groupsandagencieswho havebeenactivelyworking to resolveproblemsandgatherinformationneededto achievethegoalsof stabilizingthe habitatsandpopulationsof thesespecies,andmakingprogresstowardrecovery.The Servicelooks forwardto continuedcollaborationto achievethe conservationof theseuniqueresources.

Many individualsandgroupshaveconductedor assistedin field researchon the ComalandSanMarcosrivers, includingpeoplefrom city departments,universities,stateandFederalagencies,non-profit groups,local businesses,landowners,andinterestedindividuals.Thanksto oneandall.

The ServicegratefullyacknowledgestheAlabamaMuseumof NaturalHistory and theIllinoisNaturalHistory Surveyfor useof the line drawingof the fountaindarterfoundin Figure4. In addi-tion, thanksis duetheTexasParksandWildlife Departmentfor permissionto usethe illustrationofTexaswild-rice usedin Figure6.

Adax,wkdgement3 v

SanMarcos& ComalSprings& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoverylw

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RECOVERY CRITERIA

CURRENT SPECIES’ STATUS

The fountaindarter,SanMarcosgambusia,Texasblind salamander,andTexaswild-rice areendangered.The SanMarcossalamanderisthreatened.Critical habitat is designatedfor allexcepttheTexasblind salamander.The fountaindarteroccursin the SanMarcosandComalsystemsin centralTexas.The Texasblind sala-manderis restrictedto the EdwardsAquifer. Theotherthreespeciesoccurin the SanMarcossystem.Otherspeciesof concernalsooccurintheseecosystemsincludingthreethat havebeenproposedfor listing: Peck’sCaveamphipod,ComalSpringsriffle beetle,and the ComalSpringsdryopid beetle.

HABITAT REQUIREMENTSAND LIMITING FACTORS

All speciesare aquaticandinhabit ecosys-temsdependenton theEdwardsAquifer. All butthe subterraneanTexasblind salamanderoccurin spring-fedsystems.Lossof springflowsdue todrawdownof the aquifer is oneof the primarythreats.Otherthreatsinclude nonnativespecies,recreationalactivities,predation,anddirect orindirecthabitatdestructionor modificationbyhumans(e.g.,dambuilding, bankstabilization,andcontrol of aquaticvegetation)andfactorsthatdecreasewaterquality.

RECOVERY GOALS

The goalsof recoveryare: 1) to securethesurvival of thesespeciesin their nativeecosys-tems;2) to developan ecosystemapproachusingstrategiesto addressboth local, site-specific,andbroadregionalissuesrelatedto recovery;and3)to conservethe integrityand functionof theaquiferandspring-fedecosystemsthat thesespeciesinhabit.

Delisting is consideredunattainableinthe nearfuture for all five speciesdueto thepotentialfor extinction from catastrophicevents.Consequently,this plancalls for theestablish-mentandcontinuedmaintenanceof refugiacapability for all five speciesin caseof a cata-strophicevent.Downlisting is consideredfea-sible for the fountaindarter,Texaswild-rice, andTexasblind salamanderanddetailedcriteria aregivenin theplan.The potentialfor downlistingtheSanMarcosgambusiais problematic.In-terim objectivesare given for that speciestomeasureprogresstowardpreventingextinction.

ACTIONS NEEDED

1. Assuresufficientwaterlevelsin theEdwardsaquiferandflows in ComalandSanMarcosSpringsto maintainhabitatfor all life stagesof thefive listedspeciesandintegrity of the ecosystemuponwhich they depend.

2. Protectwaterquality.

3. Establishandmaintainpopulationsfor allfive listedspeciesin theirhistoric habitats.

4. Conductbiological studiesnecessaryforsuccessfulmonitoring, management,andrestoration.

5. Encouragepartnershipswith landownersandagenciesto developandimplementconservationstrategies.

6. Developandimplementa regionalAquifer ManagementPlan.

7. Develop andimplement localmanagementandrestorationplans toaddressmultiple threats.

8. Promotepublic informationandeducation.

Executive Summary vi

SanMarcos & ComalSprings& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryPlan

Costs(Dollars x 1000):

Year

Priority 1

Tasks

Priority 1

Tasks

Priority 2

Tasks

Priority 3

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

DateofRecovery: If continuousprogressis made,downlistingthefountain darterandTexaswild-rice shouldbe possibleby 2025.

ExecutiveSummary vii

San Marcus& Comalsprings & ssoccstedAquatic BcosvsrersssRecoversPiais

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DisclailIIer iii

LiteratureCitations IV

~~~flOwledgements

ExecutiveSummary vi

Table of Contents viii

List of FiguresandTables

Overviewof the RecoveryPlan

PART I - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. THE ECOSYSTEMS 6PhysiographyandHydrology 7

B. THREATSTOTHESPECIES ANDTHEIR ECOSYSTEMS 16WaterQuantity 16WaterQuality 18HabitatModification 19NonnativeSpecies 20RecreationalActivities 21Other Impacts

C. GENERAL CONSERVATIONMEASURES 24WaterQuantity 24WaterQuality 25NonnativeSpecies 25Recreation 26HabitatMaintenance,Restoration,andEnhancement 26Captive PropagationandContingencyPlans 26EducationandOutreach 26

D. SPECIESACCOUNTS 27SanMarcosGambusia(Gambusiageorgei) 27

Description 27Historic andPresentDistribution 27Habitat 29Life History/Ecology 29ConservationMeasures 30

FountainDarter (Etheostomafonticola) 30Description 30Historical Distribution 32PresentDistribution 33Habitat 33Life History/Ecology 33

Tableof Contents viii

SanMarcos& Cornal Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystenssRecovers’PI.sn

35ConservationMeasuresSanMarcosSalamander(Euryceanana)

Description 36

HistoricalandPresentDistributionHabitat 38Life History/Ecology 39ConservationMeasures 41

TexasWild-rice (Zizaniatexana) 41

Description 41PastandPresentDistribution 42Habitat 44Life History/Ecology cf/4

ConservationandResearchEfforts 45TexasBlind Salamander(7jiphlomolgerathbunz) 46

Description 46

Historical andPresentDistribution 48Habitat 48Life History/Ecology 48ConservationMeasures 50

E. RECOVERYSTRATEGY 51

PART II- RECOVERY

A. OBJECTIVEAND CRITERIA 53B. STEP-DOWNOUTLINE OF RECOVERYACTIONS 58C. NARRATIVE OUTLINE FOR RECOVERYACTIONS 60D. REFERENCESCITED 74

PART III - RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 81

APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED 94TechnicalIssues 95

Background Geography, Geology, and Hydrology 95Water Quality 97Fish 98Salamanders 101TexasWild-rice 102RecoveryCriteria 103ContingencyPlanandCaptivePopulations 104Habitat Protection and Management 106Nonnative Species 106WaterQuantity 107Artificial Augmentation 111MiscellaneousTechnicalComments 112

InformationandPublic Education 112Policy andImplementationIssues 113Compliancewith JudgeBunton’sOrder 115FederalAgencyObligations 116Implementation Schedule,Priorities,andCostEstimates 119

Table of Contents ix

SanMarcos& consalSpnngs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecovers~Plan

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

List of Figures

~. EdwardsAquifer Region 102. ComalAquaticEcosystem 123. SanMarcosAquaticEcosystem 144. Male andfemalefountaindarter 315. Drawingof Euryceanana 376. Inflorescenceandmaleandfemaleflorers of Texaswild-rice 437. Collectionandsightinglocationsof theTexasblind salamander 49

List of Tables

1. Summaryof featuresof the ComalandUpperSanMarcosecosystem 8-92. U.S.FishandWildlife Servicedeterminationof minimumspringflows

neededto preventtake, jeopardy,or adversemodificationof critical habitat 173. Historical datafor known Gambusiageorgeicollections 284. Areal coverageofTexaswild-rice from 1976 to 1994 47

List of Figuresand Tables x

SanMarcos& CornalSprings& Asso.isted.A~uatic Ecoss~steirxsRe.~vervPI.c.

OVERVIEW OF THERECOVERY PLAN

This plan addressesrecoveryactionsforthe fountain darter, San Marcossalamander,San Marcosgambusia~Texas blind salamander,andTexaswild-rice. The recoverygoal is tosecurethe survival of all five speciesand theecosystemuponwhich theydepend.This planprovidescriteria for downlisting the fountain

darter, Texas wild-rice, andTexasblind sala-manderfrom endangeredto threatened.Thisoverviewsummarizes1) the water resource

issuesassociatedwith the recovery of thesespeciesand the Edwardsaquifer andspringecosystems;2) efforts by individuals, state andlocal governrnents~andprivate organizationstoresolvetheseissues;3) tasks and recommendedactionsto achieverecovery;4) technical evalua-tion and technicalassistanceneededfor plan-ning; and 5) the processfor developingaregional HabitatConservationPlanor oneormore smallerregional or local HCPsthatcouldcontributeto overall aquifermanagement.

To conservethesespeciesandmeettheobjectivesof this recoveryplan, the ecosystemsuponwhich thesespeciesdependmustbeconserved.TheseecosystemsincludetheEdwardsaquiferand thesystemsassociatedwith Comaland San MarcosSprings (includingspringruns, lakes,rivers, andcaves).

The recoveryofthesespeciesdependsonactionstakenat threelevels: broadregional issuesof wateruseandlandscapelevelmanagementthatinfluencethesesystems;localizedactionstakenbymunicipalitiesandlandownersthataffect thesesystems;andspecies—specificor site—specificactionsthatdirectlyaffect thespecies.Currentinformationabouttheseendangeredandthreat-enedspeciesandtheir habitatsis not complete,andsometaskswill only be conductedafteradditionalresearchor evaluationsarecompleted.This RecoveryPlan includestasksto dealwithrecovetyneedsatall of theselevelsandaddressesall identified issues.

Regionalresourceissuescritical to the survivalof thespeciesof concernandtheirhabitatrequiremaintainingsufficientwaterin thehabitat,andensuringthatwaterquality is not degradedto

Overview

levels that compromisethe integrityof thesystemsandthe survival andrecoveryof thespecies.

Decreasedaquifer levelsandlossof adequatespringflowsareimminent.The recoveryplanidentifiesthe U.S. FishandWildlife Service’spreliminaryevaluationof the springflow levelsneeded at Comal and San Marcos Springs toprevent “take” of the listed species. The Service

continuesto conductand fund studiesto refineunderstandingof what springflow levelsareneeded,undervaryingconditions,to maintainthe speciesandtheir habitat.Suchstudies,evaluations,andmonitoringwill be an ongoingneedto evaluatemanagementefforts (seetasks1.22, 1.23, 1.3, 2.12and3.2).

To assureadequatespringflowsfor the long-term, a mechanism to provideandmaintainaquatichabitatmustbe in place; e.g., conserva-tion measuresandmanagementof groundwaterwithdrawal. Efforts havebeenmadeto achievethisgoal. In 1993, theTexaslegislaturepassedS.B. 1477creatingan EdwardsAquifer Author-ity to regulategroundwaterwithdrawal.Thelegislationwas challengedover Voting RightsActconcerns,which wereresolvedby the legislaturein 1995with amendments(H.B. 3189). The

legislationwas againchallengedby the MedinaandUvaldeCountyUndergroundWaterDis-tricts andthecourt ruled thatthe legislationwasunconstitutional.The Authority’s ability toregulatewaterwithdrawalfrom the aquiferdependson resolutionof theseconcerns.

A soundoverall planfor sharingandmanag-ing groundwaterusefrom theaquifer is needed(task2. 1). This is acomplicatedtask,consideringthediversityofwaterusersandneedfor water.The RecoveryPlancannotdetermineor dictatethespecificprovisionsof anAquifer ManagementPlan. Stateandlocal involvementin developingspecificstrategiesis importantto ensureconsider-ation of localand regionalsocio-economicconcerns,provideflexibility in the evolutionandfine-tuningthatwill beneededto addresschang-ing local andregional needs,andto achievecompliancewith theplan.

SanMaecos& Cornal Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecovers Plan

Manywatermanagementagenciesandaquiferusershavebegunto addressthe issuesof main-tainingecosystemsandspeciesdependentupon~ieEdwardsAquifer.Theseeffortswill be useful

in forgingan overall plan. In June1994,acourtappointedmonitor,JoeMoore, Jr., preparedanemergencywithdrawalreductionplan,revisedinMarchof 1995. In May of 1995,JudgeBuntonformeda committeeto developan alternativeemergencywithdrawalreductionplanfor 1995.The committeedevelopedan ordinanceto limitmunicipalandindustrialwaterusefor 1995,whichhasbeenlargelyadoptedby thecity of SanAntonio.

Progresshasalso beenmadeon developingandimplementingseveralotherbeneficialpractices.For example,NewBraunfels,SanAntonio, andSanMarcoshavewaterconserva-tion ordinances.The city of SanAntonio hasdevelopeda wastewaterre-useplanthatpromisesconservationof a significantamountof water.Many municipalitiesandwaterconservationdistrictsareexploringalternativesourcesofwater.

In Augustof 1994,the Court Monitorinitiated discussionsamongthe city of SanAntonio,the UvaldeUndergroundWaterDis-trict, theMedinaCountyUndergroundWaterDistrict, theEdwardsUndergroundWaterDis-trict, the SanAntonio RiverAuthority, andtheGuadalupeBlancoRiverAuthorityaboutcoop-erativelypreparingaregionalHCP. Followingthesediscussions,apreliminary issuesdocumentwasdraftedanddiscussionsregardingan HCPand a potential incidental take permit wereinitiated with theService.

Manywaterusersandagencieshavecon-ductedstudiesandevaluations,includingcom-putermodeling, to determinetheaquifer levelsneededto maintainspringflow.Thishasemerged as a critical issue in efforts to managegroundwater for the benefit of listed species.Estimatesofaquifer levelsneededhavebeenreportedovera largerange.Oneestimatesaysthatin adroughtof recordno morethan165,000acre-feetper yearcould be pumpedfrom theEdwardsaquifer(EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict 1992a).In 1989well dischargewas542,000acre-feet.Obviouslyin droughtcondi-tionsseverereductionsin waterusewill be

Overview

needed.The mechanismto achievethesereduc-tionswill haveto bediscovered.

The RecoveryPlanstressescooperativedevelopmentof a regionalAquifer ManagementPlan,primarily by stateand local entities,withthe Servicelendingtechnicalsupport.It wouldbe mostusefulif the Servicewere involved in theprocessfrom the earlystages.providing assis-tanceto plandevelopersin assessingthe plan’sadequacy for protection of affected species andtheir habitat (task 2.1 and 2.11).

The Recovery Plan gives some preliminary

guidancefor springflowlevels (Table2) andmeasuresthatmay be usefulandbiologicallysupportableto protectthe species(task2. 1 and2.11). In addition,a comprehensivetechnicalevaluation of springflows, aquifer levels, andconservation measures (e.g., pumping limits)neededfor variousconditionsof rainfall, re-charge,weatherconditions,andgroundwateruseis alsoneeded.This evaluationshould considervoluntary or mandatorywaterusereductionsandalternativemeansof providingwater region-wide. The Servicebelievesthat to undertakethisevaluation,it will be necessary to convene atechnicalteamof expertsto assistplannersinevaluations of hydrology, geology, biology, andeconomics(task2.12). It is expectedthat thisevaluationwill be modifiedas moreinformationbecomesavailable.

All Federalagencieshavea role in conserva-tion of speciesof concern,undersection7(a)(1)and 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. The

RecoveryPlanencourageseffortsby Federalagencies(seetask2.2). Progresshasbeenmadeinthisarea,suchasrecentwaterconservationeffortsanddevelopmentof wastewaterirrigation systemsby military bases.An aquifermanagementplanthatwill assureadequatespringflowsandaquiferlevels is required to recover these species (seebelowandtask2.1). Preparationandimplemen-tationof plansto assureadequatespringflowsarebestaccomplishedby stateandlocal agencies.TheRecovery Plan calls for actions by Federal agenciesto reduceaquiferwaterwithdrawalas muchaspossiblewithin theirauthoritiesto maintainhabitatfor listedspecies(task2.3). Severaltaskscall for avarietyof actions,includingcontinuingto supportconservationactionsby Federalagencies(task2.31) andprivateentities(2.32).

2

Sas,Ni .srcos & CorsiW Sprinci.& AssocisteciA.1u.stic EcosssremsRe:os’ervPi.u,

Task 2.33 callS for aggressivepursuitof Federal.uzencvcompliancewith obligationsfor informalandformal section7 consultations.TheService

•dednoticesof thepotentialeffects,theneedproVito consultsandhasmet with Federalagencies~~hoseactionsmaydirectlyor indirectly impactthesurvival of thelistedspeciesor adverselyaffecttheircritical habitat.The resolutionof theprob-lem of maintainingspringflowsneededfor thesespeciesto survive is so critical that, in theabsenceof a regionalAquifer ManagementPlanenforcedby stateandlocal governments~the Serviceshouldbe preparedto initiate legalactionrequiredtomaintainspringflowsatlevelsthatwouldmain-tain habitatsufficientto preventjeopardyto listedspecies.Task2.12 requiresreviewof section10permitapplications~performanceandcompliance;

andreviewof compliancewith formal section7agreementsby Federalagencies.

Waterquality in theEdwardsaquiferandtheSanMarcosandComalecosystemsis alsoa majorconcernwith regionalimplications.The RecoveryPlancalls for a regionalapproachthatprovidesthe aquiferwith protectionfrom significantsourcesof pollution andtheeffectsof chroniclow-levelcontamination.Tasks1.24and 1.28providefor an assessmentofexistingprovisions,andtask2.5 recommendstheimplementationofmeasuresneededto protectwaterquality in theaquifer.

On a morelocal level, tasks 1.24, 1.25, 1.26,1.27, and3.2 evaluateandtask2.8 seekstoaddresswaterquality concernsfor theComalandSanMarcosecosystems.In addition to waterquality concerns,tasks2.4,2.6, and2.9 addressa varietyof local managementconcerns.Progresshasbeenmadeon addressingconcernsfor thesesystems.The Serviceis working in cooperationwith the city of New BraunfelsandotherstodevelopaComal EcosystemManagementPlan(task 2.42).The city of SanMarcosandSouth-westTexasStateUniversityhavefundedan effortto developasimilar plan for the SanMarcosarea(task 2.41). ln addition,TexasParksandWildlifeDepartmenthasa studycurrentlyunderwaytoexaminepotentialimpactsto listedspeciesfromthe effluent of theA.E. WoodStateFishHatch-ery, anda studyis underwayto examinesomepotentialimpactsof effluentfrom the SanMarcoswasrewatertreatmentplant.

Nonnativespecieshavedirectandindirectimpactson the habitatandsurvival of speciesofconcern.Severalnonnativespeciesarepresentlyof concern,andthe RecoveryPlan (seetask1.29)calls for researchto learnmoreaboutnonnativespeciesimpactsandcontrol.Task2. 10calls for implementationof neededmanagementtechniques.Monitoring will also be neededtopreventoutbreaksor unacceptablelevelsofdamagefrom thesenonnatives,and this moni-toring is includedas partof task3.2. Dataonthe incidenceof clipping of leavesofTexaswild-riceby herbivoresin SpringLakearebeingcollected,andsomebasicresearchon ramshornsnailshasbeenconductedin the Comal Springsecosystem.

Certainrecreationalactivitiesareof concernbecauseof damageto Texaswild-rice fromrecreationistsandfloating matsof vegetation(sometimescut by local owner/managerstoprovide better recreational experiences for

visitors andusers).Task 1.21 callsfor an evalua-tion of the impactsof recreationiststo theintegrity of the springsandrivers andto listedspecies.Progressis beingmadein this area.TheServicehasrecentlyfundedstudiesexaminingrecreationalimpactson Texaswild-rice, anddiscussionshavebeeninitiated with operatorsofthelargesttubing operationin the San MarcosRiver to examinemanagementoptionsto reduceimpacts.

In someareastheremaybepotentialforrestorationor enhancementof habitatquality foroneor morespeciesof concern.Identificationand implementation of habitat restoration andenhancement opportunities are discussed in theRecoveryPlan (seetask2.9, conductingrestora-tion directly by resourceagenciesandothers,andtask2.6,workingwith privatelandownerstoencourage advantageous management). These

activitiesarealsosupportedindirectly throughtasks developinglocal managementplansfor theComalandSanMarcosSystems(tasks2.4, 2.41and2.42).Progressis beingmadein thisareathrough development of management plans, anda proposalfor manipulationto improvehabitatfor theSan Marcosgambusia.

Most of thetasksreviewedaboveaddress

generalhabitatrequirementsandknownthreatsto habitat.Implementationof thesetasksshould

Overview 3

SanMaecos& comalSprings& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPlan

contributesignificantly to increasingstabilityandmaintenance,habitatintegrityneededfor survival,andrecoveryofthelistedspecies.

In somecases,information aboutthespeciesof concernis limited andquestionsaboutwhat isneededto enhancesurvival andrecoveryarenotyet answered.For somespeciesthe exacthabitatrequirementsthatdeterminewhy theyoccurinsomeareasandnot othersarenot well under-stood,makingfine-tuningof habitatmanage-mentdifficult. Task 1.15 providesfor the identi-fication of specifichabitatcharacteristicsandrequirements.The ServiceandTexasParksandWildlife Departmentareconductinginstreamflow studiesto identif~ehabitatrequirementsofaquaticplantsandanimalsin theComalandSanMarcossystems.Throughsection6, the Servicehasfundedwork by TexasParksandWildlifeDepartmentto investigatehabitatrequirementsfor Texaswild-rice. Beforemanagementcanbeimplementedfor otherspecies,the generallifehistory, survivorship,andpotentialuniqueproblemssuchas diseasesandparasitesmustbeunderstood(seetasks 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14).Monitoring of individualsandpopulationsofsomespeciesandtheirhabitatis requiredfortrackingspeciescondition,and theoverallimpactsof variousthreats,asnotedin task3.1.Monitoring is neededto assurethatno signifi-cantdeclinein their statusoccursandto measuresuccessof recoveryefforts.Periodicmonitoringis takingplacefor Texaswild-rice andthe foun-tain darterandshouldcontinue.

A primarygoalof this RecoveryPlanis toreduce threats to the speciesof concernandconserve the species in their native ecosystem.However, in theserelatively restrictedsystemsacatastrophiceventcould causesevereenviron-mentaldamageandpossiblyleadto extinctionofsomespecies.Consequently,protectingthegenericvariation presentin existingpopulationsanddevelopingtechniquesneededfor restora-tion workarehigh priority recoverytasksad-dressedthroughtasks1.4 and2.11.This recoveryplanrequiresestablishingrefugiaandcaptivepopulations (task 1.4) for all five listed species.Although progress is being made, additional workandresearchareneeded.TheContingencyPlan(task2.11)calls for collectionandconservationofindividualsof thespeciesofconcernin theeventa

Overview

crisis is imminent.The planwill be distributedasaseparatedocumentwhencompleted.Reintro-duction techniquesarefairly well understoodforthefountaindarterandarethesubjectofcurrentresearchunderwayon Texaswild-rice. Informa-tion is still neededfor thesalamandersandforSanMarcosgambusia.

TheServiceactingalonecannotachievetheconservationand recoveryof thesespecies.Conservationof thesespeciesand theirecosys-temswill require thesupportandparticipationfrom awidevarietyof peopleandorganizations.In addition,Servicepolicy directsthe Servicetoinvolve partiesin implementationof RecoveryPlans.The policy statesthat implementationshould minimizesocialandeconomicimpactsasmuchas possible.Consequently,public informa-tion,education,andinvolvementis an impor-tant componentof this RecoveryPlan.Task2.1calls for the primaryinvolvementof stateandlocal entitiesin developingan aquifermanage-mentplan.Task4.2 providesfor activeencour-agementof public involvementin planningandcarryingout conservationefforts.Task4.1 notesthateducationalmaterialswill needto be pro-ducedanddistributedfor a varietyof audiences.Someprogresshasbeenmadein this area,althoughmoreis needed.The Servicehasaprojectunderwayatpresentin cooperationwithTexasParksandWildlife Departmentto producean informationkiosk for the SanMarcosRiver.Anothersection6educationalprojectundertakencooperativelywithTexasParksandWildlifeDepartment is producingeducationalmaterialsonthelistedspeciesand their ecosystem. AquarenaSprings(now ownedandoperatedby SouthwestTexasState University) installedexhibits thatwillbe helpful in providinginformationto thepublic. TheEdwardsUndergroundWaterDistricthasalsoproducedavarietyof educationalmateri-alsaboutthe aquifer.

4

Plan

as

PART I

BACKGROUNDINFORMATION

SanMarcos& Comal Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryPlan

A. THE ECOSYSTEMS

The ComalandSanMarcosSpringsare thelargestspringsystemsin Texas.The sourceoftheir flows is the SanAntonio Segmentof theEdwards(BalconesFaultZone)Aquifer,whichwill be referredto in the restof this planassimplythe EdwardsAquifer.The speciescoveredby thisplanaredependentupontheEdwardsAquiferandits associatedaquatichabitatin theComa1andSanMarcosSpringsareas.

Partlybecauseof theconstancyof the watersin temperatureandflow, the SanMarcosandComa1ecosystems~including the springrunsandthe SanMarcosandComalRiversand theirimpoundedheadwaters,haveoneof the greatestknowndiversitiesof organismsof anyaquaticecosystemin the southwesternUnitedStates.The uniquehabitatsof thesesystemsproviderelatively isolated,island-likesystemswhichsupporta high degreeofendemism.The biologi-cal uniquenessof thesesystemshasbeenknownfor manyyears.Manyspeciesfound in theComa1andSanMarcosecosystemsare not foundelsewhere.Most of the uniquespeciesarere-strictedto theheadwatersand thefirst fewkilometersor lessof theSanMarcosandComalRivers. In the SanMarcosRiver, this includesthe areaabovethe confluencewith the BlancoRiver, commonlyreferredto as the upperSanMarcosRiver. The EdwardsAquifer is knowntocontaina greatdiversity of organismsthat livewithin it, underground.

Theseaquaticecosystemsare in dangeroflosingtheir uniquefaunaand flora. A variety offactorsthreatenthe listedspecies.Local threatsto eachof the species,as well as broader,regionalthreatsto theecosystem’scontinuedintegrity, areaddressedin this plan.Someof the mostseverethreatsare relatedto both thequality andquan-tity ofwateravailablein the springsystemsandin theaquifer.Threatsincludedecreasedspringflows,impactsresultingfrom increasedurbanizationnearthe rivers, recreationaluse,pollution,alterationsof therivers, introductionofnonnativespeciesandotherconcerns.

Presently,four SanMarcos,Comal, andaquifer speciesincludedin this planare listedas

endangered:theSanMarcosgambusia(Gambusiageorgei),thefountaindarter(Etheostomafonticola),theTexasblind salamander(Typhlomo/gerathbuni),andtheTexaswild-rice(Zizaniarexana).In addition,theSanMarcossalamander (Euryce’anana) is listedas threat-ened.

Threespeciesof aquaticinvertebratesin rhcComalwereproposedfor listing by the Serviceon June5,1995(60FR 107:29537).Thespeciesthat areproposedare the Peck’scaveamphipod(Stygobromuspecki),ComalSpringsriffle beetle(Heterelmiscomalensis),and theComalSpringsdryopid beetle(Stygoparnuscomalensis).The final decisionregardingthe needto list hasnot yet beenmade.

In addition to the listedspecies,a greatdiversityof otheruniquespeciesoccurin theseaquaticecosystems.Someof thesemayalso bethreatenedwith extinction,but insufficientinformationis availableto fully assesstheirstatus.Someof thesespeciesassociatedwiththeEdwardsAquifer includetheTexascavedivingbeetle(Haideoporustexanus),San Marcos saddle-casecaddisfly (Protoptilaarca),Ezell’s Caveamphipod(Siygobromusflagellatus),Texassala-mander(Eu?yceaneotenes),Comalblind sala-mander(Eu?yceatrident~frra), robust(=Blanco)blind salamander(7jsphlomo/gerobusta),widemouthblindcat (Sataneurystomus),andtoothlessblindcat (Trogloglanispattersoni).Severalotherinvertebratesandvertebratesmayalsobe endemic(that is, foundonly in aparticular locality or region) to these aquaticecosystems.

This recoveryplancoversthefive specieslistedas threatenedor endangeredand theecosystemsuponwhichtheydepend,includingthe SanMarcosandComalaquaticecosystemsandtheEdwardsAquifer. Both theSan MarcosandComalSpringsand river systemsaredepen-dentuponwaterfrom the EdwardsAquifer andthus,representcomponentsof thelargerEdwardsAquifer ecosystem.Onasmallerscale,both theSanMarcosandComalaquaticsystemscontainuniquefloraand/orfaunathatdo not occur

Overview 6

throughouttheEdwardsAquifer ecosystem.Forpurposesof thisplan, theSanMarcosandComalsystems(includingtheir springs,lakesandrivers)areconsideredindividualecosystemswith theunderstanding that they are connected to, andanintegralpartof, thelargerEdwardsAquiferecosystem.A briefcomparisonof theComalandSanMarcosecosystemsis presentedinTable 1.TheEdwardsAquifer ecosystemis alsoimportantto thebayandestuaryecosystemsalongtheTexascoast.Aquifer waterexitingat SanMarcosandComal Springsprovidesa largeproportionof thebaseflow of theGuadalupeRiver, particularlyintimesof low rainfall. The GuadalupeRiverprovidesfreshwaterinput to SanAntonio Bayonthe TexasGulf Coastandthis freshwaterinput isimportantfor maintaininghabitatfor speciesinhabitingthe baysandestuaries.

The 1984 SanMarcos RecoveryPlanwasamongthe first recoveryplans to addressrecoveryof multiple speciesthroughan ecosys-temapproach.The importanceof conservingthe entirespring ecosystemas the only viableapproachfor recoveryof thesespecieswasrecognizedearlyin the developmentof thatplan.Any recoveryplanfor theseendangeredandthreatenedspeciesthat fails to addressthecontinuedfunctioningof theecosystemswill failto achieverecoverygoals set forth for theselistedspecies.Protectionof theseecosystemsshouldalso help conservemanyotheruniqueorganismsthatresidethere,includingspeciesthatarecandidatesfor listing. Theseecosystemsalsoprovide a greatdiversityof usesfor hu-mans,from the aquiferandassociatedstreams.Protectionof thesesystemsfor listed specieswould alsohelp assuretheir quality for humanusenow andfor future generations.

This revisedplan hasbeenexpandedtoaddress importance of the Comal ecosystemaswell as the SanMarcosecosystemandtoinclude theTexasblind salamander,alistedaquiferdwellingspecies.This recoveryplandiscussesproblemseach of the listedspeciesisfacing andpresentsa setof actions that,whenaccomplished,should alleviate threatsto eachspecies and maximizepotentialfor continuedexistenceof thesespeciesand the ecosystemstheydependon.

Pa~I

San Marcus& ComalSprings& AssociatedAquaticEcos~’~teerssRecovers’i’lan

PHYSIOGRAPHY ANDHYDROLOGY

Edwards Aquifer

The Balcones Fault Zone is the principalgeologicalfeaturecharacterizingthe SanMarcosandNew Braunfelsarea.The FaultZoneis aseriesof faults andfracturesthatextendeastfrom nearDel Rio (Val VerdeCounty) to SanAntonio (BexarCounty),where it turnsnorth-eastthroughthe springzone.Waterflowsundergroundalongthis fault zonefrom west toeastandthennortheast.The EdwardsAquiferunderliesthis fault zoneandhasa northern(BartonSprings)anda southern(SanAntonio)segment.Theaquifer’s SanAntonio segmentextendsfrom Bracketrville (KinneyCounty) tonearKyle (HaysCounty).This SanAntoniosegmentis thesourceof waterfor manymajorspringsalongthe fault zoneincluding theSanMarcosandComalsprings(Figure 1).

Runofffrom thesouthernandeasternpor-tionsof theEdwardsPlateauflows throughanareaof about12,035kilometers2(4,647 miles2)thatis composedof about9,184kilometers2(3,546miles2) of catchmentarea(oftenreferredto asthedrainagebasinor contributingzone)and2,851.6kilometers2(1,101 miles2) of rechargezone(Guadalupe-BlancoRiverAuthority 1988).Waterflowing from thecatchmentareato therechargezonerechargestheaquiferthroughthepermeableoutcropsofCretaceous-agedlime-stonesfoundin Hays,Comal,Bexar,Medina,Uvalde,andKinneycounties.Thisatchmentareais alsosometimesreferredto asthecontributingzoneor drainagebasin.Investigatorshaveesti-matedthat50-78percentof thewaterrechargingtheEdwardsAquifer comesfrom the drainagebasinswestof BexarCounty(GuytonandAssociates1979,WanakuleandAnaya1993,EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict 1991).Therechargezoneis an areaofkarsrterrainwherewaterenterstheaquifer.Thewateris primarilystoredin theartesianzone,whereimpermeablestrataoverliethe cavernouslimestoneandtrapthewaterunderground.Waterconfinedin theartesianzoneflows alongthefault zone.

7

Ta~Ie 1. Summaryof featuresof theComalandUpper* SanMarcosEcosystems.

Comal

ListedSpecies

Fountaindarter(Etheostomafonticola) Fountaindarter(Etheostomafonticola)

Texaswild-rice (Zizaniatexana)

Proposed ComalSpringsriffle beetle(Heterelmisco,nalensis) ComalSpringsriffle beetle(1 specimen)Species

Other Guadalupebass,(Micropterustreculi)(historiconly) Guadalupebass(Micropterustreculi)Species ComalSpringssalamander(Euryceasp.)of Interest SanMarcossaddle-casecaddisfly(ProtoptiIa arca,)

Duskydarter(Percinascieraapristis)

Non-native Elephantears,C, (Colocaijaesculenta) Elephantears,C, (Colocaijaesculenta)Speciesof Elodea,Egeriadensa Elodea,(Egeriadensa)Potential Hydrilla, (Hydrilla verticillata) Hydrilla, (Hydrilla verticillata)Concern Hygrophilapolysperma,(nocommonname) Hygrophiiapolysperrna,(no commonname)

LimnophiIa sessiI~flora(nocommonname) Parrotfeather,C, (Myriophyllum brasiliense)

C common Bluetilapia, C, (Tiiapiaaurea) Waterhyacinth,C4’Eichhorniacrasszpes,~)(in SpringLake)in system RioGrandecichlid, C, (‘Gichiasomacyanoguttatu7n) Bluetilapia, C, (Ti lapiaaurea)

Commoncarp,(Cyprinuscarpio) RioGrandecichlid,C,(Cichiasomacyanogutrarum)Amazonmolly, (Poeciliaformosa) Commoncarp, (Cj~prinuscarpio)Sailfin molly, C, (Poecilialatipinna) Amazonmolly, (Poeciliaformosa)Waterfowl (variousnon-native) Sailfin molly, C, (PoeciliaLati/idnna)Giantramshornsnail,C, (A’farisa cornuarietis,) Waterfowl (variousnon-native)Othersnails,(Mdanoidestubercuiata,)and(Al. gran~frra,) Giant ramshornsnail, (Marisacornuarietis,)Asianclam, (CorbicuIa) Othersnails,(A’!elanoidestuberculara)and(A’!. granif’ra)Nutria,C, (A’Iyocasterco.ipus,) Asian clam,C, (Corbicula)

Nutria, C, (Alyocaster co}’pus)

* theareacommonlyreferredto asche upperSanMarcosRiver includesthe areaabovetheconfluencewith the Blaiico River.

00

C,,

k

C

0

-C

Table 1. Summaryof Featuresofthe Coma]andUpper* SanMarcosEcosystems(Continued)

Comal UpperSanMarcos

Meanwatertemp. (0C)atSprings

23.3 (George 1952) 22 (Guyton and Associates1979)

Averageannualspringilow(cfs)

284 (1928-1989,GuytonandAssociates1979) 170 (May 1956-Oct1994,USGS 1995)

Maximumdaily meanspringflow(cfs)

666(Dec 22, 1991; EUWD pers.comm) 451 (Mar 12-15, 1992; EUWD pers. comm)

Minimumdaily meanspringflow(cfs)

0 (June13-Nov4, 1956) 45 (Aug15 & 16, 1956)

LakeArea(acres)

LandaLake: about21 acres SpringLake: about10 acres

RiverineHabitat

about2 miles (3 kin) about4 miles (6.4 kin)

0

0

0

0

0

0~

-o

0

I

Figure1. EdwardsAquifer Region(modified from Figure 1 in MachayandLand,1988).

a. a. memLUugin

+2’. + -I. — EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE AREABOUNDARY OF FRESHWATER PART OF

IS U me EDWARDS AQUIFER— UNE SEPARATING UNCONFiNED ZONE TO

NORrH FROM CONFiNED ZONE TO SOUTHBOUNDARY OF DRAINAGE BASINS

— BASIN NAMES ARE tI~Z[D1

San Marcos& Coma1 Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecovers’l4Iauu

Becauseofthecharacteristicsof the EdwardsAquifer (which includerelativelyrapidflowthroughundergroundcaverns),therehasbeendebate among hydrologists regarding whether it

should betermedanaquiferor anundergroundriver.This differencein terminologycouldhaveramificationsin termsofwater-rightslaw inTexas,the right of theStateto regulatethewater,andwhichstateagencywouldhaveregulatoryauthority.Recognizingthevolumeandflow ofwaterthroughtheaquiferanditssignificanceasanaturalresource,theTexasWaterCommissiondeclaredtheEdwardsAquiferan undergroundriver (TWCRules,l7Tex. Reg.6601-6620)onSeptember 25, 1992. In Mayof 1993,SenateBill1477declaredtheEdwardsAquifer is adistinctivenaturalresourcein thestate,to bea uniqueaquifer,but not an undergroundstream.

Comal

The ComalSpringsystemis the largestspringsystemin Texas.It consistsof numerousspringopenings,collectivelycalledComalSprings,thatoriginatefrom the EdwardsAquifer.Thesespringopeningsinclude Brune’s(1981)Springsj, k, andI (referredto hereinas springruns 1, 2, and3, respectively;Figure2). Thesespringsprovideflow to threeshort springrunsthatemptyinto thewesternendof LandaLakein LandaPark,a municipal recreationalareaownedby the city of NewBraunfels(ComalCounty,Texas).Anothersmallergroupof springs(eastof Brune’sSpringsa,b, andc (Brune1981), referred to collectively herein as springrun4) occursat theeasternendof LandaLakeneartheconfluencewith BliedersCreek.BliedersCreekis about11 km (6.8 miles) longand dry except immediately after rains. Numer-oussmall springsandseepsoccurin the springruns, alongthe banksof LandaLake,andbeneaththe Lake.

LandaLakewas createdwhenthe originalriver channelwas dammedin 1847 to createanew channelprovidingwaterfor Merriwether’sMill. LandaParkwas establishedas a privatelyownedparkopento the public in 1898.The city

of NewBraunfelsacquiredthe park in 1936.Atthat time the threelargestspringrunswerechanneledby rockwork constructedby the

WorksProjectAdministrationanda childrenspool wasbuilt at the lower endof springrun 2(GregoryandGaff1993).

Wateremergingfrom the variousspringspassesthroughLandaLakebeforeflowing intoeither theold or new channelof the ComalRiver (Figure2). The old andnew channelsmergeabout2.5 km (1.6 miles) downstreamfrom LandaLakeandthe ComalRiver flowsgenerallysouthanother2.5 km (1.6 miles)beforejoining the GuadalupeRiver, making it

the shortestriver in Texasandthe shortestriverin theUnitedStatescarryingan equivalentamount of water (Texas Almanac 1973). A shortdistancedownstreamfrom the headsprings,DryComal Creek enters the new channel of theComalRiver from the southwest.Dry ComalCreek is also an intermittent stream, but it doesprovidesomerecharge.

A major fault, the ComalSpringsFault, liesto thewestof theComalSpringstending in anortheastdirection with about243.9m (800feet) of displacement.EdwardsGroup limestonesoutcropon thewestsideof the fault,whereasonthe eastside,the Edwardshasbeendisplacedandlies about 140.2m (460 feet) belowthe surface(EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict 1992a).This outcropof the karstic water-bearingEdwardslimestoneon the west side of the faultaccountsfor the presenceof the Comal Springs.

The Comal Springsissuefrom the lime-stonesof the EdwardsGroupat the baseof theBalconesEscarpment.In the vicinity of thesprings,the EdwardsGroupcropsout in acontinuousescarpmentwith about30.5m (100ft) of topographicrelief that hasbeencreatedalongtheComalSpringsFault (GuytonandAssociates1979). Thespring outletsare locatedalongthe baseof thisescarpment.The threemainoutletsof Comal

Springslie atan elevationof about190 m(623 ft).

Faultinghas, for the mostpart,hydrologicallyisolatedComalSprings,althoughlargelocalstormstemporarilycontributeasmall rechargecomponentto springrun 3 (RothermelandOgden1987). Brune(1981) believedthepri-mary rechargearealay as much as 100 km (62miles) to the westandGuyton andAssociates(1979) determinedthat the rechargeareafor

ParrI 11

5.u~ M.secos ~c Comal S~rinis & AssociateA A~uu.uu;c E.’’svsueuuo Recs’e~rvPuw.

~igi.1re2. Coma1Aquatic Ecosystem.

OLDCHANNEL

NORTH

0 100 200 ~n0 400 000

M~E~

0 LANDA LAKE

J DRYCOMALCREEK

USGSGage

PE

SPRING®= RUN NO.

NEWBRAUNFELS

COMAL COUNTY

TEXAS

ST

12

SanMarcos& ComalSprings&AssociatedAquaticEcosvstenssRecovers’i5lac

ComalSpringsincludesalargeareaof theEd-wardsAquifer southwestof Cibolo Creekbasin.Studiesof the tritium contentofthewateremergingfrom Comal Springsindicatethat theamountof rechargefrom localsourcesis mini-mal (GuytonandAssociates1979).MaclayandLand (1988) notethatbasedon their simulationstudiesit appearsthatmostof the flow of ComalSprings is sustained by groundwaterfrom thedownthrownsideof the ComalSpringsfault,wherethereis flow of groundwatermovingnortheastwardtowardthe springs.

George,BreedingandHastings(1952)reportedthat themeanannualwatertempera-ture of ComalSpringsis 23.30C(740F)andisnot believedto fluctuatemore thanabout0.50C(1 0F).

Flow at ComalSpringshasbeenmonitoredsincethe early 1 880s.Comal Springshavethegreatestmeandischargeof anyspringsin thesouthwesternUnitedStates(Georgeet al. 1952).The averageannualdischargefrom 1928-1989was 8.04 cms (284 cfs).Maximum dailyspringflowswere 18.86cms (666 cfs) on Decem-ber 22, 1991 (EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict, pers.comm.).The highestmonthlyflow from ComalSpringswas 13.2 cms(467 cfs)in 1973 (GuytonandAssociates1979).

Much lower flows havebeenrecordedduringdroughtyears,andin dry yearsflows fromComalSpringscandropveryrapidly.ComalSpringsceasedflowing fromJune13 to Novem-ber 4, 1956,duringthe mostseveredroughtonrecord (U.S.Army Corpsof Engineers1964). Atthattime, all majorspringsin the BalconesFaultZonehadceasedto flow, with the exceptionofSanMarcosSprings,which haddecreaseditsflow substantially(GuytonandAssociates1979).Someof thehigherelevationComalSpringsceasedflowing in 1984and 1990whenwaterlevelsin the BexarCountyindexwell 0-17) inSanAntonio droppedto within twelve feet of thehistoric low of 186.7m (612.5feet) thatoc-curredin 1956 (Wanakule1990).

San Marcos

ThespringsatSanMarcos(thesecondlargestspringsystemin Texas)historicallyhaveexhibited

ParrI

the greatestflow dependabili~andenvironmentalstabilityof any springsystem in thesouthwesternUnitedStates.Recordsindicatethatthe SanMarcosSpringshaveneverceasedflowing,althoughthe flow hasvariedand is tied to fluc-tuationsin their source,theEdwardsAquiferunderlyingthe BalconesFaultZone.Theheadwa-tersof theSanMarcosRiver issuefrom severallargefissuresandnumeroussmallersolutionopeningsalongtheSanMarcosSpringsfault(Puente 1976). It has been reported that prior to

inundationwith theformationof SpringLake,the largestspringsemergedwith suchforcethattheyformedafountainthreefeet high (B rune1981).

EarlySpanishexplorersestimatedthataseriesof 200springsmadeup the main springarea(Brune 1981).SpringLake,elevation189 m(620 feet),was createdover 50 yearsago by thedammingof the SanMarcosRiver not fardownstreamfrom the springs.SpringLake,knownfor theclarity of its water, is the site of amajor tourist attraction, AquarenaSprings,Inc.,an amusementparkfeaturingglass-bottomedboatridesanda submarinetheater.This resortwassold to SouthwestTexasStateUniversity in1994.

The SanMarcosRiver (Figure3) flowsprimarilysoutheastwardfor about110 km (68.4miles) beforejoining the GuadalupeRiver nearGonzales,GonzalesCounty,Texas.The upperSanMarcosRiver (which includesthe river areaabovethe confluencewith the BlancoRiver) israpidly flowing andunusuallyclear.The upperRiver run is primarily spring-fedandvariesfromabout5-15 m (16.4-49.2feet) wide andup toabout4 m (13.1 feet) deep.The sectionbetweentheBlancoRiver confluenceand the GuadalupeRiverhasfewer attributesof a springrun.

From its headwatersat the springsto nearits confluence with the Blanco River, a distanceof a few kilometers, the river flows mostly overgravelor gravel/sandbottom (Crowe1994),with manyshallow riffles alternatingwith deeppools. However, thereis variability in thesubstrate,and in areaswith lower flows, silt/mudaccumulates.Near bankswhereerosionhasoccurredandnearstormwaterdrainagepoints,silt dominatedsubstratesarealsofound.

13

Saut Maccos& CarnalSprings& AssociatedAquatic &osvsueunsRecoveryP.c

FigUre3. SanMarcosAquaticEcosystem.

~SINKCK

SE

‘HopkTns

SPRINGLAKE

INGION

WILLOW

island

Glaver’s IsIon~

i~H35 0 200 400 600 800 1000

B LAN CORIVER

A

SAN MARCOSHAYS COUNTYTEXAS

NORTH

SANMARCOSRIVER

14

SanMarcos& Coma1Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecovers’Plan

Upstreamfrom thejunctionof theBlancoRiver with the SanMarcosRiver, within abouta6.4 km (4.0 mile) river sectionbelowthemainspringsin SanMarcos,4 namedandvariousunnamedcreeks,variousstorm sewers,andonewastewatertreatmentplant dischargeinto theriver (Figure 3). Sink Creek,largestof thecreeks,dischargeslargequantitiesof stormrunofffrom thenorth into SpringLake. SpringLakedambackswaterabout 1.6km (1.0 mile)up SinkCreek.Willow SpringsandPurgatoryCreekarenormallydry exceptduringperiodsofhigh rainfall.

The exactareascontributingrechargeto theSanMarcosSprings,andtheir relativeimpor-tance,hasnot beenclearlydelineated.Guyton&Associates(1979)statedthat themajority ofrechargefor SanMarcosSpringsis consideredtobe from an areaof the aquifersouthwestofComalSpringsthat flows under theComalSpringsandis dischargedat SanMarcosSprings.Theseflows arederivedprimarily from the samesourcesas the ComalSprings,which likelyincludethe rechargeareasouthwestof theCibolo Creekbasin(including the upperpartofthe SanAntonio River basinwith Helores,Leon,andSaladocreeks,andthe NuecesRiver basin)with somecontributionfrom alargepart of theCibolo Creekbasin (Figure1).

However,tritium contentin theSanMarcosSpringswatermayindicatethatsomerechargewateralsooriginatesfrom othersourcessuchastheDry ComalCreekbasin.The flow from SanMarcosSpringsalsohasa componentderivedfrom local rechargeincludingrechargefrom theBlancoRiver basin,Sink, Purgatory,York, andAlligator creekbasins,the GuadalupeRiverbasinrechargeareaeastof the river, the upperpart oftheDry Comal Creekbasin,andpossiblypart oftheupperpart of the Cibolo Creekbasin(GuytonandAssociates,1979). Puente(1976)estimatedthatundernormal rainfall conditions40% of dischargecould be derivedfrom localrecharge.MaclayandLand (1988), throughcomputersimulationstudies,concludedthat in

Parr I

southernHaysCountygroundwatermovesnortheastwardalonga narrowstrip berweenHuecoSpringsandComal Springsfaults, anddischargesat SanMarcosSprings.Theystatethatdischargesat SanMarcosSpringsalsolikelycome from water moving southeastwardfrom therechargeareain east-centralHaysCounty.

The flow of SanMarcosSpringshasbeenmonitoredintermittentlysince1894 (Puente1976).Averageannualspringflowfrom May1956-October1994 was 4.81 cms (170.0cfs)(USGS 1995). During droughtyearsmuchlower flows occurred,especiallyin themid-1 950sduringthedroughtof record.Partof theflows recordedin 1956 maybeattributedtowaterprovidedby a well nearSpringLake.Thelowestrecordedmonthly flow from the SanMarcosRiverwas 1.53 cms (54 cfs) during1956(GuytonandAssociates1979).The lowestmeasureddaily flow rateoccurredon 15 and 16August 1956when theSanMarcosRiver flowedatonly 1.29 cms(45.5cfs). Maximum dailyspringflowscanbe greaterthanthe 12.72cms(451.0cfs) of 12 March 1992,especiallyfollow-ing high local rainfall andrunoff (USGS1995).

The thermallyconstantwaterfrom the SanMarcosSpringshaslong beennoted.GuytonandAssociates(1979) reportan averagetempera-ture in theheadwatersareaof 22.0 oC (71.6 oF)

andthat the temperaturegenerallyfluctuateslessthan0.5 oC (1 SF). At the lower endof thespringrun habitatonly aslightly greaterrangeofvariation in temperature (from 25.5 “C [77.9 oF]

in August to 20.4 OC [68.7 ~F]in February)hasbeenrecorded(USGS1967-1971,Beaty1972).

Waterstendto be alkalineor neutraldue tothe limestoneaquifer.The pH rangeof the SanMarcosSpringsis 6.9 - 7.8 (TexasWaterDevel-opmentBoard1968).The stabilityof thisstream,both in termsof flow dependabilityandthermalcharacteristics,provideda uniquesetofecologicalconditions.Theunusuallyhighdegreeof endemismof the SanMarcosandComalbiotamaybea resultof therelativelyconstant,island-like springhabitats.

15

~an Marcos& ComalSprings&‘ AssociatedAquaticEcoss’sreiussRecovers’l’jur

B. THREATS TO THE SPECIESAND THEIR ECOSYSTEMS

WATER QUANTITY

A primary threatto all five of thesespecies

andtheir ecosystemsis loss of springflows.springflowsat SanMarcosandComal Springsare tied inseparablyto waterusagefrom theentire EdwardsAquifer,anduseof groundwaterin thatregiondecreasesflow of waterfrom thesprings.Analysesby theTexasDepartmentofWaterResources(TDWR 1977),projectingwaterusagefrom the aquifer throughthe year2020,indicatethatincreasedgroundwaterusageis expectedwell into the 21stcentury,especiallyin the SanAntonio area.Total withdrawalfromtheSanAntonio areaof theEdwardsAquifer hasbeenincreasingsinceat least 1934,whentotalwell dischargewas 101,900acre-feet(EU’WD1989). In 1989,total well dischargewas slightlymorethan542,000acre-feet(Longley 1991,EUWD 1992a,1992b).Municipal water useaccountedfor 58% of waterusefrom theEd-wards from 1981-1988(Wanakule1990). Thepopulationin Bexar,Comal, Hays,Medina,andUvaldecountiesis estimatedto increasebetween37 and47% by theyear2010with a concurrentincreasein water demand(TexasWaterDevelop-mentBoard1990,1992a).Projectionsof futureSanAntonio wateruseandneedshavebeenanalyzedby theTexasWaterDevelopmentBoard(1992), ResearchandPlanningConsultants(1994),andothers.

Becauseof the anticipatedgrowth in thisregion of the Edwardsaquiferandtheconcomi-tant increasein wateruse, severalestimateshavebeenmadeconcerningthe influenceof increasedwell dischargeon springflowsat ComalandSanMarcos.

TheTexasWaterDevelopmentBoardhasappliedits modelof theEdwardsAquifer todeterminewhat pumpinglevel would allowComalSpringsto continueto flow (TechnicalAdvisory Panel1990).The Boardfoundthatduringadroughtsimilar to thatof the 1950s,themaximumpumpagefrom the aquifer thatwouldallow springflowatComalSpringsto continueisabout250,000acre-feetperyear(lessthanhalf

thecurrentpumpingrare).At thispumpinglevel,ComalSpringscouldbeexpectedto maintainsomeannualflow althoughflows maybe inter-mittent duringarecurrenceof thedroughtof

record(TechnicalAdvisoryPanel1 990).ThcPanelalsopredictedthat in theyear2000, ifpumping continuesto grow at historicalratesanda droughtof recordwere to occur,ComalSpringswould go dry for a numberof years(TechnicalAdvisoryPanel1990).

Given various schemesof water usage, theBureauof Reclamation(U.S. Bureauof Recla-mation 1972,1973, 1974) projectsthat theprobabilityof continuousflow from theSanMarcosSpringsby the year2020 is only ~0-7~ipercentcertain.Klemt et al.(1979) projectthatassumingfull projecteddevelopmentwithaveragehydrologicconditions,continuousflowfrom SanMarcosSpringswill ceasearoundtheyear 2010.

Datafrom the Bureauof Reclamation(U.S.Bureauof Reclamation1972,1973,1974) andotherssuggestthatdemandson the EdwardsAquifer,evenconsideringalow (andunlikely)rateof growth for this region,will far exceedthcrechargeto theaquifer (Longley 1975,McKinney andWatkins 1993,ResearchandPlanningConsultants1994).Wanakule(1990)states:“ThepresentproblemfacingtheEdwardsAquifer is thethreatof overdrafringof the annualaveragerechargerate(1934-1988) of approxi-mately635,500acre-feet.”A numberof recentstudieshavemodeledspringflowat SanMarcosandComalsprings(ThorkildsenandMcElhanev1992,McKinney andWatkins 1993,WanakuleandAnaya1993) andfoundsomeregulationofgroundwaterwithdrawalnecessaryto ensure

continuousflow at SanMarcosandComalSprings.Refinementof modelingtechniquesledto theconclusion,in an updatedTexasWaterDevelopmentBoardreport (1992) thata sus-tainedpumpinglimitation of about165,000acre-feetperyearwouldbe neededto ensurespringflowsduringa repetitionof adroughtofrecord.The EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict(1 992a)hadaTechnicalDataReviewPanel

7

Part I 16

SanMarcos& ComalSprings& AssociatedAquaticEcos~’sremsRecovers’Plan

examinepotentialproblemswith the methodol-ogyandassumptionsusedin makingcurrentprojections,andconcludedthatadditionaldatawouldbe neededto improve the accuracyofprojectionsfor regulatorypurposes.

As partof a February1, 1993,Judgment(asamendedon May 26, 1993) in the caseof SierraClub vs. Secretaryof the Interior(No. MO-91-CA-069, U.S.Dist. Ct.,WD. Texas),theCourtorderedtheServiceto makecertaindetermina-tions relativeto minimumspringflowsandaquifer levels necessaryfor endangeredandthreatenedspecies.The purposeof thesedeter-minationswas to provideguidanceto Federalagenciesandpumpersfrom theaquiferto assistthem in takingappropriateactionsto ensuretheir activities do not takeor jeopardizelistedspeciesor result in adversemodificationordestructionof critical habitat.Take includes“toharass,harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound,kill,trap, capture,or collect,or to attemptto engagein anysuchconduct.”Takecanincludesignifi-canthabitatmodificationor degradationif it

kills or injureswildlife by significantlyimpairing

essentialbehaviorssuchasbreeding,feeding,orsheltering.

Thesespringflowsandaquifer levelswere tobe basedon availableinformationandtheService’sbestprofessionaljudgment.The deter-minationsmadeby theServiceare includedinTable2. Thesedeterminationswerebasedonconditionsat thetime andassumethereis nomechanismin placeto managegroundwaterwithdrawalso that thetiming anddurationofflow levelscanbe influenced.Determinationsalsoassumethereis no effectivecontrol mecha-nismfor nonnativespeciessuchas thegiantramshornsnail. It maybepossiblefor flow levelsto fall belowtheselevelsfor short periodsoftime, but not for extendedperiodswithoutcausingtake, jeopardy,and/oradversemodifica-tion. In somecasestheseflow levelsmayalsobereducedforshortperiodsif adequatemanagementfor controlling durationandtiming of low flowsandmanagementof nonnativespeciesare in place.

Accuratelymonitoringthedischargeof bothComalandSanMarcosSpringsis an importanttask.A varietyof methodshavebeenemployedfor theperiodof record.Manyentitiesusedata

Table 2. U.S.FishandWildlife Servicedeterminationof minimumspringflowsneededto preventtake,jeopardy,or adversemodificationof critical habitat.All flow ratesaregivenin cubic feetper second(cfs).

Species Take Jeopardy Adv.Mod.

Fountain darter in Comal

Fountain darter in San MarcosSan Marcos gambusia

San Marcos salamander

Texas blind salamander

200

100

100

60

50*

150

100

100

60

5Q*

N/A

100

100

60

N/A

Damageand Destruction

Texas wild-rice 100 100 100

* Refersto SanMarcosspringflow

Someof theselevelscouldbereducedundercertainconditions,suchassignifi-cantcontrolof certainnonnativespeciesand/orimplementationof anaquifermanagementplan.Significantcontrolof nonnativespecieswouldbe thatwhichwouldeliminatethreatsfrom thesespecies,suchaslossor alterationof essentialhabitat,increasedpredation,disruptionof normalbehaviors,orhybridization.

17Pars

SanMarcus& ComalSprings& AssociatedAquatic EcosysreususRecovers’l’l.sn

from a monitoringwell in SanAntonio knownas

to trackEdwardsAquifer levels.Several~0yestigatorshaveexaminedtherelationshipbetweenlevels in J-17 andspringflowsattheComa

1andSanMarcosSprings(GuytonandAssociateSl979~ Wanakule1988).J-17welllevelsdo not corresponddirectly (thatis 1:1) tospringflows~particularlyatlow flows. The

correlationbetweenJ17 well levelsandthe flowfromComalSpringsappearsto be betterthanthecorrelationbetweenJ-17well levelsandtheflowfrom SanMarcosSprings.Usingwells closertothespringsto estimatespringdischargemaybemoreaccuratethanrelying onJ-17levels.

However,amoredirect andaccuratemethod

0f~onitOringComalandSanMarcosspring-flows is desirableto supportrecoveryefforts.Working cooperativelywith theEdwardsUnder-groundWaterDistrict, theUSGShasestablishedaSanMarcosgagestationneartheoutflow ofSpringLakeatUniversityDrive andhasaddedadditionalinstrumentationalongtheComalaswell. PreviouslyUSGSusedamonitoringwelloff HunterRoad(SWof the City) to estimateSanMarcosspringflow.The UniversityDrivegagemeasuresSanMarcosdischargeas thesumofspringflowandrunoff from SessomandSinkCreeks.Similarly, theUSGS gagefor the ComalRivermeasuresComalspringflowandrunofffrom BliedersandDry ComalCreeksandPantherCanyon.Thesenewgageswill giveabetterestimateof springflowandfloodflow conditions.Local wells in ComalandHayscountiesthathavebeenusedin thepastto monitoraquiferlevelsandestimatespringflowsprovidevaluableinfor-mationabouttherelationshipbetweendifferencesin aquiferlevelsin theregionandtheir relation-ship to springflows,andshouldcontinueto bemonitoredaswell.

WATER QUALITY

Waterqualitydeclineswould likely impactallfive listedspeciesincludedin thisplanaswell asotherspecies.Waterquality includeschemicalandphysicalfactors.Someof the chemicalconstitu-entsthatmaybe importantincludedissolvedions, traceelements,pH, nutrients,dissolvedoxygen,andorganiccontaminants(e.g.,com-

poundsofpetrochemicalor pesticideorigins).Someof thephysicalfactorsconsideredimpor-rant includewatertemperature~air temperature.light, turbidity, andsedimentation.

Due to its wide ranginginfluenceon manydifferentbiotic andchemicalfactors(Armour1991),watertemperatureis an importantconsideration.Riverslike Comaland SanMarcostypically haveagradientof increasingvariability in temperaturefrom theheadwaterstothe lower reaches.However,humancausedfactorscanaffect ComalandSanMarcosaquaticsystems’temperatures(suchasthroughdischargeof waterat atemperatureotherthantheambientwatertemperatureor throughdecreasedaquiferlevelsresultingin loweredspring dischargesandassociatedincreasesin temperaturefluctua-tions).

In 1988,The TexasWaterCommission,nowthe TexasNatural ResourceConservationCommission,reportedthat the SanAntoniosegmentof the EdwardsAquifer,Bexar,Hays,andComal Countieshad thegreatestnumberofland-basedoil andchemicalspills in centralTexas that affect surfaceand/or groundwater,with 28, 6, and4 spills, respectively(TWC1989). The potentialexists for catastrophicaccidentalspills from railroad tank cars, tractor-trailers, or othermotorvehicles crossingthe SanMarcosRiver on railroad bridges,the interstatehighway,or otherroad crossings.As of July,1988,BexarCountyhadbetween26 and50confirmedleakingundergroundstoragetanks,HaysCountyhadbetween6 and 10, andComalCountyhadbetween2 and5 (TWC 1989),putting thesecountiesamongthe top fivecountiesin centralTexas for confirmedunder-groundstoragetankleaks.The TWC estimates

that, on average,everyleakingundergroundstoragetankwill leak about500 gallonsperyearof contaminantsbefore the leak is detected.Thesetanks are consideredoneof the mostsignificantsourcesof groundwatercontamina-tion in the state(TWC 1989).

Decreasedwaterqualitycould alsoresultfromareductionin thewaterlevel in theaquifer.TheBalconesFaultZone-SanAntonio Regionisbounded on thesouthandeastby asalinewaterinterfaceknownasthe “badwater” line acrosswhich thegroundwaterqualityabruptlydeterio-

18

SanMarcos& Coma1Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosysremsRecoveryPlan

ratesto greaterthan1000mg/L totaldissolvedsolids(TDS). In otherwords,crossingthe badwaterline, groundwatergoesfrom freshto salineor brackish.Loweredwaterlevelsdueto ground-waterpumpageor decreasedrechargemayresultin deteriorationof waterqualityby movementofsalinewaterinto thefreshwatersectionoftheaquifer.Movementof badwaterinto the aquifercould have serious impacts on thespeciesofconcern, which depend on fresh water, as well asto thesuitability for useasa humanwatersupply.BothComalandSanMarcosSpringsareverycloseto the badwaterline CIWC 1989,EUWD1 992b) and,althoughthedataareinconclusiveatpresent, both springs couldundergointrusionofsalinewatersat low aquifer levels.

Lower aquifer levels and springflows mayalso decreasewaterquality becauseof a decreaseddilution ability (i.e., lesswaterto dilute anypollutantsin the system,resultingin higherpollutantconcentrations).This situationwouldbe compoundedduringdrought.

Other threatsto waterquality occuras aresultof humanactivitiesin therechargezoneandin the local watersheds.Permitted,non-permitted,andaccidentaldischarges(suchassewageleaks) into waterwaysarea possiblethreatthatneedsto beevaluatedandaddressed(Emery1967,Vaughan1986). Surfacerunoff, particu-larly in urbanareas,mayimpact thesprings,lakes,andriver systems.Stormwaterrunoff mayinclude such thingsas pesticidesandherbi-cides, fertilizers, soil erodedfrom constructionactivities, silt, suspendedsolids, garbage,hydrocarbonand inorganic/metalcompoundsfrom vehiclesandmachinery,householdsol-vents andpaints, andother urbanrunofffrompointandnon-pointpollutionsources(UrbanDrainageandFloodControl District 1992).

Non-point source runoff and chemical

contaminationarepotentialsourcesofwaterquality degradation.Forexample,useof anherbicidealongbridgepilingsandconcreteapronsat the IH-35 crossingof the SanMarcosRiverhasoccurredforyears.Moderateto lightrainfall could washthis andothercontaminantsinto the riverat the typelocality of the SanMarcosgambusia.Suchrunoff could impacttheSanMarcosgambusia,fountaindarter,Texaswild-rice, or their habitats.Other species,such

ParrI

asinvertebratepreyspeciesandalgaeon whichthey feed,could alsobe affectedby runoff ofherbicides,pesticides,andothernon-pointsourcepollutants.

A reportproducedby the Edward’sUnder-groundWaterDistrict (EUWD 1993) summa-rizesinformationon increasingdevelopmentintheEdwardsAquifer rechargezoneandtheeffectsof theseactivitiesin Bexar,Comal,andHayscounties.Thereportconcludedtherewascausefor concernthat thecumulativeimpactof pollu-tion resultingfrom urbanizationovertheEd-wardsrechargezonewas not beingadequatelyaddressed,andthatdegradationof EdwardsAquiferwatercould beimminent.The EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict reportalso includedrecommendationsfor stepsthat could be takento preventpollution of theaquifer.

Rice(1994) examinedUSGSandStateofTexasdatafor wells sampledbetween1982 and1992 andfound that54 wells in BexarCountyhavereportedmercuryandchlorinatedsolvents.Riceconsideredthe datacausefor concernandpresentedrecommendationsfor preventinggroundwatercontamination.While only a fewwells hadcontaminantlevelsabovethosepermit-ted in drinking waterstandards,the presenceofthesecontaminantcompoundsdemonstratestherisk ofaquifercontamination.If not abated,contaminationmayincreaseand threatenthehealthof humansas well as plant andanimalspecies.

HABITAT MODIFICATION

Humanmodifications(suchas bankstabiliza-tion, dams,andlandownermaintenanceactivitiesin waterwaysandon adjacenttractsof land) havesignificantlyalterednaturalconfigurationsanddrainagein theSanMarcosandComalsystems.Thesealterations,in turn,havechangedthehistoricalmagnitudeandoccurrenceof episodiceventssuchas flooding. Indirect impactsfromsurroundingdevelopmentandurbanizationhavealsochangedthesesystems.Understandingthesechangesandtheir impactsis importantto theconservationoftheecosystemsandtheir species.

A seriesof five flood retardationstructuresbuilt by the Soil ConservationService(now

19

SanMarcos& ComalSprings& AssociatedAquatuc£cosxsueuusRecovcrvlw

kllowfl asthe NaturalResourceConservationservice)on tributary creeksfeedinginto the SanMarcosp.jver is expectedto decreasethe severityf~Oodingin the watershedandto slightly

increasethe rechargeinto the aquifer (U.S.Departmentof Agriculture 1978). However, theeffectof thesestructureson flushing flows andsiltaccumulationis uncertain. Floodingstill occurs

andmayflush silt andothersoft materialsfromthe river bottom,but maynot be adequatetomaintainnaturalhabitats.A largegravelbarhasaccumulatedbelowtheconfluenceofSessomCreekdueto constructionin the SessomCreekwatershed(Longley, in Iitt., andUSFWSobser-vations).periodic flooding is anaturaleventinthe SanMarcos(and to a lesserextentin theComal).In addition to silt removal,floodingcanmaintainhabitatsfor somespeciesby periodi-cally removingvegetationfrom partsofstreambanksand rivers,creatingopeningsinshorelineemergentvegetationandin somesubstrateareas.Floodingalsois knownto reduceabundancesof introducednonnarivefishesinothersouthwesternstreams.

Thespeciescomposition, distribution,anddensityof aquaticvegetationarevery importantfor manyofthe listedspecies.Thesefactorsinfluencethequality andquantityof availablehabitat.Activities that alter aquaticvegetation,directly or indirectly, needto be carefullyevalu-ated andmanagedto minimizeadverseimpactsandimprovespecieshabitat.Cutting andremoving vegetation(algae,mosses,vascularplants)from SpringLakemayharmor kill SanMarcossalamandersandfountaindarters.This ispotentiallyaseriousthreatto theSanMarcossalamanders,sincethe algal matsprovide a foodsource,coverandprotectionfrom predators(Nelson1993).Emery (1967),Vaughan(1986),andRoseandPower(1993) havenotedthatcutting of aquaticvegetationin SpringLakeandotherareasthreatensTexaswild-rice becausefloating matsof cutvegetationreleasedinto theriver shadeandentangleTexaswild-rice plantsandknockoverinflorescences.Vegetationcutting mayalsothreatenotherspeciesof con-cernby direct damageor lowering habitatquality.

NONNATIVE SPECIES

Certainnonnarivespecies(that is. thoseintroducedto an areaoutsidetheirnormal rangeof distribution; includingspeciesnativeto areasoutsidethecontinentoften termedexoticspe-cies) posea significant threat to the listedspecies.Threatsoccurdue to competitionoverhabitator diet and/orby modifying habitat,suchasaffectedby nonnariveelephantears(Coloca.siaesculenta)andgiantramshornsnails(Marisa cornuarietis).In addition,somespeciesprey on the listed species.Decreasedflow mayexacerbatethe problemposedby nonnativespecies.

Sinceintroductionofgiant ramshornsnailsinto the ComalandSanMarcosecosystemsaround 1983,aquaticplantsin manyareasofLandaLake havebeendenudedor grazedto thebottom(Homeet al. 1992,Linam et al. 1993)suchthat theyno longerprovidedcover for thefountain darter.Giant ramshornsnail popula-tions appearto increaseduring low flows. Thissnail posesa significantthreat to the Comalaquaticecosystem.On March3, 1990, thisspecieswas addedto the Texas ParksandWildlife Department’slist of “Harmful orpotentiallyharmful exoticshellfish.” The giantramshornsnail is recognizedas a voraciousherbivore,which is why it becameunpopularwith aquaristsandhas been investigatedas abiological control agentfor aquaticweedsthatclog ponds,canals,andwaterways(SeamanandPorterfield 1964, Blackburnet al. 1971).SeamanandPorterfield (1964) found that 150adultsnailsrequiredlessthanoneweekto com-pletelyconsumemasses(1360 gwet weight)ofseveralspeciesofaquaticmacrophytesin outdoorconcretetanks.ThegiantramshornsnailiscommonthroughoutLandaLakeandthe ComalRiverandits populationhasincreaseddramati-callysinceits introductionaround1983.Giantramshornsnailshaveapparentlyhadasignificantimpacton LandaLakeandtheComalRiverecosystem(Homeetal., 1992).On September1,1989,theNewBraunfelsParksDirector (DavidWhatley)contactedtheServiceto inform themthatvegetationwasdisappearingfrom LandaLake.From October1989 throughFebruary1990extremelydensepopulationsof adultsnails

V

ParrI 20

SanMarcus& ComalSprings&AssocuauedAquaticEcosystemsRecovers’Plan

andlargenumbersofeggmasseswerepresentinLandaLake(Linam 1993,andThomasArsuffi,SWTSU,pers. comm.).This coincidedwith lowspringflows.Areas of the lake that hadsup-ported largemassesof aquaticmacrophyteswere completelydenuded,leavingareasof barelake bottom criss-crossedwith snail tracks.

Following the giantramshornsnailpopula-tion increasein 1989-90,thepopulationsubse-quentlydeclined,possiblybecauseit hadseverelydepletedits own food andhabitatrequirements(ThomasArsuffi, pets.comm.).By April 1990,very few living adultspecimenswerecollectedorobserved,althougha largenumberof youngsnailswerepresent(ThomasArsuffi, pets.comm.).FromMay to Juneaveragespringflowsdropped below 200 cfs. OnJuly 10, 1990 theNew BraunfelsParksDirectorcontactedtheServiceto inform themthat theywerehavingtoremovedumptruck loadsof clippedvegetationfrom LandaLake.This secondepisodeof rapidvegetationloss occurredafter ashorterperiodoflow flows. Snailcensusesin July 1993andJanuary1994duringhigh flow conditionsindicatethatadult andjuvenileramshornsnailsandeggmassesare still presentin the main bodyof LandaLake.Theyarealso still present,althoughlesscommon,in thespringrunsfeedingthe lake andin the river channelbelowthe lake.

Currently, few giant ramshornsnails areknown from the SanMarcosecosystem.How-ever, in the future underlow flow conditionsthe snails mayhavean adverseeffect on SpringLakeandthe SanMarcosRiver.

Alterationofplantcommunitiesby anonnativeherbivorelike thegiantramshornsnailcanhaveadrasticeffect on endemicspecies,suchas thefountaindarter.Additional studiesandmonitoring

programsfor trackingpopulationdynamicsandmonitoringtheeffectsoframshornsnailsonaquaticvegetationcommunitiesshouldbeestab-lishedfor both theComalandSanMarcosaquaticecosystems.Understandingofgiantramshornsnaillife historyanddemographiccharacteristicscouldproveimportantin developingamanagementscenariofor this pestspecies.

Elephantears(Coloca.siaesculenta)arebe-lievedto havebeenintroducedinto the SanMarcosareain theearly1 900s(Akridgeand

ParrI

Fonteyn1981)andnowform extensivestandsatthewater’sedgein theSanMarcosandComalsystems,displacingnativespecies.Elephantearsarepresentin the areaoccupiedby theSanMarcosgambusiaandmayhavedecreasedhabitatsuitability andcontributedto its decline.Thechangesin shorelineconditionsmayalsohaveindirect impactson otherspecies.

Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), anaquaticplant introducedfrom theOld World, is natural-ized now in manyTexaswaters.It is abundantinthe SanMarcosRiver andRoseand Power(1992)notethat “Most of the areahistoricallyoccupiedby wild-rice is now occupiedbyHydrilla. . .

Many fish specieshavebeenintroduced intothe SanMarcosandComalecosystems(e.g.,tilapia, commoncarp, rockbass,sailfin mollies),andsomemaycompetewith thefountaindarterandSanMarcosgambusiafor neededresources(food, breedinghabitat)or preyupon the listedfish species.Taylor et. al. (1984)notethatintroducedfish mayalso haveindirect impacts,inducingchangesin habitatcharacteristics(forexample,by removalof vegetationor substratedisturbance)or introducingdiseasesandpara-sites. Tilapia havebecomeso abundantinLandaLake andSpring Lakethat in termsofbiomassthey appearto exceedany of the nativesunfish family (blackbass/sunfish species)(PatrickConnor,USFWS,pers.obs.).

Nutria (Myocastercoypus), an introducedmammalnativeto SouthAmerica, is alsocommonin the SanMarcosandComalsystems.Nutria feedon awidevarietyof aquaticvegeta-tion (BurtandGrossenheider1964)andhavebeenobservedfeedingon Texaswild-rice (Emery1967). Investigatorsfeel nutria maysignificantlydamagestandsofTexaswild-rice (RoseandPower 1992).

RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

TheComalandSanMarcosareasareverypopularrecreationsitesthatprovidea varietyofrecreationalopportunitiesincludingswimming,tubing, canoeing,fishing, snorkeling,scubadiving, andglass-bottomedboattours.Theseactivitiesandtheirassociatedsupportfacilities

21

p’ia~ directlyor indirectly impacttheecosystemsandtheir species.Texaswild-rice plantsmaybephysicallydamagedby wateractivity, or its

inflorescencesmaybe preventedfrom emergingso that the plants cannotsuccessfullyproduceseed(Vaughan1986,RoseandPower 1992,~radsby1994).

Habitatalterationdueto recreationactivitiesoccursfrom directimpactssuchas bottomdisturbanceandvegetationcontrol,or indirectlydueto introductionof non—nativebaitfish orstreamsideinfluencessuchas increasedcompac-tion, erosion,litter, pollution, andrunofffromparkingareasandsupport facilities.

Recreationalimpactsshouldbe carefullyevaluatedanda comprehensiveplandevelopedto monitorandmanagerecreationalactivitiessothatspeciesneedsareprovidedfor andadverseimpactsminimized.

OTHER IMPACTS

The New BraunfelsandSan Marcosareasaregrowingrapidly (U.S. Bureauof the Census1982). Overhalf of the populationof ComalCountyresidesin New Braunfels,andthepopulationof New Braunfelshasincreasedfrom17,859in 1970 to 27,334in 1990 (M. Meek,New BraunfelsChamberof Commerce,pers.comm., 1993).The populationof thecity of SanMarcos,Hays County,Texas rose from 741 in1870 to 23,420in 1980 (U.S. Bureauof theCensus1982); no othercounty along theBalconesFault Zonehad a greaterrelativegrowth thanHaysCountyfor the period 1960-1980.Between1980and1990,thepopulationof HaysCountygrew61.6percent.As ofJuly,1992 theTexasState DataCenterestimatedthepopulationof HaysCountyat 67,964.TheBureauof BusinessResearchat the Universityof Texasat Austin estimatedthat thepopula-tion of Hays Countywill reach83,201by theyear 2000.As of January1994, the population

of the ciw of SanMarcoswas estimatedat36,464(GreaterSanMarcosEconomicDevel-opmentCouncil 1994),and thisfigure excludedtheir studentpopulation.

Edwards(1976) foundthat increasedurban-ization causedincreasedflooding anderosion(dueto uncontrolledrunoff), pollution, silt-

PartI

SanMarcos& Coma1Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecovers’Plan

ation,anda generaldecreasein speciesdiversityandspeciesnumbersin impactedaquaticenvi-ronments.For thesereasons,changesin theupperSanMarcosandComalwatershedsshouldbe approachedwith extremecaution to avoidfurther degradingof aquatichabitatsuitablefortheseendangeredandthreatenedspecies.

Predationis currentlybelievedto be aminorthreatto the SanMarcossalamander.However,fish havebeenobservedpreyingon salamanders(TupaandDavis 1976,Nelson 1993) andaresuspectedto be themain predatorsof sala-manders.TupaandDavis (1976) suspectedthatcrayfish,which areoften found in thesalamander’shabitat,mayalsopreyon F. nana.Givendietsimilaritiesit is possiblethatdecapodcrustaceans(prawnsandcrayfish) in generalmaypresentapredationthreat(David Bowles,TPWDinvertebrate biologist, pers. comm.,

1995). However, Nelson (1993) foundnoevidenceof crayfishpredationon salamandersduringherstudy.

Waterfowl mayalso presentproblemsforsomeaquaticspecies.RoseandPower(1992)notedthatwaterfowlappearto clip off leafsegmentsofTexaswild-rice andhavesignificantimpactson experimentalplots that arenotprotectedfrom herbivory. Theypostulatethatwaterfowl haveincreasedin numbersand arenow permanentresidentsin the SanMarcosarea(ratherthana migratoryandtransientpopula-tion) dueto urbanizationof the area.Introducedswans (Cygnusolor), domesticatedmallardducks(Anasplatyrhynchos),andotherducksin the lakefeedon the aquaticmossandLyngbyasp. (TupaandDavis 1976).Thesebirds roostnightly on thesidewalkalongsidetheSanMarcossalamanders’principal habitat.Theirfecal droppingsaresweptdaily into thelake, increasingthenutrient inputinto thissystem.This factor, combinedwith thebirds’ feedingactivities,couldreducetheabun-danceof theaquaticmossandLyngbyasp. whereE. nanaoccurs.A reducedabundanceof aquaticmossalongthebankandon largesubmergedbouldershasbeenreportedbyTupaandDavis(1976).

Broadregionalissuesof water useandlandscapelevel managementinfluence thesystemsupon which thesespeciesdepend.Inaddition,morelocal actionsof municipalities

22

SanMarcos& ComalSprings& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecovers’Pi~,

and landowners havesignificantpotentialimpactsthatmustbeaddressed;andtherearesomesire-specificproblemsimpactingmultiple species.Progresson theseregional,local, or site-specificissuesthatimpactmultiplespecieshasbeennoteworthyandis discussedbelow.Progressonmorespecies-specificproblemsis discussedunderthe individual Species Accounts section.

Pan

7

23

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosysuen;’.Recovers’Plan

C. GENERAL CONSERVATIONMEASURES

WATER QUANTITY

TheServicehasgivenpreliminaryguidance

on the minimumspringflowlevelsthatneedtobe maintainedto protectthe speciesandtheirhabitat(Table2). In addition,the Serviceand{exasparksandWildlife Departmenthave~0strea~flow andhabitatrequirementstudies0~de~ayto helprefinehabitatrequirementsandcharacteristicsin both theComalandSanMarcossystems.

Therehasbeenconsiderableactivity bymanywatermanagementagenciesandaquiferusersthataddresswaterquantity issuesin devel-opingaregionalmanagementplanto ensureadequatespringflowsto protectthefive listedspeciesandecosystemto which theycontribute,coveredby thisplan.Numerousagencieshaveexaminedstructuralandhydrologicalcharacteris-tics andtrendsof theaquiferandits watersheds,andtherearenumerouspublicationsavailable.TheseagenciesincludetheU.S. GeologicalSurvey,EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict,EdwardsAquiferResearchandDataCenter,TexasNaturalResourceConservationCommission,TexasWaterDevelopmentBoard,U.S. ArmyCorpsof Engineers,Bureauof Reclamation,andtheNaturalResourceConservationService.Inaddition,landownershipandusealongtheSanMarcosRiverhasbeenexamined(McCoigandCradit1986,andPulicheral. 1994).

Progresshasalso beenmadeon developingandimplementingseveralotherelementsortechniquesthat can contributeto maintainingnecessaryspringflows. The Texas StateLegisla-ture hasmadea significant contributionto thiseffort by enactinglegislation(S.B. 1477,asamended by H.B. 3189 in 1995) creating theEdwardsAquifer Authority. Accordingto thatlegislationthe authorityshouldbe able toregulateandcontrolgroundwaterpumpingfromtheEdwardsAquifer,aprimaryneedidentifiedinthe recoveryplan.While theimplementationoftheauthorityhasbeenchallengedasnotedaboveandlitigation continues,theServiceis hopefulthataStateregulatorymechanismwill beput in

placethatprovideshabitatrequiredto recoverthefive federallylistedspeciescoveredby thisplan.

New Braunfels,SanAntonio, andSanMarcoshavewaterconservationordinances.Thecity of SanAntonio hasdevelopeda wastewaterre-useplanthatmayresult in conservationof asignificantamountof water. Manymunicipali-tiesandwaterconservationdistrictsareexploringalternativesourcesofwater.

Federalagencieshavealso beenmakingaconsciouseffort to reducewater neededfrom theaquifer.Therehavebeenrecentefforts by

military basesto conservewateranddevelopwasrewarerirrigation systems.The Departmentof Agricultureis conductinga reviewof theimpactof its programsandpracticeson irriga-tion withdrawals.

In addition,manywater usersandagencieshaveconductedstudiesandevaluations(includ-ing computermodeling) to examineprojectedwaterneedsanddeterminethe aquifer levelsneededthatwill translateto maintainingspringflow (Longley1975, McKinney andWatkins 1993,ResearchandPlanningConsult-ants1994,ThorkildsenandMcElhaney1992,WanakuleandAnaya1993, TexasWaterDevel-opmentBoard1992).This hasemergedas acritical issuein efforts to managegroundwaterfor the benefitof listedspecies,andmorework isneeded.

Estimateshavefluctuatedwidely, and oneestimatepredictsthat in a droughtof recordnomorethan 165,000acre-feetper yearcould bepumpedfrom theEdwardsAquifer (EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict 1992a).In 1989well dischargewas 542,000acre-feet.Immediatereductionsin groundwateruseareneeded(andindroughtconditionsseverereductionsin waterusewill be needed).

In June1994, asapart of thelawsuitproceed-ingsin SierraClubvs. Babbitt,JudgeBunronorderedcourtappointedmonitorJoeMoore,Jr.,to prepareanemergencywithdrawalreductionplanby August1, 1994.The planwascompletedandfiled on August1, andwas revisedin Marchof 1995.In May of 1995 JudgeBuntonnameda

F

24

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryp~

5-membercommitteeto developanalternativevoluntaryemergencywithdrawalreductionplanfor 1995.The committeedevelopedageneric,representativeordinanceto limit municipalandindustrialwaterusefor 1995,whichhasbeenlargelyadoptedby the city of SanAntonio.

In Augustof 1994discussionswereinitiatedby theCourtMonitor amongthecity of SanAntonio, theUvaldeUndergroundWaterDis-trict, the MedinaCountyUndergroundWaterDistrict, the EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict, the SanAntonio RiverAuthority, andthe GuadalupeBlancoRiverAuthority aboutcooperativelypreparinga regionalHabitatConservationPlan. Numerouspublic meetingswere held. Following theseactivitiesa prelimi-nary issuesdocumentwas prepared,anddiscus-sionsregardingan HCPanda potentialinciden-tal takepermithavebeeninitiated with theService.The option also exists that concernedstakeholdersmaydevelopand implementoneor more smallerregionalor local HCPsthatcontributeto overall aquifermanagement.

In addition to strategiesfor conservingwateranddevelopingsourcesoff the aquiferto serveprojectedneedsin the area,anotherapproachthat hasbeensuggestedis to artificially augmentthe aquiferwith waterfrom othersources.McKinney andSharp(1995)examinedfivepotential techniques for artificially augmenting

springflowsat ComalandSanMarcosSprings.The Servicesubmittedwritten commentsto theTexasWaterDevelopmentBoard(September1,1994andJanuary23,1995)indicatingthattherewere hydrological and biological concerns. The

Service’scommentsstatedthat theaugmentationalternatives described involving injection wells,infiltration galleries, aquiferbaffles, anddirectaddition of water to spring-fed lakes are not

feasiblein termsof providingadequateprotectionfor Federally listed species dependent upon theEdwards Aquifer. While regional and localrecharge enhancement opportunities mayhavesome potential benefit, these recharge alternativescannotbeadequatelyevaluateduntil dataonwater quality issues (suchas thepotentialforcontamination or the likelihood that enhancedrecharge waters will equilibrate to normal aquiferconditions without harm to species) are devel-oped and analyzed. Further, the realistic probabil-

iry thatrechargeenhancementcanprovidesignifi-cantwaterto theaquifershouldbeevaluated.Impactsto fish andwildlife at thepoint ofrecharge,fromdecreasedflows in riversandstreamsdownstreamof recharge,andotherimpactsto drainagesthatwill be deprivedofwatersnormallyaccruingto them(dueto diver-sionto recharge)mustbecarefullyevaluatedaswell.

WATER QUALITY

The Edwards Underground Water District(1993) and Rice (1994) have examined water

quality threatsandexistingregulationsprotect-ing aquiferwaterqualityandgivenrecommenda-tionsfor improvements.In addition,TexasParksandWildlife Departmenthasastudycurrentlyunderway to examine potential impacts to listed

species from effluent from the A. E. WoodStateFish Hatchery, and a study is underway to exam-ine some potentialimpactsof effluent from theSanMarcoswastewatertreatmentplant.

Waterquality issuesarealsoincludedin someactivitiesunderwayto addressmorelocal impactsin acomprehensivemanner.The Serviceisworkingin cooperationwith the city of NewBraunfelsandothersto developaComalecosys-temmanagementplan(task2.42).The city of

SanMarcosandSouthwestTexasStateUniversityare about to begin developing a similar plan forthe SanMarcosarea(task2.41).Texas Parks and

Wildlife (Spainetal. 1994) completeda prelimi-naryoverviewofsignificantmanagementissuesfor the San Marcos River.

NONNATWE SPECIES

Progresshasbeenmadein someareas.Nutriacontrolmeasureshavebeenimplementedin someareas in the past by Animal DamageControl, and

somebasicresearchon giantramshornsnailshasbeen conducted in the Comal Springs ecosystem

area.In addition,dataon theincidenceof clip-pingof leavesofTexaswild-rice byherbivoresinSpring Lake are now being collected (Power,SouthwestTexasStateUniversity, pets.comm.).

PartI 25

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecosers’Plan

RECREATION

TheServicehasrecentlyfundedstudies

~~~ining recreationalimpactson Texaswild-rice, anddiscussionshavebeeninitiated withoperatorsof the largesttubing operationin theSanMarcosRiver to examinemanagement

0ptionsavailableto reduceimpactsfrom tubing.

HABITAT MAINTENANCE,RESTORATION,

AND ENHANCEMENT

Progressis beingmadein this areathrough

developmentof local managementplans,andaproposalhasbeendevelopedfor habitatmanipu-lation to improvehabitatfor the SanMarcosgambusia.

CAPTIVE PROPAGATION ANDCONTINGENCY PLANS

Severalcooperatinginstitutionshavecon-ductedinvestigationsofcaptivebreedingtech-niques.Techniquesareavailablefor thefish andwild-rice, andsomepreliminarywork hasbeendonefor salamanders.TheTexasblind salamanderappearsto breedfairly easilyin captivity, but forthe SanMarcossalamanderit has been moredifficult to achievebreedingin captivity.

Part]

Reducingtheprobability of lossof thespeciesof concernfrom catastrophiceventsled to devel-opmentofaContingencyPlanprovidingforcollectionandcaptivepropagationof individualsof thespeciesof concernin theeventacrisis isimminent,aswell asmorelong-termgeneraleffort to establishcaptivepopulationsof the listedspecies.TheContingencyPlanis currentlyunderrevision.Whencompletedit will bedistributedasa separate document.

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

TheServicehasaprojectunderwayat presentin cooperationwith TexasParksandWildlifeDepartmentto producean informationkioskfortheSanMarcosRiver thatincludesinformationon threatsfrom nonnativespecies.Anothersection6 educationalprojectundertakencoopera-tively withTexasParksandWildlife Departmentis producingothereducationalmaterialson thespecies of concern andtheir ecosystem.AquarenaSprings(nowownedandoperatedby SouthwestTexasStateUniversity)hasrecentlyinstalledexhibitsthatwill be helpful in educationof thepublic.The EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistricthasproducedavarietyofeducationalmaterialsabouttheaquiferandwaterconservation.TheEdwardsAquifer ResearchandDataCenterhasalso developed educational programs aboutEdwardsAquifer issues.

I

26

SanMarcos& Coma] springs& AasociaredAquaticEcos~’srcitusRecosers1’uauu

D. SPECIESACCOUNTS

San Marcos gambusia (Gambusiageorgei)-

endangered(FederalRegisterVol. 45: 47355-47364;July14, 1980);

fountain darter (Etheostomafonticola) - endangered(FederalRegisterVol. 35: 16047;October 13, 1970; Federal Register 45:47355-47364;July 14, 1980);

San Marcos salamander (Euryceanana) -

threatened(Federal RegisterVol. 45: 47355-47364;July 14, 1980);

Texaswild-rice (Zizaniatexana)- endangered(FederalRegisterVol. 43:17910-17916;April 26, 1978;FederalRegisterVol . 45: 47355-47364;July14,1980)

Texas blind salamander ( Typhlomolgerathbuni)-

endangered(FederalRegisterVol. 32:4001;March 11, 1967)

The recoverypriority for all five of thesespeciesis SC.A SC priority indicatesspecieswith ahigh degreeof threat,a low recoverypotential,andthatareor maybein conflict withconstructionor developmentprojectsor otherformsof economicactivity.

SAN MARCOS GAMBUSIA(GAMB USIA GEORGEJ)

Description

The San Marcos gambusia was described

from theupperSanMarcosRiversystemin1969. Of the three species of Gambusianativetothe SanMarcosRiver, G. georgeiapparentlyalwayshasbeenmuchlessabundantthaneitherthe largespringgambusia(G. geiseri)or thewestern mosquitofish (G. affinis) (HubbsandPeden1969).

The SanMarcosgambusiais a memberofthe family Poeciliidae andbelongsto a genusofCentralAmericanorigin havingmorethan30speciesof livebearingfreshwaterfishes.Thegenus

Part

Gambusiais well definedandmaturemalesmaybe distinguished from related genera by theirthickenedupperpectoralfin rays (RosenandBailey 1963).Only alimited numberof Gambzi-sia are nativeto theUnitedStatesandof thissubset,G. georgeihasoneof themostrestrictedranges.

The SanMarcosgambusiais subtlydifferentfrom thewesternmosquirofish(G. affinis).

Scalestendto bestronglycrosshatchedin contrastto the lessdistinctmarkingson thescalesof G.affinis. In addition, G. georgeitendto haveaprominentdarkpigmentstripeacrossthedistaledgesof their dorsalfins. A diffuse mid-lateralstripeextendingposteriorlyfrom the baseof thepectoralfin to the caudalpeduncleis alsooftenpresent,especiallyin dominantindividuals.As inG. affinis, a darksubocularbar is visible and iselicitedeasilyfrom frightenedfish. ComparedtoG. affinis, G. georgeihasfewerspotsandduskypigmentedregionson the caudalfin. The me-dian fins (i.e., unpairedfins: dorsal,caudal,andanal fins) of wild-caughtspecimensof SanMarcosgambusiatendto be lemonyellow undercertainbehavioralpatterns(whentheyare notunderstress).In a dominantor high male, thiscolor canapproacha brightyellowish-orange,especiallyaroundthe gonopodium.A bluishsheenis evidentin moredarkly pigmentedindividuals,especiallynearthe anteriordorsolat-eralsurfacesofadult females.

Gonopodialstructuresof malesclassicallyhavebeenemployedin dealingwith Gambusiasysremarics.G. georgeiis uniquemorphologicallyfrom other species in severalcharacters,includingthepresenceof morethanfive segmentsin ray 4a(whichareincorporatedinto theelbow) andalsoby the presenceof acompoundclawon the endof ray 4p (HubbsandPeden1969).

Historic and PresentDistribution

The SanMarcosgambusiais representedincollectionstakenin 1884 by JordanandGilbertduringtheir surveysofTexasstreamfishesandinlatercollections(asahybrid) takenin 1925

27

Year Number ofcollections

1884

Number ofG. georgei

2

~uan1NI.ircus ~cCarnalSpriu-~~s& Assccijte.IA~ju.itu.’ E:usvsueuuc~uxe,i”s’erv

‘fable 3. Historical datafor known Gambrisiageorgeicollections. Datatakenfrom Edwardsetal.(1980) and unpublisheddata.

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

1925 1 0 1 0.0 0.0

1955 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

I

* hybrids - G. georgeixG. affinis

Numberofhybrids *

0

NumberofG. %ofpuiregeorge: percollection

2.0

G. georgei

100.0

(Hubbs and Peden 1969). Unfortunately, records

ofexactsamplinglocalitiesarenot availableforthese earliest collections. Collection localities were

merelylistedas “San MarcosSprings.”Thesecollectionslikely weretakenator neartheheadspringsarea. If true,thenG. georgeiappearsto havesignificantlyalteredits distributionovertime. For the areaof theSanMarcosRiverdownstreamof theheadwarersarea,therearefewrecordsof samplingefforts prior to 1950.How-ever,evenin thesamplesthatweretakentherearefew collectionsof SanMarcosgambusia.

During 1953,asingle individualwastakenbelow thelow damat Rio Vista Park;however,sincethat time, nearlyeveryspecimenof G.georgeihasbeentakenin the vicinity of theInterstate Highway 35 bridge crossing down-

streamto the areasurroundingThompson’sIsland (Figure3). The singleexceptionto thiswas a maletakenincidentallywith an Ekmandredge(sedimentsampler)about 1 km belowthe

outfall of theSanMarcoswasrewatertreatmentplant in 1974 (Longley 1975).

Historically, SanMarcosgambusiapopula-tionshavebeenextremelysparse;intensivecollections during 1978 and 1979 yielded only

18 G. georgeifrom 20,199 Gambusiatotal(0.09%) (Edwardset al. 1980).Collectionsmadein 1981 and1982within the rangeof G. georgeiindicated a slight decrease in relative abundance

of this species (0.06% of all Gambusia)andsubsequentsampling has yielded none between1982andthe present(1995)(Table3). Intensivesearchesfor G. georgeiwere conducted in May,July, andSeptemberof 1990butwereunsuccess-ful in locatinganypureSanMarcosgambusia.Thesearchesconsistedof a totalof 1 8 hoursofeffort (>180 people-hours)on threeseparatedaysand covered the area from the headwaters atSpring Lake to the San Marcos wastewateroutfall. Over15,450Gambusiawere identifiedduring the searches. Oneindividual collected

duringthesearch was visually identified as a

28

F

Pact I

SanMarcos& ComalSprings& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecovery~

possiblebackcrossof G. affinisand G. georgei(USFWS 1990permitreport).This individualwas an immaturefish with plain coloration,

Thepatternof SanMarcosgambusiaabun-dancestronglysuggestsadecreasebeginningpriorto themid-1970s.Theincreasein hybridabun-dance between G. georgeiand G. affinis andthedecrease in the proportion of genetically pure G.

georgei is considered evidence of its rarity. Asfewer pure individuals encountered each other, thechancesof hybridizationwith themuchmorecommonG. affinissubstantiallyincreased.Thesubsequentdecreasein SanMarcosgambusiaabundancealongwith theirhybridssuggeststheextinction ofthisspecies.

Habitat

The San Marcos gambusia apparently prefers

quietwatersadjacentto sectionsof movingwater,but seeminglyof greatestimportance,thermallyconstantwaters.G. georgei is foundmostlyovermuddysubstratesbut generallynorsiltedhabitats,andshadefrom over-hangingvegetationor bridgestructuresis a factorcommonto all sitesalongtheupperSanMarcosRiverwhereapparentlysuitablehabitatsfor thisspeciesoccur(HubbsandPeden1969,Edwardsetal. 1980).Introducedelephantearshavebeennotedin previouslyrecordedlocalitiesforthespecies.Althoughtheexactnature of the relationship between the occurrenceandabundanceofelephantearsandthedisappear-anceof G. georgei is unknown,someinvestigatorsbelievethesenonnativeplantsmayhavemodifiedessentialaspectsofthegambusia’shabitat.

Compared to G. georgei, G. affinis tendstoshow similar preferences for shallow, still waters,

but differs strikingly from G. georgei in ability tocolonizeenvironmentswith greatertemperaturefluctuation. These environments include the

partially isolated sloughs, intermittent creeks, anddrainage ditches found in the upper San MarcosRiver, and in the nearby Blanco River and lowerSan Marcos River, as well.

The San Marcos gambusia apparently re-quires:1) thermallyconstantwater;2) quiet,shallow, open water adjacent to sections ofmovingwater; 3) muddysubstrateswithoutappreciablequantitiesof silt; 4) partialshading;5)

Parr]

cleanandclearwater:and6) food supplyofliving organisms.

Critical habitathasbeendesignatedfor theSanMarcosgambusiaas“Texas,HaysCounty;SanMarcosRiver from Highway 12 bridgedownstreamto approximatel~’0.5 milesbelowInterstateHighway35 bridge” (45 FR47355).

Life History/Ecology

Food Habits

The food habitsof G. georgeiareun-known.Presumably,asin otherpoeciliids,insect larvae and other invertebrates account formost of the diet of this species.

Reproduction

Thereis little information on the repro-ductivecapabilitiesof C. georgei.Two individu-alskeptin laboratoryaquariaproduced12, 30,and 60 young,althoughthelargestclutchappearedto havebeenabortedanddid notsurvive(Edwardsetal. 1980).

Hybridization

HybridizationbetweenG. georgei andC.affiniswas first notedby HubbsandPeden(1969) and the production of hybrid individu-alsbetweenthemhascontinuedfor manyyearswithout obviousintrogressionof geneticmaterialinto eitherof theparentalspecies.Given the history of hybridization between

thesetwo species,this factorwas not thoughtto be of primary importance in considerationsof the statusof C. georgei. It was thought thatso long as the proportion of hybrids remained

relativelylow comparedto the abundanceofpureC. georgei, few problemsassociatedwithgenetic swamping or introgression would occur

(Hubbs and Peden 1969, Edwards etal. 1980).However, the series of collections(Edwards,pers.comm.)takenduring 1981-83indicatethathybridindividualsmayhavebecomemanytimesmoreabundantthanthe pureC. georgei.It is possible that hybrid individuals maynow

be competing with G. georgei, placingan

r

29

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosvsuenssRecovers’Plan

FOUNTAIN DARTER(ETHEOSTOMA FONTICOLA)

Conse1.~~ati Measures

In 1976,prior to listing, theServicecon-

tractedfor a statussurvey to improveourp~erstandin~of the species~particularlyits

habitatneeds.The Servicealso promotedbringingindividualsinto captivityfor breeding~d study.Manyresearchershavebeeninvolvedandhavedevotedconsiderableeffort to attemptsto locateandpreservepopulations.

Captive breeding was attempted. Individuals

takenduringthe 1976studywereheldandbredattheUniversityofTexasatAustin by Dr. ClarkHubbsin 1979,andfish from that captivepopulation were used to establishacaptivepopulationat theService’sDexterNationalFishHatcheryin 1980.Bothcaptivepopulationslaterbecamecontaminatedwith anotherGambusiaspecies. The fish hybridizedandthepurestockswere lost.

Followingpublicationof thestatusreportandlisting of thespeciesin 1980,the Servicecon-tractedwith Dr. Bob Edwardsfor examinationofknown localities,andcollectionof fish to estab-lish captiverefugia.In 1981,1982,1983,and1984 Dr. Edwardstried to relocatepopulationsandreestablishacultureof individualsfor captiverefugia.Too few pureSanMarcosgambusiaandhybridswerefound to establishaculture,al-thoughDr. Edwardsattemptedto do so with thefew fish available.In themid 1980spersonnelfrom the FishandWildlife ServiceNationalFishHatcheryin SanMarcosalsosearchedunsuccess-fully for thespeciesin attemptsto locateindi-vidualsto bring into captivity. In 1990 theServiceorganizedthreeintensivesearches,con-ductedby Servicebiologistsandvolunteers,tosearchforthespeciesagain.Unfortunately,nonewerefound.

Academicresearchers,TexasParksandWild-life Departmentscientists,andtheServicecon-tinue to searchfor thegambusiaduringallcollectionandresearchwith fishesthatis doneonthe SanMarcosRiver.

Description

Recognition of the fountaindarterbeganwiththe inadvertentdescriptionof thisspeciesasAlvariusfonticola from specimens collected fromtheSanMarcosRiverjust belowtheconfluenceof the BlancoRiver in 1884 (JordanandGilbert1886).The authorsnotedatthat timethatthespecieswasabundantin theriver. An additionalspecimen reported from the Washita Riverdrainage of Arkansas by Jordan and Gilbert wasundoubtedlymisidentified(nowpresumedlost,anddiscussedbelowunder“Historical Distribu-non”). Gilbert (1887),in theintendedoriginaldescription,redescribedthespeciesandnoteditsoccurrenceonly in theSanMarcosRiver System.

EvermannandKendall (1894) includedanillustrationof thespeciesby E. Copelandwhichwasdesignatedthelecrorypeby JordanandEvermann(1886).Becausethe“type” referredtoby JordanandEvermannwasa lot containingfour specimens,ColletteandKnapp(1966)selectedalecrotypefrom theU.S. NationalMuseumcollectionsof Etheosto~nafonticolaoriginally referenced by Gilbert (1887). Theremainingthreespecimensincludedin thiscollectionarenowparalectotypes(Burr 1978).

Etheostomafonticola(Figure 4) is the smallest

speciesofdarter,usuallylessthan25 mm (I in.)standard length (SL), and is mostly reddishbrown in life. Thescaleson thesidesarebroadlymarginedbehindwith duskypigment.The dorsalregionis dustedwith fine specksandhasabouteight indistinctduskycross-blotches.A seriesofhorizontalstitch-likedarklinesoccuralongthemiddleof thesides,formingan interruptedlateralstreak.Threesmalldarkspotsarepresenton thebase of the tail and there is a dark spot on theopercle.Darkbarsappearin front of, below,andbehindtheeye. The lower halfof thespinousdorsalfin is jet-black;abovethisappearsa broadredband,andabovethisbandthefin is narrowlyedgedwith black. Malefountaindartersdifferfrom femalesin four morphologicalcharacters:bandingpattern,spinousdorsalfin coloration,genitalpapillae,andpelvicandanalfin nuptial

[

‘onal stresson thesmallnativepopulationof

1jJiti gainbusia.~jn Marcos

Part] 30

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPia~

Figure 4. Adult fountain darters. Drawing by Alice A. Pricketrtfrom Bulletin AlabamaMuseumNaturalHistory (Burr 1978).

V

Male 29 mm SL

Female 27 mm SL

Parr i 31

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquatic Ecosvsuern~Recovers’I’liu;

r tobercles(Jot andGilbert 1886: Gilbert

1881 JordanandEvermann1896, 1900; Strawni95

5’1956;Collette1965; Schenckand

s~4fhiteside1977b,Burr 1978).

~lthough thefountaindarterhasbeencharac-terizedas themostadvanced(specialized)darter,thebasisfor thiswas an analysisof avery limited

~ibsetof traits,which appearto be highly influ-encedby environmentalfactors,suchastempera-

ture(BaileyandGosline1955,Colletre 1962).‘The subgenusMicroperca,to whichE.fonricola~elOOgs~is still thoughtto bethe mostderived(specialized)subgenusofEtheostoma.The~volutionatyhistory of thisgroupis presumedtoinvolve anearlyseparationof thepresentlyrecognizedE. proeliareandE. micropercagroupsfollowed by alaterisolationof a subsetof an F.proeliare-likeancestor.ThisF.proeliare-like

ancestorsurvivedandbecamethe presentlyrecognizedEfonticola in only theSanMarcosandComalRivers(BaileyandGosline1955;Collerte1962,1965;PageandWhitr 1972;ColletteandBanarescu1977;Page1974,1977;andBurr 1978).

Historical Distribution

The original rangeofEfonticola includestheSanMarcosandComalRivers in Texas(Jordan

andGilbert 1886,Gilbert 1887,EvermannandKendall1894,JordanandEvermann1896,Jurgens1951,Ball etal. 1952,Hubbseral. 1953,Hubbs1954,Kuchne1955,Strawn 1955,Hubbs1957,HubbsandStrawn 1957b,SchenckandWhiteside1976). In 1884,JordanandGilbert (1886)collectedthetypespecimensof E.fonticola in the SanMarcosRiver from immedi-atelybelowtheconfluenceof theBlancoRiver.Fountaindartershavebeenfoundintermittentlybetweendownstreamof Cumming’sDam andMartindale.A singlespecimenwastakennearOttine. EvermannandKendall (1894)collected43 specimensof E.fonricolain theComalRiverin 1891,the first collectionrecordfor thatlocality. Jurgens(1951) collectedfountaindartersbelowthe icehousedam,by the old USO pool,andbelowacottongin neartheStateHatchery.HubbsandStrawn(1957a)collectedthisspeciesfrom the ComalRiver in 1954, thelast collection

recordfor that locality of theoriginal population~beforeits apparentextirpationthereandsubse-quentreintroductioninto theComalsystem.

During March 1973 throughFebruary1975.SchenckandWhiteside(1976) spent300person-hourssamplingtheComalRiverbut collectednoF. fonticola. TheyproposedthreepossiblereasonswhyE.fonticolawas absentfrom theComalRiver. First,the ComalRiverwas treatedwithi’otenonein December1951. Manyspecimensofdesirablefishes, includingEfonticola,wereseinedandheldin aprotectedareauntil the rorenonedissipated(Ball etal. 1952;C. Hubbs,UniversityofTexasatAustin,pets.comm.). This procedurereducedthenumberof F fonticola but apparenrl~’didnot causetheirimmediateeliminationsincethisspecieswas last collectedin theComal Riverin 1954. Second,themostlikely cause,ComalSpringsceasedflowing fromJuneuntil Novem-ber,1956,whichprobablycauseddrastictem-peraturefluctuationsin theremainingpoolsofwater. SinceEfonticolaoccupiesareaswithconstantwatertemperature,temperaturefluctua-tions (broaderdueto cessationof ComalSprings)mayhavecontributedto the loss of thispopula-tion. Otherfactorsresultantfrom reducedspringflowthatmayhavecontributedto theComalpopulationlossare: decreasedhabitat!waterqualityandincreasedpredationoffountaindartersduring low flows. Third, but lesslikely, aflood from BliedersCreekinundatedtheentireComalRiver in thespringof 1971 andmayhavecausedtheirelimination.

A reportofF. fonticola in theWashitaRiver,Arkansas,(JordanandGilbert 1886)is the onlyrecordof fountaindartersoutsideofTexas. Thesespecimens,now lostfrom theSmithsoniancollections,arepresumedto beF.proeliare,whichweremisidentifieddueto theearlyconfusioninthetaxonomyandsystematicsof the subgenusMicropercato which bothF. proeliareandF.fonticolabelong.

From 1974until 1981 a stockof E. fonricolatakenfrom theSanMarcosRivernearthe IH-35crossingwasculturedattheFederalfacility atDexter, NewMexico, to ensure against a cata-strophic loss of this species. This stock has sincebeendiscontinued;however,a newculturewasestablishedattheSanMarcosNationalFish

Part] 3-)

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRccos’crs‘5Iaa

HatcheryandTechnologyCenter,nowpartof theNationalBiological Service,in 1988.

PresentDistribution

ThepresentdistributionofF. fonticola in theSanMarcosRiver is from SpringLake(inclusive)to anareabetweenthe SanMarcoswastewatertreatmentplantoutfall andtheconfluencewiththeBlancoRiver (Figure3), (USFWS1994permit report;CaseyBerkhouse,NBS, pets.comm.).The fountaindarteris alsofoundvirtually throughouttheComalRiver to itsconfluencewith theGuadalupeRiver (USFWS1994permitreport).

B.G. ‘WhitesideandJ.R.Schenckreleased457adultF. fonticola, whichwerecollectedfromtheSanMarcosRiver (mostly from belowRioVista Dam),into the Comalsystem.DuringFebruary1975 throughMarch 1976about400fishwerereleasedinto theheadspringsareaof theComalRiver,LandaPark,NewBraunfels,Texas,andabout50 fishwerereleasedinto theoldchannelareathatflows throughthegolfcourse.SchenckandWhiteside(1976) found five off-springashortdistancebelowtheheadspringsareaonJune18, 1976.An establishedreproducingpopulationnowoccupiestheentireComalaquaticecosystemfrom LandaLake(inclusive)tothevicinity oftheComal/GuadalupeRiverconfluence(Figure2).

Habitat

The fountain darter requires: 1) undisturbed

streamfloor habitats(including runs,riffles, andpools),2) amix of submergentvegetation(algae,mosses,andvascularplants)in partfor cover, 3)clearandcleanwater,4) a food supplyof livingorganisms,4) constantwatertemperatureswithinthenaturalandnormalriver gradients,and5)mostimportantly,adequatespringflows.

In general,E.fonticolaprefers vegetatedstream-floorhabitatswith aconstantwatertemperature. Higher densities of thefish arefoundin matsofthefilamentousgreenalgae(Rhizocloniumsp.)andthemossRiccia. It isoccasionally found in areas lacking vegetation.Fountaindartershavealsobeenobservedamong

leaflitter in theComal River (ThomasBrandt,NBS, pets.obs.).

Critical habitathasbeendesignatedfor thefountaindarteras“Texas, HaysCounty;SpringLakeandits outflow,the SanMarcosRiver,downstreamapproximately0.5 milesbelowInterstateHighway35 bridge.” A field identifierof thedownstreamboundaryis thedefunctU.S.GeologicalSurveystreamgage.

Life History/Ecology

Food and FeedingHabits

Basedon percentfrequencyof occurrenceoffood itemsin fountaindarterstomachssampledfrom theSanMarcosRiver, fountaindarters<19.2 mm (0.75in.) SL feedprimarily oncopepods; darters between 19.2 and 29.5 mm(0.75-1.15in.) SL feedmainly on dipteranandephemeropteranlarvae,anddarters>29.6mm(1.15 in.) SLpreferephemeropteran larvae. Foodhabitstudiesarecurrentlyunderwayfor fountain

dartersin theComalecosystem.Foodhabitsof fountaindartersin Spring

Lakediffer from thefood habitsof dartersin theSanMarcosRiver. Casualobservationsindicatethatthe overall invertebratecommunityinSpringLakeis different from the communityintheriver, which could explainthe observeddifferencesin food habitsof dartersin thesetwoareas on the basis of availability of food items.

Fountain darters feed primarily duringdaylight anddemonstrateselectivefeedingbehav-ior. Thoseheldin an aquariumfeedon movingaquaticinvertebrateswhile disregardingimmobileones,suggestingthatthesedartersrespondtovisual cues.Fountaindarterfry raisedin captivityappear to prefer cladocerans when offered a choice

of other microcrustaceans, protozoans, androtifers. Whenthe fry reach 8 mm(0.3 in.) in

lengththeyselectcopepods.Fry up to 13 mm(0.5 in.) in lengthconsumeorganismsfrom 0.2to 0.4mm (.008-.016in.) long.

Population Estimates

SchenckandWhiteside(1976)estimatedthetotal numberofE. fonticola in theSanMarcos

r

Part I 33

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosx’steisusRccuus’crs ]u.iu~

giver to beabout 103,000.L.A. Linam (1993)theSanMarcosRiverfountaindarter

-estiinate~0pulatioO(excludingSpringLake) to be45,900,~irh aconfidenceinterval(90%) rangingfrom -15,900 to 107,700.Thiscould indicatea realdecreasein fountaindarternumbersin the SanMarcosoverthepast18 years,or thedifferenceinthepopulationestimatesmayjust reflectdiffer-

encesin themethodsusedto estimatepopulationsize.However,Dr. BobbyWhiteside(SouthwestTexasStateUniversity, SanMarcos,pers.comm.),believesthat thenumbersoffountaindartersinthe SanMarcosRiverhavedecreasedoverthepast20 yearsthathehasbeencollectingin this stream(thoughhehasno quantitativedatato demon-stratethis). In 1991,JanetNelsonconductedscuba-aidedunderwatersurveysin SpringLakeandestimatedatleast16,000fountaindartersatthespringsopeningsandanother15,000in thegreenalgaehabitat(Longley1991).

G. Linamet al. (1993)sampled7 transectsin

LandaLakeandtheComalRiver in 1990andreporteda populationestimateof about168,078dartersaboveTorreyMill Dam, with a confi-denceinterval (95%) rangingfrom 114,178-254,110.

Reproduction

The reproductiveactivities of fountaindarterswere first describedby Strawn (1955,1956)who notedthat F. fonticola areheadwarerdartersthat breedin the relatively constanttemperatureof the San MarcosRiver. Hefurtherrecordedin his publicationsthat foun-tain dartersappearto spawnyear-roundandthat the parents,after depositingeggs in vegeta-tion, providedno furthercareto theyoung.After hatching,the fry werenever free swim-ming, in part due to the reducedsize of theirswim bladdersas in otherdarters.Dowden(1968) foundfountaindartereggsattachedtomossandto algaeandtheseeggshatchedinaeratedaquaria.Strawn(1956)alsoincludedaphotographof a breedingmalein its nuptialcoloration in his discussionof the reproductionof this species.Malesdevelopnuptial tubercleson their pelvic andanal fins (Collette 1965) andthesexesdiffer in thisrespect.Tubercleson dartersarethoughtto stimulategravid femalesor to

Parr]

assistin maintainingthespawningpositionwithin thevegetation(Collette1965).Sexdeter-mination ofEfonticolain thewild (325 malesand234 females)revealedasexratio of 1 .39:1(SchenckandWhiteside1 977b).

SchenckandWhiteside(1977b) reportedthatnaturalpopulationsoffountaindartershavetwotemporalpeaksof ovadevelopment~oneinAugustand the other in late winter to earlyspring.Therefore,fountaindartersapparentlyhavetwo majorspawningperiodsannually.Themonthlypercentagesoffemaleswith ovariescontainingatleastonematureovumalsodemon-stratethetwo annual spawning peaks. However,femalescontainingatleastonematureovumhavebeencollectedthroughouttheyear,furthersuggestingyear-roundspawning.The ovaryweight/bodyweightrelationshipandthe testiswidth/squareroot of total lengthrelationshipalsoindicatethetwo peakspawningperiods(SchenckandWhiteside1 977b).

Fountaindartershavebeenartificially hybrid-izedwith anumberof otherspeciesincluding: F.caeruleurn,E. chiorosomurn, F. euzonurn,F. juliae.F. lepidum, F. spectabile, Percinacaprodes,andPsciera.Proceduresfor artificially strippingeggsandmilt of fountaindartersandadiscussionof theartificial hybridizationandtheresultinglowsurvivalof thevarioushybridcombinationsappearin Strawn(1956),HubbsandStrawn(1957a,c),Hubbs(1958, 1959),HubbsandLaritz (1961),Hubbs(1967),andDistler (1968).

Mostdartersspawnin thespringor earlysummer. However, populations of E lepidumandF. spectabile, which live in areaswith slightannual water temperature variation, extend theirbreeding periods considerably (up to 10-12

months) (HubbsandStrawn 1957b,Hubbsetal. 1968). The extensionof the breedingseasonof E. spectabilethroughoutthe summeris alsoknownfor a populationinhabitingtheGuadalupe River below CanyonReservoirwhere

releasesfrom the bottomof the reservoirmoder-atewatertemperatures,especiallyduringsummermonths(Marsh1980).SinceE.fonticolaalsolivesin arelativelyconstanttemperatureenvironment,it isnot especiallysurprisingto find that this

speciesspawnsthroughouttheyearaswas origi-nally suggestedby Strawn(1956).

34

San Marcos & Gomal Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryp]~

The meandiameterof matureova(1.10mm

or 0.04in.) from E.fonticola apparentlyis notcorrelatedwith lengthof thefish. Basedon 74 E.fonticola thatcontainedmatureova, the meanfecunditywas 19, which is lessthanin otherdarters.This low fecundityis probablycompen-satedfor by repeatedspawningsof smallgroupsof eggs throughoutthe year. It is not knownhowmanyovaarespawnedannuallyby eachEfonticola.Malefountaindartersproducelittle miltandthatwhichis producedtendsto betransparent(HubbsandStrawn 1957b,Hubbs1958).

Culture techniqueshavebeendevelopedforthefountaindarterattheAquaticStation,SWTSU,andthe SanMarcosNFH&TC. Thefountaindarterwill spawnandproduceoffspringwhenheldat temperaturesbetween60 and 270C (42.8-80.6~F).(Theseoffspring weremovedto room temperatureafter beingspawned.)Ifphotoperiodis heldat 12 light and 12 dark, thefountain darter will spawnyear-round.Thenumberof eggsproducedby asingle femaleperdaycanvary between0 and60. Fountaindartersheldat 210C (69.8oF) reachedsexualmaturityabout180 daysafter hatching.Dartersasold as39 monthsproducedviable offspring.Thecritical thermalmaximumfor fountaindarterswas 34.80C(94.6~F)(Brandtet al. 1993).

Conservation Measures

In 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

and several cooperators began studies in theComalSpringsecosystemdesignedto studyhabitat use and to model instream flow require-mentsfor thefountaindarterandthe ComalSpringsriffle beetle.Resultsof this studyarenotyet available,but are expectedto provideaddi-rional populationanddensityestimatesfor thesetwo species. In 1994, theUSFWSandcoopera-tors initiated asimilarstudy in theSanMarcossystem.

The U.S. Geological Survey is in the processof collectingwatertemperature,DO, pH, andspecificconductivity (an indicatorof salinity) datain bothComalandSanMarcosaquaticecosys-tems. These data will be valuable in modelingwatertemperatureatvariousspringandriverdischarges.

Parr I

A numberof otherstudiesandconservationefforts areunderwayor havetakenplace for thisspecies.Geneticstudiesof the fountaindarterpopulationsin theSanMarcosandComalecosystemsare beingdoneby D.C. Morizot atthe Universityof TexasM.D. AndersonCancerCenter.Thesestudiesare designedto determinethepatternandextentof geneticvariationwithin andamongfountaindarterpopulationsinthe Comal and San Marcos ecosystems and theexperimental fountain darterstockattheSanMarcosNFH&TC. Thisresearchwill providevaluableinformationfor cultureandconservationof thefountaindarter.An interimprogressreportsubmittedin May 1993,indicatedno evidenceofhybridizationoffountaindarterswithgreenthroat(Etheostomalepidurn)or orangethroatdarters

(Etheostomaspectabile).Of 11 polymorphic lociexamined, no alleles were present in the hatchery

strainthatwerenot alsopresentin wild-caughtdarters. However, 46% (19 of4l) of the allelesdetected in the total wild-caught darters were not

present in the hatchery strain. It appears that therehas been some loss of genetic variability in thehatcherystrainand/ortheoriginal collectiondidnot adequatelyrepresentall thevariability in thewild, producingafoundereffect.This is notparticularlysurprisingas the hatcherystrainwasestablishedfor preliminarystudiesof a differentnatureandnot for useascaptivestockforreintroductionor restorationwork. Thehatcherystrain was established with twenty or fewer fish

that were not intended as a representative

sample,andwas maintainedwith uncontrolledbreeding.Theseresultsdo underscoretheneedfor carefulmanagementof the geneticcharacter-istics of captivepopulations.Finally, severalgeneticmarkersweredetectedin theComalpopulationthatwerenot found in the SanMarcospopulationsample.Thereareseveralpossible explanations for this result and furtherstudies should help to clarify this observation.

A preliminarystudyhasbeenconductedtodeterminethetoxicity of effluent from the SanMarcoswastewatertreatmentplantandtheherbicide Rodeo® to fountain darters. Astatisti-cal procedure referred to as theinhibitionconcen-tration(IC) providesapointestimateof thetoxicantconcentrationthatwouldcauseagivenpercentreductionin abiologicalmeasurementof

r

35

the testorganisms~includingreproduction.~rowth~fertiliZation~ or inortalit’v~ An IC,~ forgroWthwould representtheeffluentconcentra-

on atwhich a25 percentreductionin growthoccutS.ResultsindicatethattheIC25 ofwastewa-terplanteffluent on growth for fountaindartersis 19.1 percenteffluent (GregSmith, GreatLakesEnvironinentalCenter,Columbus,Ohio, in litr.,

However, dataareavailablefor only oneeffluentsample.Furtherresearchon thetoxiceffectsof bothpureandcomplextoxicantsonfountaindartersandtheirsymbiontsis needed.

SAN MARCOS SALAMANDER(EURYCEANANA)

Description

Taxonomy

The SanMarcossalamander(Euryceanana)

is a memberof the family Plethodontidae(lunglesssalamanders).The various speciesofEuryceaare known as brooksalamanders.F.nana is a neotenicform andretainsits externalgills (the larval condition) throughoutlife. Thesalamanderdoesnot leave the water to meta-morphoseinto a terrestrial form, but becomessexuallymatureand breedsin the water.Thespecificnamenana is from theGreeknanosorLatin nanus,meaningdwarf, referringto thesmall adultsize (up to 59.6mm [2.32 in.] totallength) of thesesalamanders(Brown 1967).

On June 22, 1938,C.E.Mohr collectedaseriesof 20 specimensfrom SanMarcosSprings.The specimensweresentto ShermanC. Bishopwho describedE. nana as “a small,slender,neotenicspeciesuniformly light brown abovewith a dorsolateral row of pale spots on either

sideof the mid-line;yellowishwhite below;with16 or 17 costalgrooves.F. nana differs from E.neotenes,the only otherspeciesof the genusfromthe generallocality, in its smallersize,its uni-formly light browndorsalcolorationrelievedonly by a few small light spots,and in its moreslender form and longer,moreslendertoes(Bishop 1941).

Bogart(1967)studiedthelife historiesandchromosomesofTexasEuryceaon theEdwards

San Marcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecovers’ Plait

Plateau.Basedon chromosomalstudies(karvo-types),he includedin F. nanapopulationsfromthe following localities in addition to SanMarcosSprings: SabinalRiver, 8.9 km (5.5 mi)north of Vanderpool,BanderaCounty;Moun-tainHome, headwatersof the river feedingintothe fish hatchervin MountainHome, KerrCounty; andKerrville, 8 and 11 km (4.9 and6.8miles) westof Highway 16 besideRR 1273,KerrCounty.

Sweet(1978) indicatedthatapopulationofEuryceainhabitingComalSpringsin NewBraunfelsis very similar to F. nanaandprob-ably conspecific.However, recentbiochemical,molecularandmorphomerricstudies(Chippindaleetal. 1992,1993,1994) indicatethat thesalamanderat Comal Springsis clearlyadifferentspeciesthanE. nana.The Comal

Springspopulationis currently includedin thelarge, diverse, Euryceaneotenesspeciesgroup.

Work by Chippindaleetal. (1992, 1993,1994) also providesevidencethat populationsof Euryceaon the EdwardsPlateauin locationsotherthanSanMarcosarenot F. nana.Theirwork indicatesthat theseotherpopulationsaregeographicallyandgeneticallyisolated,andrepresentdistinct taxa, probablydistinct spe-cies. F. nana then, is representedonly by thepopulationsin theSanMarcosSpringsarea.

Morphology

Prominent external featuresof thesmall,slendersalamanderaremoderatelylargeeyeswithadarkringaroundthelens,well developedandhighly pigmentedgills, relativelyshort,slenderlimbs with four toeson the forefeetandfive onthehindfeet, andaslendertail with well devel-opeddorsalfin (Figure 5). Comparedto otherneotenicEuryceafromTexas, theSanMarcossalamanderis smallerandmoreslender,differentin coloration,haslargereyesrelativeto thesizeofits head,a greater number of costalgrooves,andfewerpterygoidandpremaxillaryteeth.Detailedmorphological descriptions of this species are

found in Bishop(1941, 1943),Baker(1957,1961),Mitchell andReddell(1965),Schwetman(1967)andTupaandDavis (1976).

I

PartI 36

~,ai Niarcos ~cCarnalSF’ri tics =CAssoci.ir,’.l A~ 1.111.’ Lc>5551011 . r’.e.’’X’0 IV

Figure5. Drawingof Eiuyceanana ~modifiedfrom Schwetman1967).

.,• . r

Dorsal View

Part I

Lateral View

37

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecovers’Vim

j-listorical and PresentDistribution

On November 24, 1975,a samplingpro-

gram wasstartedon the largestfissuresthatconstitute San MarcosSprings(Longley 1978),and the samplingwas continuedin recentyearsby Nelson (1993).The samplinginvolvedplacinga500-micrometer(0.02in) meshnetoverthe outlet from oneofthe majorspringsinSpring Lake. This outlet was dubbed “PipeSpring” since it had been diverted via pipe into

theshowareaof Aquarena’sSubmarineTheater.Thisoutletisalso frequentlycalledDiversionSpring.Theconcretebaseoverthespringopeninghadbeenundercutby actionoffloodsin recentyearsandthisallowedmaterialfrom thelakebottomnearthespringto bedrawninto theoutflowfrom thespringby aventuri(suction).SmallorganismssuchasE. nanawork their way

betweentherockssurroundingthespringopeninguntil theyarecaughtin the flow from the springandthencarriedinto thenetalongwith subterra-neanorganisms.In Longley’s (1978) study, E.nanawerefoundin mostsamples.All ageclasseswerecommon,butjuvenilesweremostoftencollected.

Otherstudiesusedthe abovetechniquetosampleDiversionSpringandothertechniquestosamplespringoutletsthroughoutSpring Lake(TupaandDavis 1976,Nelson 1993).E. nanawasfound in mostsamplestakenfrom “Deep

Spring” in Spring Lake. Tupa and Davis (1976)foundE. nana in the densematsof filamentousalga(Lyngbyasp.) alongthe shallowareaadjacentto thenorthernbankof SpringLake, especiallyin the uppermostregionof thelake in front oftheAquarenaSpringsHotel. Nelson (1993)foundthe salamandersdistributedthroughoutSpringLakeamongthe rocks near spring open-ings, in the algal mats where Tupa and Davisfoundsalamanders,andin therocky areasjustdownstreamfrom the dams.UnlikeTupaandDavis (1976),Nelson (1993) usedSCUBA toobservesalamandersin Spring Lake, which may

explainthe differentdistributionsseenin thesestudies.

The combinedresultsof thesethreestudiesshowthat E. nana occursnearall themajorspringopeningsscatteredthroughoutSpringLakeand is quite abundantat someof these

springs(Nelson1993).F. nana is found in theSanMarcosRiver just belowSpringlake totabout 150m (492 feet).

Habitat

TheSanMarcossalamanderoccursin SpringLakewhererocksareassociatedwith springopenings,andin rocky areasup to 150m (492feet) downstreamof thedamsat Spring Lake(Longley 1978,TupaandDavis1976,Nelson1993) (Figure 3).

The salamanderis also found in shallowspringareason the uppermost(northernmost)portionof SpringLakeon alimestoneshelfin anareaimmediatelyin front of AquarenaSpringsHotel. Thesubstratein this areais sandandgravelinterspersedwith largelimestoneboulders.Concretebanksin front of the hotel andboul-dersin shallow(1-2 m or 3.3-6.6 feet) watersupporta lush growth of an attachedaquaticmoss(Leptodictyiumriparium). Interspersedwiththe mossandblanketingtheshallowsandysubstrateare thick filamenrousmatsof a coarse,filamentousblue-greenalga (Lyngbyasp.), thedark reddish-browncolor of which almostperfectlymatchesthedarkdorsalcolorationofthe SanMarcossalamander.

Spirogyra sp.andafewotherlargerfilamen-tous greenalgaespecies,as well as thecarnivo-rous angiospermknown asbladderwort(Utricu-lanagibba),are presentin small amountsin theaquaticmoss.A wide varietyof rooted aquaticmacrophytesoccuron the peripheryof thesalamanderhabitatat 1-3 m depths.Themacro-phytesincludearrowhead(Sagittariaplatyphylla),parrot’s feather(Myriophyllumbrasiliense),water

primrose (Ludwigiarepens),and wild celery(Vallisneniaamericana).In deeperwater,Carolinafanwort (Cabombacaroliniana), Hydrilla(Hydnilla verticillata), andelodea(Egeniadensa)becomethedominantmacrophytesof themudanddetritus-ladenbenthicregion.

The salamandersareabundantwithin thewiry meshof theaquaticmossandthe filamen-tousmatsof Lyngbyasp. in the shallowheadwa-tersarea.Sandysubstratesdevoidof vegetationandmuddysilt or detritus-ladensubstrateswithor without vegetationareapparentlyunsuitablehabitatsfor E. nana.Specimensoccasionallyare

Part 38

collectedfrom beneathstonesin predominantlysandandgravelareas.In view of theabundanceofpredators(primarily largerfish, but alsocrayfish,turtles,andaquaticbirds) in the immediatevicinity of thesprings,protectivecoversuchasthataffordedby themossandcvanophyceanbacteria(=blue-greenalgae)is essentialto thesurvivalofthesalamander.Thisvegetationalsosupportsaplentiful food supplyfor thesala-mander.

Flowingwateris apparentlyaprerequisiteforsuitableE. nanahabitat,as no specimenswerefoundin still waterareasof the lakeor river. Theflowing springwatersin theprincipalhabitatareslightly alkaline(pH 7.2),stenothermal(narrowrangeof temperatures)at21-220C(69.8-71.6~F),andclear.Aroundsprings,theoxygencontentofthe wateris about4 mg/L or greater(about40-50percentsaturatedwith oxygen).Methylorangealkalinity in theareawhereE. nanaoccurs(dueentirelyto bicarbonates)measured220-232mg/Landthespecificconductancemeasured510-535micromhos/cmin thehabitat(TupaandDavis1976). In preliminaryobservationsin captivity,thesesalamandersappearto becomestressedat

temperaturesabove30CC(86SF).Oxygencon-sumptionby F. nana was greatestatwatertemperaturesof 25oC(77SF) ascomparedwith 20or 300C(68 or 860F)(Norriset al. 1963).Criticalthermalmaximum(CTM) investigationsbyBerkhouseandFries(1995)determinedthatjuvenileshadalower CTM, 35.8oC(96.40F)thanadults(37.20Cor 99~F).

In summary,theSanMarcossalamanderapparentlyrequires: (1) thermallyconstantwaters;(2) flowing water; (3) cleanandclearwater; (4) sand,gravel,androck substrateswithlittle mudor detritus;(5) vegetationfor cover;and (6) an adequatefood supply.

Critical habitathasbeendesignatedfor theSanMarcossalamanderas: “Texas, HaysCounty;SpringLakeandits outflow, theSanMarcosRiver, downstreamapproximately50 m (164feet) from the SpringLakeDam.

Part I

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecast

1.5.

Life History/Ecology

Food Habits

Salamandersin laboratoryaquariafeedonamphipodsandyoungbrineshrimp.Stomachcontentanalysesof 80 preservedspecimensrevealedthesalamander’sdiet in its naturalhabitatincludedamphipodsandrendipedid(midgefly)larvaeandpupae;othersmall insectpupaeandnaiadsandsmallaquaticsnailswerefoundinlessernumbers.Small amountsof Lyngbyasp. andgrainsofsandoccasionallywerepresent.appar-entlyasincidentalitemsingestedalongwithprincipal food items.Feedingbehaviorobservedin thelaboratorvindicatedthat thesalamandersdid not activelypursuetheir prey. Salamandersremainedstationaryuntil the preyitemswereneartheirhead,thenabruptlysnappedforwardwhileopeningtheirmouthsto engulffood items.Thisinformationsuggeststheyrespondeitherto visualor vibrationalcuesfrom living prey.

ReproductiveCharacteristics:MaleE nanareachsexualmaturity (possessat leastone fulldarkly-pigmentedlobein eachtestis) afterattainingasnout-ventlengthof 19 mm (0.741in.) or35 mm (1.37in.) total length.AJI maleswith snout-ventlengthsgreaterthan23.5 mm(0.92in.) or

40-45mm(1.56-1.76in.) totallength weremature,possessingdarkly-pigmentedtesteswith oneto threelobes(Tupa andDavis1976). In an investigationby Mackay(1952),spermwerefoundin the testesof all maturemalescollectedfrom Octoberto May and in theWolffian ductsof certainmalesfrom OctobertoJune(exceptfor JanuaryandMarch).This studydid not include themonthsofJuly andAugust.Mackayfound largenumbersof spermatozoaintheWolffian ductsin November;ductswere in adistendedconditionin June,leadingher topostulatea breedingseasonin Juneandpossiblyanotherin the fall.

Salamandershadthefollowing four classesofova in theoviducts: verysmall clearova,smallopaque-whiteova, smallyellowova,andlargeyellowova. Femalescarryinglargeyellow ova(1.5-2.0mm [0.06-0.08 in.] diameter)wereconsideredgravid andpresumablyreadyforoviposition. Largeyellow ova werepresentin

r

39

SanMarcos & Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryP]an

r males~irh snoutventlengthsgreaterthan20.0(0.78 in.) or 35mm (1.37in.) total length).jenlaleswith asnout-ventlength=26 mm (1.01

ifl) carried 1 to 19 largeyellow ova. LargeyellowQV’I werepresentin somefemalesin nearlyeverymonthof theyear(TupaandDavis 1976).

CourtshipandeggdepositionbyE. nanahas

0~t reported~andno eggshavebeencol-lectedfrom thehabitat.However,courtship,0~~position~andhatchinghavebeenobservedforthecloselyrelatedComalSpringssalamander.Eggsofthis speciesweredepositedsinglyon plantinarerial~stones,andthe bottomof aglassbowlabout24 hoursaftercourtship.Eggshatched18-23 dayslater (Bogart1967,Schleseretal. 1994).Jordanetal. (1992)weresuccessfulin inducing

theComalSpringssalamanderto spawn,buthatchingdid not occur.TheComalSpringssalamanderhasreproducedsuccessfullyseveralrime in artificial springupwellingsatthe DallasAquarium (Schleser et al. 1994). Most, if not all,Euryceabreedin runningwaterof brooks,caves,orsprings.In mostcases,adherenteggsaredepositedsinglyon thebottomandsidesofstones,or on aquaticvegetation.

A total of sevensmall juvenilesofE. nanastill possessingyolk on theventerwerecollectedin February,May, andJune1968.Juvenilesoflessthan12 mm (0.47in.) total lengthwerecollectedfrom FebruarythroughOctober(TupaandDavis 1976). Bogart(1967) foundverysmallF. nana in September,December,March,April, andJune,but noted they were mostcommon in the late spring andearlysummer.He

postulatedthatthe salamanderbreedsmostofthe yearwith a peakin latespring.

Thestructureof the F. nanapopulationisremarkablyuniform throughouttheyear. In allseasons juvenile specimens (snout-vent lengths

usually less than 15 mm[0.54 in.]) of undeter-mined sex represented about 45 percent of thetotal population. Largerjuveniles (about 15-20

mm [0.59-0.78 in.] snout-ventlength)of unde-rerminedsexrepresentedabout30-40percentofthepopulation.Maturemales(snout-ventlengths19 mm [0.74 in.] andgreater)representedabout10-15 percentandgravid females(snout-ventlengths20 mm [0.78 in.] andgreater)about4percentof thetotal (TupaandDavis 1976).Mostevidencesuggestsreproductionoccursthroughout

Parr]

the year with a possible peak about May and

June.

Population Estimates

TupaandDavis (1976)estimatedthenumberof F. nanain thefloatingalgal matsat theuppermostportionof SpringLaketo be betweenabout17,000and21,000individuals.Nelson(1993) followed the same procedure used by

Tupa and Davis (1976) and estimated that thematswereinhabited by about23,000sala-

manders.Nelson(1993) also searchedrocky

substratesaroundthespringopeningsthroughout

SpringLakeandestimatedanadditional25,000E. nanain thistypeofhabitat.ShealsoestimatedthepopulationbelowSpringLakeassociatedwithrocky substrates to beabout5,200individuals.

These estimates give a combinedpopulationtotalfor Spring Lake of 53,200. Nelson’s populationestimates of the rocky substrate habitat arebelieved to be low (Nelson 1993 and Longley, inlitt., 1994),sincesalamandersareknown to

wriggledowninto interstitialspacesin thehabitat.CaptivesalamandersfromComalspringsarefound as far as four feet down in simulated spring

habitats(Longley, in lit., 1994).

Other Known Biological Aspects

The SanMarcossalamanderis capableofaltering its dorsalcoloration from light tantodarkbrown in accordwith the lightnessordarkness of the substrate. This color changeis

accomplishedby migrationof pigment inmelanophores,giving them thesestructurestheappearanceof expandingor shrinking(Schwetman1967).

The salamander’sexternalgills expandandappear bright red from increased blood flow incool water of low oxygen content. The bushyred gills areprominenton individualswhencollected from the springs, but they show marked

reduction,almostto thepoint of apparentresorption when specimens are kept in well-oxygenated aquaria (Tupa and Davis 1976).

40

San Marcos& Coma] Springs & AssociaredAquatic EcosystemsRecovers’i’lat~

Associated Species

Fountain darters occupy some of the samehabitatsasE. nana(Tupaand Davis 1976), and

displaymanyof the samefeedingandprotectiveconcealment habits of the salamander. Unlike

other fishes in the area but like the salamanders,fountain darters are found within the aquaticmoss growths and Lyngbyamats,as well asbeneath and alongside stones. Like the fountaindarters, the salamanders in the lake habitat eatamphipods (Tupa and Davis 1976).

Associated with the salamander and fountain

darter in the moss and algal vegetation are crayfishof varyingsizes,two speciesofsmall freshwatershrimp (Palaemonetes spp.),manyrendipedidlarvae,avarietyof otherinsectlarvae,avery largenumber (particularly in the moss) of amphipods

(Hyale/laazteca),watermites, and many smallaquatic snails. Leeches (Placobdeliasp.andothers)and planarians (Dugesiasp.)arealsonumerous,especiallyin samples taken over rocky substrates(Tupa and Davis 1976).

Most larger associated species are predators

andoccurin the vicinity of the salamanderhabitat.Theseincludeseveralspeciesof sunfishes(family Centrarchidae) and cichlids (family

Cichlidae),which feedon insect larvae, amphi-pods, terrestrial isopods, aquatic snails, freshwa-ter shrimp, fountain darters, and San Marcossalamanders. Turtles such as Texas river cooters

(Pseudemystexana)andstinkpots(Sternotherusodoratus)occasionallyarepresentin thesala-manderhabitatas areyellow bullheads(Ameiurusnatalis) andlargemouthbass(Micropterussalmoides) (Tupa and Davis 1976). Nonnative

blue catfish have been introduced into SpringLake and may prey on Eurycea. The exotic bluetilapia are a common part of the Spring Lake and

San Marcos fish fauna as well. Blue tilapia areomnivorous and mayprey on Eurycea.

Conservation Measures

Experiments are underway at the Dallas

Aquarium to develop captive breeding techniquesfor F. nanain the event that the natural popula-tion at San Marcos Springs is lost, using tech-niques patterned after those used for breeding the

ParrI

Comal salamander. Efforts to induce propagationat the SanMarcosNFH&TC, which alsohousedF. nanain simulatedspringenvironments,wereunsuccessful(Brandtetal. 1993).

TEXAS WILD-RICE

(ZIZANIA TEXANA)

Description

Taxonomy

Texaswild-rice was first collectedby G.C.Neally inAugust1892andwas originally identi-fled as Z aquatica(U.S. NationalHerbariumsheet979361).The nextcollectionwas by EnaA.Allen on July 10, 1921 (U.S. National Her-barium sheet 1611456).This sheetwaslabelledasZ. texana, apparentlyby A.S. Hitchcock,sometimeafterits collection.WA. Silveus,an attorneyandamateurbotanistfrom SanAntonio,firstrecognized Texas wild-rice as a distinct species.The type collection (W.A. Silveus 518, both theholotypeandisotypearehousedatthe U.S.NationalHerbarium)wasprobablymadeonApril 3, 1932.Silveussentthespecimenalongwith a letter to Agnes Chase of the U.S. National

Herbarium on April 4, 1932.The plant wasformallydescribedandnamedasZ. texanabyHitchcock(1933).All specimenswerecollectedfrom the SanMarcosRiver. (Theaboveinforma-tion was taken from Terrell eta1. 1978).

In a monographic work on the genus Zizania,Dore(1969) labelledZ.texana a “dubiousspecies.” Dore felt that Texas wild-rice was most

closelyrelatedto Z aquaticavar.aquatica.Heattributedthe “perennial”natureof Texaswild-riceto the“constantyear-roundtemperatureoftheartesianwatersin whichit grows,” andtheprostratehabitwasdueto the forceof thecur-rent.Dorefelt thatthedistinctionof Z texanafrom Z aquaticawould requirecarefulfieldappraisal.

Dorealsonotedthatcollectorsmight mistakeZizaniopsismiliaceafor Zizaniatexana,as Dorewassentrhizomesof theformerwhenrequestingmaterialof thelatter(Terrell eta1.1978). How-ever, these two genera are different in several

reproductiveandvegetativecharactersandare

41

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPlass

~aslly~j5tinguishable.Themostdiagnosticofthesecharactersis thatZiz.aniopsismiliaceadoes0ot maleandfemaleflowerson separate

branches as does Zizania texana(Figure6).Terre

11etal. (1978)examinedthethree

MlericanraxaofZizania,includingcultivatingjiein in commongardenconditions(cultivation

5ide~bysideto becertaindifferencesareintrinsicandnot environmentallyinduced).Theycon-cludedthatZ texanawasa distinctspeciesbasedon severalcharacters.In addition,neitherof theotherNorthAmericantaxaoccurnearTexaswild~rice, sothereis little or no chanceforconfusion.Northernwild-rice (Z.paluszris)appearsseveralhundredmiles to thenorth andnortheast(Missouri,Kansas,andArkansas).Thenearestpopulationsofsouthernwild-riceare inLouisiana,some400miles to theeast.

Southernwild-rice is a muchmorerobustplant thanTexaswild-rice, attainingheightsupto 4 m (13 ft.) andhavingonly its lower culmsimmersedin water; the restof the plant is erectandemergent.In addition,the leavesof southernwild-rice are3-5 timesas broadas thoseofTexaswild-rice. In southernwild-rice theupperinflorescencebranchesare long andwidelyspreading,while thoseofTexaswild-rice areshorter,moreerect, andappressed.Southernwild-rice haslemmasandpaleasthatare thin andpaperywhile thoseofTexaswild-rice are some-what leathery(Terrellet al. 1978).

Northernwild-rice is somewhatsmallerinstatureandmoreclosely resemblesTexaswild-rice. Distinguishingcharactersare that thespikeletis generallylonger [up to 20 mm (0.8in.) long in northernwild-rice, while Texaswild-rice seldomexceeds12.5 mm (0.5 inch)], thepaleasand lemmasof northernwild-rice aredistinctly leathery,andthe lemmasof northernwild-rice haveprickle hairs in linesratherthanrandomlyscatteredas in Texaswild-rice (Terrelletal. 1978).The northernwild-rice plantsaregenerallymoreemergentthanTexaswild-riceundertypical growingconditions,thoughinsomeconditionsTexaswild-rice will becomemoreemergent.

The maturecaryopses(seeds)ofTexaswild-riceareonly 50-70%as longasthelemmaandpalea,whereasin bothnorthernandsouthern

Parr]

wild-rice nearlytheentirespikeletis filled by thecaryopsesat maturity (Terrell er al. 1978).

Morphology: Texaswild-rice is an aquatic,monoecious,perennialgrass.The plant is gener-ally 1-2 m (3.3-6.6ft.) long (up to 4 m or 13 ft.)andusuallyimmersedandprostratein theswift-flowing waterof the SanMarcosRiver. In slowwatertheinflorescence,aswell astheupperculmsandleaves,becomesemergent.The culmsare longdecumbent,stoloniferous,androotonly atthelower nodes.Theleavesarelinear,elongate,green,12-110cm(4.7-43.3in.) long, and5-25 mm(0.2 - 1.0in.) wide.The inflorescenceis anarrowpanicle,16-31 cm (6.3 - 12.2 in.) long, and 1-10cm(0.4 - 3.9 in.) wide. Floweringoccursprima-rily in thespringandfall althoughit mayoccurthroughouttheyearin warmweather.Thespreadingstaminatebranchesoccurbelowtheappressed pistillate branches. Spikelets consist of

asinglenakedfloretandlackglumes.Thestami-natespikeletsare6-11 mm (0.24- 0.43in.) long,1.2-2mm (.05 - .08 in.) wide,with whitestamens,andhangdownwhenmature.Thepisrillatespikelersare8-12mm(0.32-0.4in.) long, 1.2-1.8 mm (0.05- .07 in.) wide, erect,andawn-ripped. The awns are scabrous with scatteredpricklehairs,and10-35mm(0.39- 1.38 in.)long.Theseeds(asobtainedfrom cultivation)arecylindrical, 4.3-7.6mm(0.17-0.30in.) long, 1-1.5 mm (0.04-0.06inch)wide, 1/2 to 3/4 aslongas thelemmaandpalea,andblack,brown,orgreenish.Thechromosomenumberisn=15.(Compiledfrom Silveus1933,Hitchcock1950,Correll andCorrell 1975,andTerrell et al. 1978).

Past and PresentDistribution

Whenfirst describedin 1933,Texaswild-ricewasabundantin the SanMarcosRiver, includingSpringLakeandits irrigationwaterways(Terrelletal. 1978).By 1967Emeryfoundonly oneplant in SpringLake,nonein theuppermost0.8km (0.5 mile) of theSanMarcosRiver,onlyscatteredplantsin thelower 2.4 km (1.5 miles),andnonebelowthis (Emery1967).Beary (1975)reportedacoverageof about240 m

2 (2,580ft2).However, the survey methodology Beaty used isnot known.In 1976Emeryagaincheckedtheabundance(Emery1977).Hefoundno plantsin

I

42

SanMarcus& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPlan

Figure 6. Texaswild-rice. Inflorescenceandmaleandfemaleflorets.Drawing courtesyofTexasParksand Wildlife Department.

N

9

/

‘6

Parr 43

5pringLake.Usingafloating frameone square

meterto measuretheareaofvegetativedomi-nance,he calculated1,131 m2 (12,161fr2) ofTexaswild-rice in theSanMarcosRiver, primarilyconcentratedin the extremeupperandlowersegmentsof theareaknownasthe upperSanMarcosRiver.

Subsequentdataweregatheredby Vaughan(1986) for severalyearsusingEmerysmeasuringtechnique.The overall areal coverage in 1986was454 m2 (4881 ft2), lessthanhalfEmery’s1976 iigure.

The Texas Parks andWildlife DepartmenthasmonitoredareacoveragesinceJune1989(Table4), andcoveragehasrangedfrom 1,005.4m2(10,823ft

2) to 1,592.4m2 (17, 142 ftD(average

1,374.3m2 or 14,794ft2) (1989-1994).Emery’smethodologywasemployedfor thefirst fewplants

5butwasabandoneddueto technicaldifficulties. Lengthandwidth wasmeasuredon theremainingplants,andpercentcoveragewasestimatedwithin theresultingrectangle.Arealcoverwas equalto L x W x % cover.

Texas Parks and Wildlife studies have estab-

lished that the current distribution of wild riceextendsfrom the uppermostpart ofthe SanMarcos River just below Spring Lake dam(where neither Emery nor Vaughan had reported

Texas wild-rice) and throughout the criticalhabitat down to an area slightly below thewastewater treatment plant, except for the riverportion between the Rio Vista railroad bridge

and the dam above Cheatham Street (Figure 3).

Habitat

The plants form large clumps rooted in the

limestonesandandgravel river bottom,whichoverlaysCrawfordblacksilt and clay (Vaughan1986). According to Silveus (1933), Texas wild-

rice occurredin SpringLakeandits irrigationwaterways. Silveus also noted that although he

expectedoriginally to find thespeciesgrowingalong the margins of the stream, he found theplants occurring in the swiftly flowing currentssome distance from the bank (after Terrell et al.1978),similar to currentconditions.Whileexotic elephant ears occupy river margins ratherthan the regions with swift current, hydrilla(which has also been introduced in recent times)

San Marcos & Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquatic Ecos~’stemsRecovers’[‘Ian

formsextensivestandsin someswift areasof theriver today.The consequencesof this to Texaswild-rice areunknown,but it is possiblethat

hydrilla is competingwith Texaswild-rice oralteringits essentialhabitat.

Experimentalstudies(Vaughan1986)showedthatTexaswild-rice grewpoorly in SpringLake atwater depths greater than 2 m(6.6 ft) due todecreased light intensity and shading from otheraquatic vegetation. Rose and Power (1992) noted

robustgrowthat 1.6 m (5.25ft.) in experimentalreintroductionwork. In Vaughan’sexperiments,plantsdid notsurvivein moistor alternatingwet!dry experimental conditions, only in constantly

inundated conditions. Plants grown in an artificia]racewayenvironment(Vaughan1986)producedseed at water depths ranging from 20-60 cm (7.9- 23.6inches).Otherspeciesofwild-rice requireveryshallowwaterfor germination(Vaughan1986).

Power (1990) found that under experimental

conditions Texas wild-rice seeds germinatedmore readily under low oxygen conditions andthatburiedseeds(buriedin eitherclayor sand)germinated more readily than seeds at thesubstrate/water interface. Rose and Power (1993,1992) collected seeds from Texas wild-rice inculture and conducted experiments on seed

storageandgermination.Their studiesindicatedthat fewerseedsgerminateas storagetimeincreases and, of seeds that germinate, fewer

havesuccessfulseedlingdevelopment(RoseandPower 1993 and in litt.).

Critical habitat has been designated for Texas

wild-rice as“Texas,HaysCounty;SpringLakeand its outflow, the San Marcos River, down-stream to its confluence with the Blanco River.”

Life History/Ecology

Associated Species

In the upper portion of the San Marcos River,Texas wild-rice occurs with pondweed(Potarnogeton illinoensis), wild celery (Vallisneriaamericana),arrowhead (Sagittariaplatyphylla),hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), hornwort(Ceratophyllumdemersum), elodea (Egeriadensa),and water primrose (Ludwigia repens) (Terrell et

al. 1978,Vaughan1986).In the lower portionof

Part I 44

SanMarcos & Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecovers’Plan

the river, Texaswild-rice is mostoften foundinisolatedclumps(Terrell etal. 1978,Vaughan1986). Elephant ears (Colocasiaesculenta)(el-ephantear) hasinvadedthe riveredge,andisnarrowingtheriver andcrowdingtheotheraquaticspeciesin manyplaces.Commontreespecies that shade the river, include sycamore(Platanusoccidentalis), pecan (Caryaiiinoensis),Populus deltoia’es (cottonwood), sugar hackberry(Celtis laevigata), baldcypress (Taxodiumdistichum),blackwillow (Salix nigra), Americanelm ( Ulmusamericana),Chinesetallowtree(Sapiumseb~frrum),and live oak (Quercus

fiis~formis) (Vaughan1986).Whetherornotsurvival of Texas wild-rice is influencedby thedegreeof shadingby the treecanopyis un-known.

Reproduction

Texaswild-rice producesnewplantseitherviaseedsorstolons.Whenreproducingsexuallythelongrigid decumbantculm (whichcanreachlengths of 3.6 - 4 m(12 feet) or more) bendsupwardatits nodes,emergesabovethecurrent,and produces a 3.2 to 4.7 cm (8 to 12 inch)

floweringpanicle(Beaty 1975).Asexualrepro-ductionoccurswhereshootsariseattheendsofstolons. While asexual reproduction has been

noted and some plants have produced culms for

inflorescences,plantshavenot successfullybeenproducing (or setting) seed in the San MarcosRiver (J. Poole, Texas Parks and Wildlife and P.

Power,SouthwestTexasStateUniversity, pets.comm.). Emery and Guy (1979) studied repro-ductionin Texaswild-riceandreportedthespeciesis predominantlyoutbreedingandwind-polli-nated.Theyfoundno indication of apomixis(selfing) or any reproductive anomaly. Pollen andmegaspore development as well as pollination and

earlyembryodevelopmentappearnormal.Pollenfertility is good (8 1.6%), and they concluded thefailure of wild-rice to produceseedin thewild isprobablynot dueto anygenetic,cytological, orembryologicalproblems,but ratherto someextrinsicfactoror factors.Plantsgrown in race-waysat SouthwestTexasStateUniversity’sAquaticStationsuccessfullybloom andsetseed,and seed have been observed to drop in placeandsubsequentlygerminate(P. Power,pets.comm.).

Parr] 45

Conservation and ResearchEfforts

Texaswild-rice hasbeencultivatednumeroustimeswith varyingresults.Terrell etal. (1978)took threesmallclumpsofTexaswild-rice toBeltsville,Maryland, in September1973.Theplantsweregrown in tapwaterandkeptataconstanttemperatureof about23oC (73.4oF).Only one of the plants survived. This individualproduced about 80 seeds. The plant later diedfrom two-spotted mites. Some of the seeds

germinated,but nonegrewmorethana fewcentimeters before dying, including ones grown inSan Marcos River water.

Emerymovedfour clonesof Texaswild-ricefrom the San Marcos River to the constanttemperature~ spring-fed raceways at SouthwestTexas State University (Terrell et al. 1978). Theplants became emergent and produced over

1,500seedsduringthesummerof 1975.Afterbeingkept in 30C (37.4~F)spring water for 105days to breakdormancy,the seedswere germi-natedin petri dishesfilled with tap water.Sevento 10 daysafter germination,seedlingsweretransplantedto potscontainingriver gravel,andimmersed beneath a few centimeters of water. By

August 1976 about 500 clumps of Texas wild-

rice had been produced (Emery 1977 and inlitt., Terrell et al. 1978).

Vaughan (1986) grew Texas wild-rice in the

raceways at Southwest Texas State University aswell as at various depths in Spring Lake and invarioussoil typesandwaterregimesin fish-culturepondsat theSanMarcosNFH&TC.Growth rate was higher in the raceways than inthe San Marcos River itself, possibly due to

increasedlight andtemperature.Plantsgrownatdifferent depths in Spring Lake showed the effectsof irradiance and depth. Low growth rates oc-curred at the greatest depths (more than 120 cm

(47 inches)). Soil type (either Crawford silt clayfrom thebanksof the river or Quaternarylime-stonesedimentfrom the river bottom)hadnosignificanteffecton growthrateor survivorship.However,moistureregimeled to dramaticresults.Mortalitywas 100%in boththedry (anintermit-tentlywetterrestrialsite)andthemoist (acon-stantlymoistbutnot inundatedsite)regime.Plantsgrown in 20 cm (7.9 inches) of water or more

_____________________________________________

San Marcos& Coma] Springs & AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPlan

weresignificantlylargerthanthosegrown in 20cin (7.9inches)or less.Thusbothwaterdepthandamountof light appearsignificantin thegrowth of Texas wild-rice.

Efforts made to grow Texas wild-rice outside

theSanMarcosRiverhavebeenunsuccessful.Current Service policy would not supportintroduction of listed species outside theirhistoric range. However, before Texas wild-ricewas listed Beaty (1976) attempted to grow plants

in Salado Creek in Bell County. The plantsestablished and produced inflorescences, butlocal recreational activities plus periodic removalof aquatic vegetation from the stream, destroyedall plants. Emery transplanted more than 100clonesofTexaswild-rice into variouscentralTexas sites, including the Comal River in NewBraunfels.However,floodingwashedtheplantsaway before they could become established, and aplantingin SpringLakewaseatenby nutria(Beary1976,Emery 1977 in lie?4.

Rose and Power (1992, 1993) transplantedyoungTexaswild-rice plants raisedfrom seedinto SpringLake.Onehundredandeighty-threeyoungplants raisedin racewayswereplantedinSpringLakenearthedam(about3m [8.4 frIdeep) in December 1992, and March and July1993. Five hundred transplants were planted onthe northwest side of the lake in 1994. Althoughbothreintroductionsitesshowedaslight increasein stemdensityduring1994,theylatershowedadecline. The reintroduction maybe jeopardizedby competition with other aquatic vegetation

and shading by cut vegetation floating down-stream (Rose and Power 1993). Monitoring hasnor been conducted for a long enough period to

ascertain trends or predict long-term success.Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the

Service (through the section 6 program) initiateda study in June 1989 to determine areal coverage

ofTexas wild-rice on a yearly basis and to mom-tot theplantson a monthlybasisto detectmajorchanges in coverage. Monthlyobservationsarenolonger taken, but Texas Parks and Wildlife hascontinued annual measurements of the arealextentofstands(TexasParksandWildlife Depart-ment,in Iitt. 1994, see Table 4). Fluctuationsinarealcoverageofindividualstandsandwithinindividual river segments have been noted andneedto be carefullyanalyzedto tie suchvariations

to other changes occurring in or influencing theriver.

Another joint section 6 study funded by theService and Texas Parks and Wildlife is also

nearingcompletion.Thisstudyexaminedhabitatparameters in the wild for areas where Texas wild-

rice is growing and contrasted them with condi-tions in other areas where Texas wild-rice isabsent.

Herbivory has been noted incidentally byseveral workers. Beaty (1976) and Poole (pers.comm.) have observed nutria eating plants ofTexas wild-rice, and Rose and Power (1992,1993) have observed waterfowl feeding on the

plants. More recently Power has begun quantita-

uve monitoring of herbivory on leaves of rein-troduced plants.

Thepotentialimpactsofrecrearionists,particularly tubers and swimmers, has been aconcern. The Service has recently fundedresearch to examine the frequency and magnitudeof impacts from recreational users of the SanMarcosRiveron Texaswild-rice.

TEXAS BLIND SALAMANDER

(TYPHL OMOLGE RATHB UNJ)

Description

The Texas blind salamander was first de-scribedbySrejneger(1896),after thetypespeci-menNo. 22686, USNM(U.S. National Mu-seum). The type specimens of the Texas blindsalamander were collected in 1895 at the FederalFishHatcheryin SanMarcos,Texas,wheretheywere expelled from an artesian well drilled tosupplywaterto thehatchery(Longley 1978).Since that time there has been some disagreement

amongexpertsaboutwhetherthespeciesbelongsin the genus Typh/omo/ge or Eurycea. Wake (1966afterChippindaleetal. 1993)andPotterandSweet (1981) have supported recognition of]3iphlomolge,while Mitchell andReddell(1965)have supported inclusion within Eu?ycea.Chippindale et al. (1994), based on studies usingmorphometric, biochemical, and molecular

techniques have concluded that the species isproperly included within the genus Eu?ycea,but

havenot yet formally published their treatment.

II

Part I 46

Table 4. Areal coverage(in2) of Texaswild-rice from 1 976 to 1 994 (Vaughan1 986, TexasParksandWildlife Department1992,andJackiePoole,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

* Segmentsrefer to particular sectionsof the San Marcos River. TexasParks and Wildlife Department(1992) used letters.Vaughan used numbers.

Following are descriptionsof the segments:

Icehousedam to University Drive (Icehousedam 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 aboveCheatumSt. (= Cheatham)(Dam aboveCheatumSt. Rio Vista dam)Dam aboveCheatumStreet to low point on south side of Clover’s IslandLow Point on southside of Clover’s Island to just aboveSouth 1-35 accessroadJust aboveSouth1-35 accessroad to ThompsonIsland Dam (Thompson Island dam = Thornton dam)

ThompsonIsland Dam to east-westchannelthrough ThompsonIslandHaysCounty Road to mill (eastchannel) (Hays Co. Road = CapesRoad)

East-westchannel through ThompsonIsland to Hays County RoadHaysCounty Road to just below east and west channels’confluenceJust below eastand west channels’confluenceto high tensionwire

High tensionwire to sewagetreatmentplant outfallSewageoutfall to Blanco River confluence

1=

SanMarcos & Coma] Springs &AssociatedAquaric EcosystemsRecovers-Z’l)ts

~ongley(1978)preparedareport thatsum-

d theavailableinformationon thisspecies.lowing informationon this species

0f the fol

cornesfrom that report.TheTexasblind salamanderis asmooth,

~~0pigmented~(ap~j~swhite) troglobitic(cave—adapted)species, maximumtotal length0otedduring Longley’s (1978)studywas 12 cm(4.7 in.). Theheadis largeandbroad;eyesarereduced(visible as two smalldarkspotsdeepbeneaththe skin); limbsareslenderandlong; fourtoesoccuron the forelegs;andfive toesoccuronthehindlegs.The speciesdoesnot havereliable

externalcharactersthatcanbeusedto determinesex.

Historical and Present Distribution

All collectionsor sightingsoftheTexasblindsalamanderoccurin HaysCounty,Texas(Figure7). Typhlomolgerathbuniwasfirst collectedfromtheartesianwell attheFederalFishHatcheryin1895. Since then, the species has been found atseveral other locations including Ezell’s Cave, SanMarcos Springs, Rattlesnake Cave, Primer’sFissure, Southwest Texas State University’s

artesianwell, andFrankJohnson’swell (Russell1976,Longley1978).Thespecieswaspreviouslyknown to occur in Wonder Cave but searches in1977 did not locate any specimens (Longley1978). The total distributionof this speciesmaybe as small as 10 km

2 (25.9 mi2) in a portion ofthe EdwardsAquifer beneathandnearthecity ofSan Marcos.

Habitat

Typhiomo/ge rathbuni is an obligate troglobitic

species that occupies the subterranean waters ofthe Edwards Aquifer in Hays County, Texas. It isneotenic(non-transforming)andaquaticthrough-out its life andlives in water-filled, cavernousareasin theSanMarcosareaof theEdwardsAquifer.Observationsin caveswith accessto thewater table indicate that this salamander movesthroughtheaquiferby travelingalongsubmergedledgesandmayswimshortdistancesbeforespreadingits legsandsettlingto the bottomofthe pool (Longley 1978). Due to the relatively

constant210C(69.8oF) temperatureofsubrerra-neanwatersin theEdwardsAquifer, T rarhbunzisbelievedto beadaptedto thistemperatureregimeandmaybesensitiveto changesin watertempera-tures.However,additionalresearchis necessarytodeterminecriticaltemperatureminimaandmaximafor differentlife stagesof thisspecies(Longley 1978).

Life History/Ecology

Little is knownof the life history of Trathbunisinceits subterraneanexistencemakesitdifficult to studyin its naturalenvironment.

Food Habits

Observations on captive individuals indicate

that T rathbunifeed indiscriminantly on smallaquatic organisms and do not appear to exhibit an

appreciabledegreeof food selectivity.YoungTrathbuni feed well on copepods. Larger sala-manders are documented to eat amphipods, blindshrimp(Palaemonetesantrorum) , daphnia,smallsnails,andotherinvertebrates.Cannibalismhasalso been documented (Longley, in litt., 1994).

Reproductive Characteristics

Due to the presence ofjuveniles throughoutthe year, T rathbuniappearsto be sexuallyactiveall year,which is expected since there is littleseasonal change in the aquifer (Longley 1978).Gravid females have been observed each month of

theyear(BE. Potter,pets.comm.,in USFWS1980). Onegravid female contained 39 eggs(Longley 1978).Thereappearsto bea correlationbetweensize (ageclass),numberoftesticularlobes,andnumberof timesspermhasbeenproduced (Longley 1978).

75~phIomoIgerathbunireproduced for the firsttimein captivityat theCincinnati Zoo(Maruska1982).Threedifferentspawningeventsoccurred

between December 1979 and January 1980.Clutchsizerangedfrom 8 to 21 eggsperspawn-ing.The eggs were unpigmented and were at-tached to pieces of gravel singly or in clusters of 2or 3 eggs. Light intensity did not appear to affect

embryonicdevelopment.However,relatively

Parr] 48

SanMarcos& Coma] springs& AssociatedA~ssaticEcoss’stemsRecover Plan

Figure7. Collectionsandsightinglocation of theTexasblind salamander.

I.

RattlesnakeCave

South westTexas State a

Univ. Artesian Well

IN

FrankJohnson’s

Well Ezell’s• Cave

Willow Springs Creek

Marco!

arcos

Part I 49

San Marcos& Coma] Springs & AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoversPlan

constantwatertemperaturesimilar to thatwithintheaquifer(21oC[69.80F])is necessaryfornormaleggdevelopment.

TheDallasAquariumhasalsoinducedTrathbunitO breedin captivity (DavidSchleser,pallasAquarium,pers. comm., 1994).Two

individualswereapparentlyengagedin courtshipbehavioron May 11,1994,and repeatedthisactivity on May 15. The first clutchof 13 eggswasdepositedsingly on the limestonerocksinthe aquariumon May 21-22.The eggs hatchedwithin 12 to 16 daysof oviposition,andthelarvaebeganfeedingwithin 1 monthafterhatching.Successfulreproductioncontinuestooccuratthe DallasAquarium.

Parr]

Conservation Measures

TheNatureConservancy(TNC) purchasedEzell’s Cave in 1967. In 1972, Ezell’s Cave wasdesignatedas a NationalNaturalLandmarkbythe National Park Service.

Personnel at the Cincinnati Zoo and theDallas Aquarium have successfully propagatedT rathhuni in captivity. The Dallas Aquarium isdeveloping a captive breeding program for thisspecies.Phorodocumentationofembryologicand

larval development will provide information on

the reproductive ecology of the Texas blindsalamander (Schleser, in litt. 1994). The Servicehas also recently provided funding for the SanMarcos NFH&TCto collect T rathbuni fordistribution to one or two additional facilities toincrease the chances for successful captive propa-

garion.

50

SanMarcos & Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecovtryp~

E. RECOVERY STRATEGY

To conservethesespeciesandmeettheobjectives of this recovery plan, consistent withthepurposesof theEndangeredSpeciesAct, theecosystems upon which these species depend mustbe conserved. These ecosystems include theEdwards Aquifer and the systems associated with

Comal and San Marcos Springs (including springruns, lakes, and rivers). Oneof the most seriousthreatsto thecontinuedexistenceofthesespeciesandtheirecosystemsis decreasedwaterlevels inthe Edwards Aquifer and loss of adequate spring-

flows required to maintain aquatic habitat in theComal and San Marcos Springs and associatedriverine systems. Current water withdrawals are

mostly unregulated and based on right of capture.To recoverthefive speciescoveredby thisplan,amechanismfor maintainingexistingaquatichabitats must be in place. In 1993, the Texaslegislature passed S.B. 1477 creating an Edwards

AquiferAuthority to regulategroundwaterwithdrawal.ThelegislationwaschallengedduetoVoting Rights Act concerns, which were resolvedby thelegislaturein 1995with amendments(H.B. 3189). The legislation has subsequentlybeenchallengedby theMedinaandUvaldeCountyUndergroundWaterDistrict, andwasruledunconstitutional.The stateplansan appeal,

and it is likely thatlitigation will continue.TheAuthority’s ability to regulate will depend on

resolution of these concerns.In addition, to conserve these species and their

habitat, aquifer levels and springflows must be

maintained. Avariety of tools for achievingreduced groundwater withdrawal from the aquifer

areavailable.Somepossibilitiesincludeconserva-nonandreuse;creationofawatermarketingsystem;developmentof alternativesourcesofwaterfor humanuse; and modification of deliv-ery mechanisms or water use practices. The overallenvironmentalimpactsof all of these alternativesshould be considered.Becausethereareasignifi-cant number of users dependent on the aquiferand aquifer waters that flow downstream, cre-anon of this plan should involve representationfrom multipleusergroups(includingFederalandnon-Federal entities) to assure equitable consider-

ParrI

ationofvarioushumanneeds(socialandeco-nomic) whileimplementingrecoveryof federallylisted plant and animal species that depend on the

EdwardsAquifer andassociatedaquaticsystems.During theinterimperiodwhile long-term

watermanagementplansarebeingdevelopedandput in place, it maybe possibleto grantoneor

more incidental take permits for levels of takethat do not jeopardize the species or preclude

recovery actions. Such a permit can be grantedunder section 10(a)(1)(b) of the ESA. Onecomponent needed to qualify for such a permit isan adequate Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).Short-term measures developed by the above

planning activities mayform a basis for develop-ing an incidental take permit application.

TheServiceshould provide guidance andsupport for the planning and permitting process.Guidance on the permitting process, logistics,

documentation and responsibilities should begivenaswell asencouragingapplicantsto initiateinformal discussions with the Service at an earlystage. The Service should provide early assistanceno answer questions and provide direction about

elements needed for a successful application, aswell as strategies and approaches that may beavailable.

In addition the Serviceneedsto develop,through an interdisciplinary approach, refine-

ments of springflow levels previously providedand guidance on reductions in groundwateruseandaquiferlevelsthatareneededto supportthespeciesandtheirhabitat.

Judging from recent events in the courts it

appears possible that a state or local agency withtheauthority to regulate groundwater use may

not be established in a timely manner. In theevent that an adequate regional management planis notdevelopedandimplemented,theServiceshouldassistin developingaconservationstrategyfor Federal agency conservation actions to main-

tain flows from Comal and San Marcos Springsthatpromotesrecoveryof the five listedspeciescoveredby thisrecoveryplan.

In addition to addressingthemajorthreatoflossofwaterquantityto threatenedandendan-

r

51

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosysremaRecoveryPJan

ed species~considerationneedsto begiventoger~. adequatewaterquality. Potentialand

~~j5tingsourcesofwaterquality impactsto theaquiferandthe Coma1andSanMarcossystemsneedto beidentifiedandaddressed,includingsuchthingsaspointandnon-pointsourcepollu-tion; activitiesin thecontributingandrechargezones;potentialmovementof thebad-waterline;anduseofpesticides,herbicides,andother

In additionno addressingthebroad,regionalthreatsfacingthesespeciesand their ecosystems,the recoverystrategyalsoneedsto addresstheinorelocalandsite-specificthreats.Thesethreatsincludesuchthingsas presenceof nonnativespecies~impactsfrom recreation,andlocalsourcesof waterquality impactsandhabitatalterations(for example,leakingtanksandsepticsystems~siltationfrom local constructionsiterunoff). A numberof tasksto addressthesethreats have been outlined in thisrecoveryplan,amongthem aredevelopmentof local springandriver managementplans,controland/orremovalof selectnonnaniveorganisms,andworkwithlocal landownersandusers.Work with locallandownersshouldincludeeffortsto addresssite-specificthreatsaswell asto enhanceand/ormaintainhabitatfor thespecies.Forexample,inthecaseof theSanMarcossalamander,maintain-ing naturalalgalandplantcommunitiesin SpringLakeandadjacentportionsof theSanMarcosRiver is important.

Becauseof their limitedrangeandthepoten-tial for catastrophicevents(suchasoil or hazard-ousmaterialspills, severedroughts)or otheruncontrollable factors these species will continue

to be at risk of extinction. Therefore, though themainstrategyof thisplanis to reducethatriskand conserve the species in their native ecosys-tems, this plan includes captive propagation as a

tool to provideadditionalassurancethatthespecieswill beconservedfor the long-term.Geneticallyrepresentativecaptivepopulationsshouldbeestablishedandcarefully maintained

50thatsuitablestocksareavailablefor reintroduction or supplementationpurposesif needed

Captivepopulationsalonedo not constituterecoverynormeetthepurposeoftheEndangeredSpeciesAct “to provideameanswherebytheecosystems upon whichendangeredspeciesandthreatenedspeciesdependmaybeconserved.”Therefore,their useshouldbeconsideredaprecautionarymeasure,for dire circumstancesonly, andtheprimaryfocusshouldbe placedonconservationofthesespecies’ecosystems.

Until captive propagation programs are inplace, an up-to-date contingency planshouldbein place that outlines a strategy for bringingrepresentative samples of each listed species intocaptivitytemporarilyin theeventof adirereduction in springflows.

Conservation of these species and theirecosystems will necessitate support and partici-

pation of a wide variety of people and organiza-tions, with varying levels of knowledge and

backgrounds. Therefore, public information andeducationis an importantcomponentof thisrecovery strategy.

Additional research is needed in some areas,particularlyregardingthe species’specifichabitatrequirements, assessing threats and how to addressthem, and captive breeding and reintroduction

techniques.Thesespecies’populations,habitats,and

threats should also be monitored to assess popula-tion trends and assure that no significant decline

in their status occurs. Monitoring is also neededto protect the species from an irreversible declineand to provide information for periodic evalua-tion of the effectiveness of recovery actions.

F

52

PART II

RECOVERY

San Marcos & Coma] springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryP]an

A. OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA

Theobjectiveof this RecoveryPlanis to

securethesurvival oftheseendangeredor threat-enedspeciesin theirnativeecosystems.Mainte-nanceofwaterlevelsin theEdwardsAquifer andfloWS thatmaintainthe SanMarcosandComalRiverecosystemsis vital to the survival ofthesespecies.Protectionof theseecosystemswill also

aid in conservationof numerouscandidatespecies.

Local threatsto eachof the species,aswell as

broader,regionalthreatsto the ecosystemscontinuedintegrity, areaddressedin this plan.only by addressingboth typesof threatsanddirecting conservationactivities towardremedy-ing bothcanthe goalsof this planbe attained.Recoverycriteriaforeachspeciesfollow.

RECOVERY CRITERIA

San Marcos Salamander,

San Marcos GambusiaBecauseof thelimited distributionof theSan

MarcossalamanderandtheSan Marcosgambu-sia,andthepotentialfor a catastrophiceventthatcould eliminatethesespecies.thepotentialfor fullrecoveryleadingto downlisringor delistingofthesespeciesis low. Elementsthatthreatenthecontinuedsurvival of thesetwo speciesmustbecontrolledbeforedownlistingor delistingthesespeciescould occur. However,muchcan bedoneto increasethechancesof long-termsurvival ofthe SanMarcossalamanderandthe SanMarcosgambusia(if thelatterspeciesstill exists).Theobjectiveof this planfor thesetwo speciesis thecontinuedexistenceof healthy.self-sustainingpopulationsof thesespeciesin their nativeecosys-tems.Criteria for whetherthis objectiveis beingobtainedarewhetherthe following conditionshavebeenachieved:

1. Adequateflows andwater quality areassuredto continuefrom the SanMarcosSpringsanddownstreamthrough the San MarcosRiver, even in a

1’.irt II

droughtof record,ata level thatwillsustainthesespecies.

2. Captive,breedingpopulationsfor eachspecies are maintained in such a way

that genetic integrity of eachspeciesisinsured and there is suitablestock forreintroductions or supplementarionsshould a catastrophe eliminate or

drasticallyreducenumbersin theirnativeecosystem,and reintroductiontechniquesthat are likely to be success-ful havebeendeveloped.

3. Local threatshavebeensuccessfullyremovedor minimized (e.g., impactsfrom nonnativespecies,recreation,habitatalteration,or local waterquality prob-lems).

4. Healthy, self-sustainingpopulationsofeachspeciesare establishedthroughouttheir historic ranges,and thesepopula-tions arebeingmaintained.‘Whetherthishasbeenattainedshould be evaluatedbasedon the criteria that follow for eachspecies:

San Marcos Salamander

Estimatedconditionsindicating healthy,self-sustainingpopulationsof the SanMarcossala-manderwereobtainedfrom TupaandDavis(1976) andNelson (1993).

• Sampling should occur at least once ayear following the methodology used byNelson(1993), in the appropriatesubstrates.

• The following minimum density

estimatesof salamandersin the rocksubstrateat Diversion andDeep springsand algal matsat the upperendofSpring Lake in front of thehotel shouldbeobserved.

53

SanMarcos& CarnalSprings& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecove~p~

1.in algal mats: 116/rn2 (1249Cr2)in DiversionSpring: 25/rn2 (269 Ct2)in DeepSpring: 8/rn2 (86 Ct2)

• Juvenile(<20 mm snout-ventlength)salamandersshould makeup at least 75percentof the total salamanderpopulation.

• Suitablerocky substrates(sandandgravel interspersedwith large limestonebouldersanddevoidof muddyordetritus-ladensubstrates)should occurat the samplingsiteswith the minimumareal coveragelisted below.

algalmats:DiversionSpring:DeepSpring:

317 m214 in219 rn2

(3408if)(151 if)(206 if)

SanMarcosGambusia

Estimatedconditionsindicating healthy,self-sustainingpopulationsof SanMarcosgambusiaarelistedbelow.

• A ratio of pureSanMarcosgambusiatohybridsof 10:1 or fewer hybrids (that is10% or fewer hybrids).

• If the speciescan be found, additionalindicatorsfor criterion #4 (suchasstatusof habitatandpopulationnum-bersanddistribution) will be deter-mined.

RECOVERY CRITERIA

Fountain Darter

Becauseof the limited distributionof thisspeciesthe potentialfor full recoveryanddelistingis low. Thefountain darterwill beconsideredfor downlisting, from endangeredtothreatened,whenthe following conditionshavebeenachieved:

Part II

Adequateflows andwaterqualityareassuredto continuefrom the SanMarcosandComalSpringsdownstrean-~throughtheir respectiveriversandchannels,evenin adroughtofrecord,atalevelthatwill sustainthe species.

2. Captive,breedingpopulationsof boththe ComalandSanMarcospopulationsare beingmaintainedin such a way thatgeneticintegrity of eachspeciesisassuredand thereare suitablestocksfo~reintroducrionsor supplernentationsshould a catastropheeliminateordrasticallyreducenumbersin theirnative ecosystems.

3. All measuresidentified in thisplantoremoveor minimize “local” threatshavebeensuccessfullyimplemented(e.g.,impactsfrom nonnativespecies,recre-ation, habitatalteration,or local waterquality problems).

4. Healthy, self-sustainingpopulationsofboth populationsexist throughouttheirhistoric rangesin both the Cornal andSanMarcossystemsandare beingmaintained.Whetherthis hasbeenattainedshould be evaluatedbasedonthe criteria that follow:

• Monitoring of fountaindartersandsubmergentvegetationinboth the SanMarcosandComalsystemsshould be conductedannuallyto verif~,’ acceptablepopulationsare beingmain-tamed.

• Methodsusedto samplefoun-tain dartersshould be similar tothoseusedby the USFWSintheir Comal andSanMarcoshabitatand flow requirementsstudy, i.e., useof drop netsandunderwaterobservation.

• Fountaindarternumbersanddensitiesby microhabitattype

I

54

SanMarcos& CarnalSprings& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryPlan

shouldoccurin densitiessimilarto or greaterthanthat describedby the USFWSin the Comalin 1993andin theSanMarcosin1994 (work in progress:HabitatandFlow RequirementsStudyfortheComalandSanMarcosSystems.USFWSAustin Eco-logicalServicesOffice).

Areal coverageof submergentvegetationby species(includingfilamentousalgae,mosses,andhigher plants)shouldbemonitoredannually(in JulyorAugust)andshouldnot besignificantly different from thesubmergentplantcommunitydescribedin 1993 and 1994 ascharacterizedin studiescon-ductedby theUSFWS,TPWD,andcooperators.

Theestimateddatefor attainingthedownlist-ingcriteriaof thefountaindarteris 2025.Thisestimateis basedon a reviewof therecoverytasksneededandareasonabletimeperiodin whichtaskscould be achieved.This estimateassumessupportwill be availableto accomplishall tasksinatimelymanner.

RECOVERY CRITERIA

Texas Wild-rice

Becauseof thelimited distributionof thisspeciesthe potentialfor full recoveryanddelistingis low. TheTexaswild-rice will beconsideredfor downlisting,from endangeredtothreatened,whenthe following conditionshavebeenachieved:

Adequateflows andwaterqualityareassuredfrom the SanMarcosSpringsanddownstreamthroughthe SanMarcosRiver, evenin adroughtofrecord, ata level thatwill sustainthespecies.

Captive,reproducingpopulationsarebeingmaintainedin sucha way thatgeneticintegrityofthespeciesissecured

1.

2.

Part II

andthereis suitablestockfor reintroduc-tionsorsupplementationsshouldacatastropheeliminateor drasticallyreducenumbersin theirnativeecosystem,andreintroductiontechniquesthatarelikelyto besuccessfulhavebeendeveloped.

3. All measuresidentified in thisplantoremoveor minimize local threatshavebeensuccessfullyimplemented(e.g.impactsfrom nonnativespecies,recre-ation, habitatalteration,and local waterquality problems).

4. Healthy,self-sustaining,andreproductivepopulationsareestablishedthroughoutthehistoricrange,andthesepopulationsarebeingmaintained.Whetherthishasbeenattainedshouldbeevaluatedbasedon the criteriathatfollow:

Wild-rice plantsshouldbepresentwith at least the follow-ing areal coverageanddistribution:

Spring Lake:

Segment A:B:C:

F:

H:I:

Total:

150Gm2 (16,148ft2)

1400m2500Gm2100Gm2lOOm2500n990Gm210Gm250 m23Gm25Gm2400m2700m2lOOm210Gm2

(15,071fj2)(53,825fr2)(10,765ft2)

(1,077ft2)

(5,383ft2)(9,689fr2)(1,077 fr2)(538 fr2)(323 ft2)

(538 ft2)

(4,306 ft2)

(7,536ft2)(1,077ft2)(1,077ft2)

11,930m2 (128,426ft2)

SegmentsaredelineatedinTable4. Thesefiguresarecalcu-latedto achieveanaveragecoverof 75% of the potentialwild-ricehabitatbelievedto bepresentin

55

0•~

SanMarcus& ComalSprings& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryp~

eachsegment.Thispercentcoveris typical of that found in healthx~vigorousstandsof ricemonitoredoverthelastseveralyears.

Flowering,fruiting withproductionof viable seed,andseedgerminationin stands,withestablishmentof vigorousjuvenile plants should be docu-mentedto occurin at least 5percentof the standseachyearfor a 5-yearperiod.

Thesecriteria provide somedegreeof assurancethat plantsare successfullycompletingtheirnatural life cycle andopportu-nity for crosspollinationexists.However, thesecriteria cannotensurethat juvenile plants areactuallymaturingandreproduc-ing successfully.Neitherwouldthesecriteria detectsuch prob-lems as late onset of juvenilemortality or sterility. To docu-ment survivorshipandviabilityof plants germinatedfrom seed,it would be necessaryto trackindividual seedlingsto verifythatwild seedlingsproduceviable seed. However, tech-niquesfor this sort of detailedtrackingof individualsof wild-rice within standshavenot yetbeendeveloped.If such tech-niquescan be developedin thecourseof monitoringresearch,documentationthat plantsderived from seedare survivingand reproductivelysuccessfulshould be addedto thedownlistingcriteria.

The estimateddatefor attainingthedownlistingcriteria of Texaswild-rice is 2025.This estimateis basedon a review of therecoverytasksneededandareasonabletime

~din whichtheycouldbeachieved.

RECOVERY CRITERIA

Texas Blind Salamander

Becauseofthe limited distributionof theTexasblind salamander,the potential for fullrecoveryanddelistingis low. However,muchcan bedoneto increasethe chancesof long-termsurvival of this species.The Texasblind sala-manderwill be consideredfor downlisting, fromendangeredto threatened,when the followingconditionshave been achieved:

1. Adequatewater levels in the aquiferareassuredto continuenaturalspringflows,evenin a droughtof record.

2. Adequatewaterquality in theaquiferisassuredto sustainthis species.

3. Captive breedingpopulationsof thisspeciesaremaintainedin such a waythatgeneticintegrity of the speciesissecuredandthereare suitablestocksforreintroductionsor supplementationsshould a catastropheeliminate ordrasticallyreducenumbersin theirnative ecosystem,and reintroductiontechniquesthat are likely to be success-ful havebeendeveloped.

4. All measuresidentified in this plan toremoveor minimize local threatshavebeentaken(e.g., localizedwaterwith-drawals,destructionor pollution oflocal rechargefeaturesand caves, localpollution sources,etc).

5. Healthy, self-sustainingpopulationsofthis speciesexist throughoutthe species’historic rangeandarebeingmaintained,as indicated by the following measures:

• Samplingshould occur at leastoncea yearand includethe useof collection netsover the springoutlets(seeNelson 1993)andbaits(organicmattersuchas

56

SanMarcos& comalSprings& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryPlan

potatopeels)to attractamphi-podsandTrathbuniin thecaves.

• T rathbunishouldbe presentduringthe courseof searcheffortslastingthreeweekseachatthreeor moreof the followingfive locations: Ezell’sCave,RattlesnakeCave,SanMarcosSprings,Primer’sFissure,andtheartesianwell on SWTSVcampus.At leastoneof the threelocationswhereT rathbuniis foundshouldbe atoneof thetwo caveloca-tions.

• Salamanderslessthan3 cm (0.09in.) total lengthshouldmakeupatleast50% of the total sala-manderpopulationfrom samples

Part If

takenin thecaveandartesianwelllocationsandat least90% of thepopulationsampledatthe springlocations.Theseestimatesarebasedon dataobtainedbyLongley(1978)andarebelievedto berepresentativeof healthy,self-sustainingpopulations.

Reclassificationcriteriaarepreliminaryandmayberevisedon the basisof newinformation.Adequateflows for all speciescoveredin thisplanwill beconsideredto bethosegiven in Table2 thatavoid “take” of thelistedanimalsand“damageanddestruction”of theTexaswild-rice,unlessapermithasbeenissuedfor someinciden-tal take. However,in no caseshouldflows thatwouldjeopardizeanyof thelistedspeciesoradverselymodifycritical habitatbeconsideredadequate.NumbersinTable2 maybe modifiedby theServicebasedon new information.

57

SanMarcos& CarnalSprings& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPian

B. STEP-DOWNOUTLINE OFRECOVERYACTIONS

The following outline laysout a planforobtainingtheobjectivesofthisrecoveryplan.Moredetailon specifictasksis givenin SectionC. ThoughtheServiceis responsiblefor develop-ing thisrecoveryplan,it cannotbeimplementedin its entiretywithoutassistancefrom otherstakeholders.Responsiblepartiesto assistinimplementingthetasksin thisplanhavebeenidentifiedin theimplementationschedule(PartIII). Thisplandoesnot commitany“responsibleparry” to carryout aparticularrecoverytaskorexpendfunds.Likewise, the implementationscheduledoesnot precludeor limit othersfromparticipatingin therecoveryof thespeciescoveredin thisplan.

1.0 Specificresearchandinformationneeds

1.1 Identifyindividualandpopulationneedsandhabitatrequirements

1.11 Determinefood habits1.12 Identifydiseasesandparasites1.13 Determinereproductive

parameters1.14 Determinesurvivorship

patterns1.15 Identifyhabitatcharacteristics

andrequirements(includingflow, temperature,andchan-nel conformationrequire-ments,andotherparameters)

1.16 Conduct searchesto locateSanMarcosgambusia

12 Determinethe natureandextentoflocal threats

1.21 Determineimpactsfromtourismenterprisesandrecre-ational useof thesprings,lakes,andriversupon thelistedspecies

1.22 Compileinformationon thecharacteristicsof theSanMarcoswatershed

Part II 58

1.23 Compileinformationon thecharacteristicsof the Comalwatershed

1.24 Compiledatapertainingtopesticideandherbicideuse inthe SanMarcosandComalwatersheds,including drain-age into cavescontainingtheTexasblind salamander

1.25 Identify and determineeffectsof pollutantsfrom pointsourcedischargesandotherdischargeson listed speciesand their habitats

1.26 Assesswaterqualityin theSanMarcosaquaticecosystemanddeterminepossiblesourcesofnegativeimpacts

1.27 Assesswater quality in theComal aquaticecosystemanddeterminepossiblesourcesofnegativeimpacts

1.28 Assessadequacyof existingaquiferwater quality protec-tion provisions

129 Determinenegative impactsby nonnativespeciesanddevelopcontrol mechanismswherenecessary

1.3 Determineaquifer characteristicsandrechargepatternsandzonesthatinfluenceflow from SanMarcosandComalSprings

lA Develop captivebreedingandreintro-duction techniquesfor all species

2.0 Manage,maintain,andenhancethespecies’populationsandhabitatsthroughouttheirpresentandhistoricranges

2.1 Workingwith affectedstakeholders,implementanAquifer ManagementPlanto ensuresufficient habitat(aquiferlevelsandspringflows)are

providedto recoverthefive listedspecies.

2.11 Workingwithstakeholders,developandpromoteacomprehensiveshort andlong-termregionalplanforaquifermanagementthatconsidersall users

2.12 Provide Serviceguidanceandsupportfor the regionalaquifermanagementplanningeffort

2.2 EncourageFederalagenciesto under-takeor activelypromoteconservationactivitiesundersection7(a)(1)of theESA

2.3 DevelopaFederalagencyconservationstrategyin theeventthat task2.11 isnot implementedor is ineffectiveinensuringnecessaryspringflows

2.31 Continueto supportproactiveFederalagencyconservationactions

2.32 Continueto supportprivateproactiveconservationactions

2.33 AggressivelypursueFederalagencycompliancewithobligationsfor informal andformal consultationsundersection7(a)(2) of the Act

2.34 Examinethe potentialeffec-tivenessof StateandFederallegal action, andpreparetoinitiatesuchactionif anemergencyappearsimminent

SanMarcos& CarnalSprings& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPlats

2.5 Implementmeasuresnecessan?toprotectwaterquality in the aquifer

2.6 Encouragemanagementof spring, lake,river, andcavehabitatsby privateindividualsandothers

2.7 Establishand maintain captive stocksat appropriatefacilities

2.8 Reducepollutionloadingsto SanMarcosandComalaquatichabitatsandcaveswithTexasblind salamanders

2.9 Restoredamagedhabitatsandenhancemarginalhabitats

2.10 Control and/orremoveselectnonna-nyc organismsfrom the SanMarcosandComal aquaticecosystems

2.11 Maintainandimplementacontingencyplanto bring speciesinto captiverefugiaif an emergencyexists

2.12 Provideregulatoryprotection

3.0 Monitor populations,habitats,andthreats

3.1 Monitor populationsandhabitars3.2 Monitor threats

4.0 Public informationandeducation

4.1 Produceeducationalmaterialsandinform avarietyof audiences

4.2 Encouragepublicparticipationinconservationefforts

2.4 Developandimplementlocal springandriver managementplans

2.41 DevelopandimplementManagementPlan(s)for theSanMarcossystem

2.42 DevelopandimplementManagementPlan(s)for theComal system

Part II

r

59

SanMarcos& ComalSprings& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoverypj~,,

C. NARRATIVE OUTLINEFOR RECOVERY ACTIONS

1.0 Specificresearchandinformationneeds.

Additional informationanddataareneededto assistin completingcertainrecoveryactions.

1.1 Identifrindividualandpopulationneedsandhabitatrequirements.

Thebiological~physical,andchemicalat-tributesaffectingandinfluencingthesurvivalof thefive protectedspeciescoveredby this planarenotwell understood,althoughefforts towarda greaterunderstandingof theseparametersareamajorthrustof previous,on-going,andplannedre-search.A greatdealof progresshasbeenmadeinseveralof thesetaskareas,andseveraladditionalstudiesarecurrentlyunderway.Thesearedis-cussedin detailundertheGeneralConservationMeasuressectionandundereachspeciesaccount’sConservationMeasuressection.

1.11 Determinefood habits

The food habitsof the fountaindarterandthe SanMarcossalamanderhavebeenexam-ined, and the foodhabitsof theTexasblindsalamanderhave beenobservedin captivity.However, the foodstakenby the SanMarcosgambusiahavenot beendetermined.An examina-tion ofthe food requirementsof thesespeciesshould be made.This researchshould describethe distributionof preferredandhighly desirablefood itemson a seasonalbasis.The availabilityof food items or nutrientsalso shouldbe quanti-fied seasonally.This informationwill be helpfulwhenmanagingthe speciesand/orthe ecosys-tems.

1.12 Identifydiseasesandparasites

Little informationon diseasesandparasitesofthe five listedspeciesis available.Theeffectsoftheseon populationsurvivalcouldbeadverse.Populationsshouldbeperiodicallysurveyedfortheincidenceof diseaseandparasites.If signifi-cant,or potentiallysignificant,additionalwork

will be needed.Impactsandcontrolmechanismsneedto be determinedin advanceof outbreakssothatcorrectivemanagementstrategiesmaybeimplementedif adebilitatingparasiteinfestationor anuncontrolleddiseaseoutbreakoccurs.Conditionsthatmayfosterstressanddiseaseoutbreaksshouldalsobedescribedsothatsuchconditionscanbe avoided.

1.13 Determinereproductiveparam-eters

A studyof the reproductivecycles andpatternsfor the speciesshould be accomplishedto betterunderstandthe natural fecunditiesofthe speciesand factorsinfluencing the numberof offspringeachspeciescan produce.Fromthis informationit maybe possibleto optimizeconditions,therebyimprovingnaturalreproduc-tive ratesof theselistedspecies.This informationwill alsobehelpful in evaluatingrecoverycriteriaandrecoverystatusofpopulations.Work cur-rentlyunderwayexaminingreproductionisdiscussedunderindividual speciesaccounts.

1.14 Determinesurvivorshippatterns

Thefactorsinfluencingthesurvivorshipofeachof the protectedspeciesare inadequatelyunderstood.Informationconcerningsurvivorship is needed,as is information onoptimalconditionsfor enhancingsurvivorshipof thesespecies.Studiesshould include analysesof factorspotentially limiting survival, such aspredation,competition, andwaterquality. Therole of predatorson the survival of the pro-tectedspecieshasnot beenstudiedin detail,althoughfountaindartershavebeenfoundinstomachcontentsoflargemouthbass(Micropterussaimaides)takenduringwintermonths.Addi-tional informationthatmaybe usefulfor foun-taindartersincludesthedensityandtypesofvegetationneededfor (1) survivalof dartersfromvarioustypesof predatorsand(2) preybasefordarters.ForTexaswild-rice thesestudiesshould

Part ii 60

SanMarcos& ComalSprings& AssociardAquatic Eco~vsrctttsRccovcrvPI.IT~

evaluatethe fateof seedsproducedandthealsO 0~seedsin contributingto reproductive1roleIadUltS in the system.Thesestudieswill provide

.frlflation neededformanagingthespeciesandrestorationandreintroductionwork. As our

of thespeciesbiologyandthe

virOfl”~’~ variablesthatinfluencesurvivor-

shipimprove,tools suchaspopulationviabilityanalYSiS(PVA) mayprovideusefulinsightneededfor ~~nagementandplanningpurposes.

1.15 Identify habitat characteristicsandrequirements(includingflow, temperature,andchan-nel conformationrequire-ments,andotherparameters)

Althoughgeneralcharacteristicsof thehabi-

tatsusedby thesespeciesareknown,morespecificinformationis needed.Studiesshouldbeconductedto determinethespecificaspectsoftheenvironmentalparametersinfluencingthesurvivalof thesespeciesto bestmanagethesepopulations.StudiesoftherelationshipbetweeninstreamfeaturesandspecieshabitatareongoingandaredetailedundertheGeneralConservationMea-suressection.

1.16 Conductsearchesto locateSanMarcos gambusia

Individuals of this speciesmust be locatedbefore someother taskscan begin. SanMarcosgambusiahavenot beenlocatedin the SanMarcosRiver for over 10 years.However, a newapproachis proposedconductingdirectedhabitatmanipulation/restoration(asadvocatedundertask2.9) in areaswherethe specieswasformerly found.By recreatingwhat arebelievedto be optimumconditionsit is hopedthatanyexisting individualsmaybe attractedandconcentrated,to increasechancesfor detectionand survival.

1.2 Determinethenatureandextentoflocal threats

Attemptsshouldbe madeto identify thesourceandextentof local threats,sothatsignifi-cantthreatscanbeaddressed.

u

1.21 Determineimpactsfromtourism enterprisesandrecreationaluseof the springs.lakes and rivers upon thelisted species

Useof the SanMarcosRiver by swimmers,tubers,canoeists,andothers is significant and isbelieved to impact listed speciesdirectly andindirectly.Tourism enterprisesmax’ haveirn-pacts from activities related to their operations.Recreationhas increaseddramaticallyover theyears(Bradsby,1994).The ComalRiver is alsoheavily usedfor recreation.The extentof theeffectsof theseuseson the SanMarcos andComal aquaticecosystemsis unknown.How-ever, it is believedthatat leastpartof therepro-ductivedifficulties of theTexaswild-rice stemsdirectlyfrom humanuseof the SanMarcosRivcrfor recreationalactivitiesasemergingseedheadsare knockedoveror damagedby recreationists.Recreationalimpactson theprotectedspecies(eitherdirectlyor throughadverseimpactsto theirhabitats)in theSanMarcosandComalaquaticecosystemsshouldbedeterminedandpotentialmeansto avoid adverseeffectsdeveloped.Thisinformationshouldbeusefulin developingman-agementplansundertask2.4 andin workingwithlandownersandusersas partof task2.6.Workunderwayexaminingtheseimpactsis detailedunderindividual speciesaccounts.

1.22 Compileinformationon thecharacteristicsof the SanMarcos watershed

EventhoughtheSanMarcosecosystemisprincipallyaspringrun,runofffrom thesur-roundingwatershedstrongly influences thewaterquality andbiotaof the river. Conse-quently,knowledgeof the characteristicsof thewatershedis necessaryfor its management.Adescriptionof thewatershedshouldincludethesize,topography,slope,runoffpatterns,soil typesandcharacteristics,landusepatternsandacreages,andclimaticcharacteristics.

(1

N,

SanMarcus& Comai5prings& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryPlai1

1.23 Compileinformationon thecharacteristicsof the Comalwatershed

A descriptionofthe Comalwatershed,similarto thatcalled for in task1.22 forthe SanMarcos,is alsoneeded.

1.24 Compile datapertainingtopesticideandherbicideuseonthe SanMarcosandComalwatersheds,including drain-age into cavescontainingtheTexas blind salamander

Pesticides,herbicides,andother chemicalcompoundscould negativelyimpactthe SanMarcosandComalaquaticecosystems’biota indegreesof severityrangingfrom subtleto cata-strophic. Informationshouldbecompiledpertainingto chemicalrelatedfish or plantkills.The useandpotential impactsof agriculturalandnon-agriculturalherbicidesandpesticidesinthe upperSanMarcosandComalwatershedsshouldbeevaluated,includingattentionto

inagethatmayimpactcaveswith theTexasfind salamander.

1.25 Identify and determineeffectsof pollutantsfrom pointsourcedischargesandotherdischargeson listed speciesand their habitats

Pointsourcedischargesincludewastewaterandstormwateroutfalls, commercialdischarges,parkinglot drainagedischarges,detentionponddischarges.seepagedischargingfrom dumps,etc. Dischargesinto the ComalandSanMarcosRiver systemsmayintroducepollutantsthat areharmful to listedspecies,and may causechangesin the physical characteristicsof depth,flow, andsedimentsthatmaydirectly or indi-rectly alter habitat.For example,recordsshowthe historic rangeof both the fountaindarterandTexas wild-rice extendsbelowthe outfall of

SanMarcoswastewatertreatmentplant..oughit is unclearhowtheyweredistributedin

thisareaor howabundanttheymayhavebeeninthepast,todayfish arenot abundantandwild-

ricehasnot beenfoundrecentlybelowtheoutfall. The city of SanMarcosis consideringexpandingthewastewatertreatmentplant fromthe currentflow of6.25MGD to 9 or 10 MCD.Neededresearchis underwayto determinesomeof theeffectsofthe sewageeffluent.Otherdischargesalsooccurintothe SanMarcosandComalecosystemsandtheseshouldbeevaluatedfortheir impactson thespeciesandtheir habitats.Forexample.theA.E. WoodStateFishHatcheryis currentlyexaminingthe potentialimpactsoftheir operationto listedspeciesin theSanMarcos.

1.26 Assesswater quality in theSan Marcosaquaticecosystemanddeterminepossiblesourcesof negativeimpacts

Key componentsof water quality should besampledatpointsthroughoutthe SanMarcosaquaticecosystem.Information compiled aspart of task 1.22 should assistin determiningsamplingpoints. Samplingshouldalso bedesignedto determinethe sourceof anysignifi-cant negativeimpacts.

1.27 Assesswater quality in theComal aquaticecosystemanddeterminepossible sourcesofnegative impacts

A study similar to that called for in task1.26 for the SanMarcosecosystemshould alsobe conductedin the Comalecosystem.Informa-tion from task 1.23 should be useful in deter-mining samplingpoints.

1.28 Assessadequacyof existingaquiferwater quality protec-tion provisions

A reviewof all aquiferwater quality protec-tion provisionsandan evaluationof theiradequacyshould be conducted.An evaluationof possible sourcesof catastrophiccontamina-tion should also be conducted.This analysisshould identify all potentialsourcespossible,thelikelihood ofthe catastrophe.theextentofecosystemdamagelikely to occur (such as

r

Part II 62

SanMarcos& Coma] Sprinci& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsReces’ervPlan

it would hit - atthespringopenings.

dOwnstream etc.). Provisionsfor protectingagainstboth catastrophicandchronicwaterq’tial itY problemsshouldbeincluded.Recom-mendationsshouldbemadefor anyshortcomingsf0und. preliminarywork doneexaminingthis

theGeneralConservationissueis notedunderMeasuressection.

1.29 Determinenegative impactsby nonnativespeciesanddevelopcontrol mechanismswhere necessary

A relativelylargenumberandvarieryofnonnativespecieshavebeenintroducedintotheSanMarcosandComalaquaticecosystems.Someof theseintroducedspeciesare affectinglisted species;however,the level andsignifi-canceof theseinteractionsareunknowninmany cases.Somenonnativespeciesmay becompetitorsor predatorsor otherwisenega-tively impact the listed speciesthroughhabitatmodificationor otherinfluences.It is importantto understandtheeffect thesenonnativeplantsandanimalsarehaving on the protectedspeciesso that necessaryremedial actionscan bedeterminedand implemented.In addition,informationthat may be useful in developingcontrol strategiesneedsto be obtained.Somelife history information on nonnatives,espe-cially those parameterssuch as critical lifestages,overlapin habitatuse, foods, andotherfactorsthat may affect the survival and recov-ery of listed specieswill needto be collected.Attention should be given to thosenonnarivespeciesmost likely to be impactinglistedspecies,such as the giant ramshornsnail,elephantears, tilapia, andnutria. Emphasisshouldbe placedon developingcontrol tech-niques for thosenonnativespeciesthat poseasignificantthreat.Work currentlyunderwayexaminingimpactsof nnonnativespeciesisdiscussedin the GeneralConservationMea-suressection.

1.3 Determineaquifer characteristicsandrechargepatternsandzonesthatinfluenceflow from SanMarcosandComalSprings

BecausetheSanMarcosandComalaquaticecosystemsare tied intimarelx’ to the flow of theSan MarcosandComal Springs,respectivelx~andthe springsto the EdwardsBalconesFaultZoneaquifer,additionalinformationdetailingthehydrologiccharacteristicsandtrendsof the aquiferisessential.Numerousagencies.includingtheU.S. GeologicalSurvey,EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict, EdwardsAquifer ResearchandDataCenter,TexasNaturalResourceConserva-tion Commission.TexasWaterDevelopmentBoard,U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers,BureauofReclamation,NaturalResourceConservationService,andvariousotherorganizationsandgroups,haveconductedandarecontinuingtoconductinvestigationsinto the functioningoftheaquiferandits watershed,asnotedin the Intro-duction.Additional informationon the function-ing of theaquiferin the SanMarcosandComalregionsandspecificallystudiesthatdealwiththosefactorsthatcaninfluencetheflow from theSanMarcosandComalSpringsareneededtoevaluateanyoftheflow-relatedrecoveryactions.Thisinformationshouldalsobe helpful inevaluatingthepotentialfor contaminationof thesprings.

1.4 Developcaptivebreedingand reintro-duction techniquesfor all species

Captivebreedingandreintroductiontech-niqueshavebeendevelopedfor the fountaindarter. In addition, captivebreedingof variousgambusiaspecieshasbeen successfullyunder-taken;however,no additionalwork on the SanMarcosgambusiawill be possibleuntil thespeciesis found (seetask 1.16). No onehasbeen successfulat captively breedingthe SanMarcossalamander.Texas blind salamandersbreedin captivity readily, thoughthe youngarevery fragile andrequire a good deal of attention(SrreettCoale, DallasAquarium andEdMaruska,CincinnatiZoo, pers. comm.,1995).Additional researchis underwayfor bothofthesespecies.Researchdevelopingmethodsforseedstorage(shortand long-term) is a highpriority for Texaswild-rice as aquaticspeciesareknown to havespecial needsfor tempera-ture,moisture,oxygenation,etc.Thesetechniquesneedto beworkedout as soonas possiblegiven

Part ii 63

p

potentialfor catastrophicallylow flows. Culti-vatedplantsandseedcouldbe usedfor researchpurposes(if theresearchcontributesto the speciesconservation)aswell asreintroducedinto theSanMarcosRiver in carefullychosensites.Thoughworkis underwayto developreintroductiontechniquesfor Texaswild-rice morework isneededto increasechancesofsuccess.Similarly,for theotherspecieswherereintroductiontech-niqueshavenot beendeveloped(salamandersandSanMarcosGambusia)additionalwork isneeded.

2.0 Manage,maintain,andenhancethespecies’populationsandhabitatsthroughouttheirpresentandhistoricranges

Recoveryof thesefive specieswill requireefforts aimedat specific aspectsof eachspecies’biology in conjunctionwith efforts addressingthe continuedneedto maintainhabitatin theEdwardsAquifer andto secureflows from theSanMarcosandComalSprings.Naturalpopula-tions of the Texaswild-rice, San Marcosgambu-sia,andSanMarcossalamanderoccuronly inthe SanMarcosaquaticecosystem.The foun-tain darterinhabitsboth the SanMarcosandComal aquaticecosystems.The fountaindarterpopulationin the ComalRiver is believedtostemfrom a successfulreintroductionof thisspeciesfrom stocksobtainedfrom the SanMarcosRiver after its apparentextirpationfromthe ComalRiver. This populationis giventhefull protectionof the EndangeredSpeciesAct,just as the populationin the SanMarcosis.Both populationsare importantfor the survivalandrecoveryof thefountain darter.For theTexasblind salamander,which lives in theaquifer, accomplishingthe recoveryobjectiveswill focuson maintainingadequatewaterquality andquantity in the aquifer,which is alsoimportantfor the otherfour species.

2.1 Workingwith affectedstakeholders,implementanAquifer ManagementPlanto ensuresufficienthabitats(aquiferlevelsandspringflows)areprovidedto recoverthefive listedspecies.

Partii

SanMarcos& ComalSprings&AssociaredAquaticEcosystemsRecove,~p~

Local, state,andFederalentitiesandthepublic shouldwork togetherto developandimplementaplanthatmaintainsadequatehabi~tats(aquiferlevelsandspringflows)in theEd-wardsAquifer,Comal, andSanMarcosSpringsto sustainnativeplant andanimalpopulationsandprovidesfor humanneeds.Somemechanismformaintainingaquiferlevelssufficientto main-tainessentialto assuresuccessof thisplaninmaintainingadequatespringflows,otherwisealltheeffortsof theinvolvedpartiescould beoffsetbypartieswhochoosenot to participatein theimplementationof the plan.Accomplishmentofthisinitiative will requirethecooperationof allpartieswho havetheability to controlground-waterwithdrawals.Throughcooperationprogresstowardrecoverycanbemadewhile socialandeconomicvaluesof theaquiferarealsoconserved.

TheTexasStateLegislaturehasmadeasignificant contributionto this effort by enactinglegislation(S.B. 1477,as amendedby H.B. 3189in 1995)creatingtheEdwardsAquifer Authority.However,the ability of the EdwardsAquiferAuthority to controlgroundwaterwithdrawalshasbeenlegallychallengedby theMedinaandUvaldeCountyUndergroundWaterDistrict(s),and theresultingdisputehasmadetheprospectsfor Statecontrol of waterwithdrawalsfrom theEdwardsAquiferuncertain.

Until such time that the Service revisesorrefinesthe springflownumbersprovidedto theCourt in the caseof SierraClub vs. SecretaryoftheInterior (No. MO-91-CA-069, U.S.Dist.Ct., W.D. Texas) (see“Threats” andTable I fortheseflows), adequatespringflowsshouldbeconsideredto be thoseabovewhich takeof listedspecieswould occur,unlessa permitis issuedtoallow someincidentaltake.In anycase,flowsshouldbemaintainedabovethe level whereadversemodification of critical habitatwouldoccuror wherejeopardyto the specieswouldresult.

To achievemaximumreliability andmini-mize potential adverseenvironmentalandeconomicimpacts,the plan shouldnot relyheavilyon anysingle strategy.The planshouldbemultifaceted,usingadiversityof techniquesandapproaches.The planmayincludesuchthingsasconservationandreusemeasures,limits ongroundwaterwithdrawal,emergencygroundwater

64

:iofl planswith springflow“trigger

Iundergivenconditions(suchaslowI. .....;r,n),creationof awaterrightsmarket-

changesin deliverysystemsor man-~ practices~useof groundwatermodels,

anddevelopmentofalternativesourcesof water

for humanuse.Stateandloc~entitiesshouldbetheprimary

partiesinvolved in developingthisWaterManage-

rnentPlan,with publicparticipation.However,

50meFederalagenciesalsocontributeto Edwards

Aquiferwaterwithdrawal,directlyor indirectly.jn addition,representativesof Federalagenciescanhelpinsurecompliancewith Federalregulations,andhavevaluabletechnicalexpertiseandre-sourcesto offer. UnderSection7(a)(1)of theESA, Federalagenciesaresupposedto usetheirauthoritiesto furtherthepurposesof theESA,andinvolvementin aplanningeffortofthisnaturewould bean appropriateactivity formanyFederalagencies.

Considerationshouldbegiven, whiledevelopingthis plan, to potentialimpactstoother sensitivespeciesandecosystems,inaddition to thosecoveredby this recoveryplan.Strategiesshouldbe examinedfor implicationsto the long-termprotectionof waterquality intheoverall EdwardsAquifer. Evaluationof effortsto minimizeeconomicandsocialeffectsshouldexaminedistant,indirect,andlong-termimpactsin additionto local, direct,andshort-termimpacts.

211 Working with stakeholders,developandpromoteacomprehensiveshort- andlong-termregionalplan foraquifermanagementthatconsidersall users

Activities neededto protect the habitatforlistedspeciesaresimilar to thoseneededtoprotecthumanneedsfor abundantcleanwater.Local andregional economiesareclosely tied tothe quality andquantityof water available.Thissimilarity of interestsprovidesan opportunitytocreateaproductiveproblem-solvingcoalition toconservethenaturalresourcesneededto ensureaviablefuture both for the biologicalcommunities

SanMarcos& ComalSprings& AssociatedAquaticEcosvsrenssRecoveryPlan

supportingthespeciesof concernandfor thelocalhumancommunity.

LeadersrepresentingdiverseusersoftheEdwardsAquifer shouldwork togetherwithbiological andtechnicalexpertsto developandactivelypromotean aquifer-widemanagementplan.This groupshouldprovide the leadershipnecessaryto helpall waterusersunderstandtheneedto savewaterandmotivateusersto achievethenecessaryreductionsin useof EdwardsAquiferwaters.

The planshould include strategiescapableof achievingsignificant reductionsin groundwa-terusethatcan be implementedquickly andshouldaddressimmediateneeds,as well asshort-termstrategiesthatmaytakelongerto producesignificantresultsbutcanhelpreducedependencyon theaquiferwithin atime-frameandlong-termstrategiesthatprovidepermanentsolutionsandaccommodatefutureplansfor theregion.

Usingadiversityof techniqueswill helptomeetall of theseneeds.Immediatestrategiesmight includecampaignsto reducelandscapewateringandhouseholdwateruseanda carefullystagedemergencyreductionplan tied to aquifer.levels (that is capableof achievingsharpredtionswhennecessary).Short-termstrategiesmight includeretrofitting programsfor existingplumbingandwaterdelivery systems,increasingefficiencyof irrigation equipment,promotionofxeriscaping,developmentof wastewaterreusesystems,wateruseauditsanddesignimprove-mentsfor industrialprocesses,funding programsfor assistanceto presentusersfor water efficiencyimprovements,anddevelopmentof small-scalecatchmentsystemsfor buildings. Long-termsolutionsmight includetechniqueslike revisionsof water marketingsystems,anddevelopmentof multiple alternativewater sources.There areundoubtedlyotherstrategiesthat can be em-ployed as well, and the examplesaboveshouldnot be consideredlimiting.

While long-termstrategiesarebeinginitiatedshortperiodsoflower springflowsmight un-avoidablyoccur. If flow levelsdrop belowtakelevelsan incidentaltakepermitundersectionlG(a)(l)(B) of theESAwould be neededtopermitsomelevel of “take” thatdoesnot jeop~.-dizethespecies.TheAquifer ManagementPlanshouldincludeall provisionsnecessaryto qualify

Partii 65

Sari Marcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAi2iuaric EcosystemsRecove~pj~

for a 10(a)(1)(B) permit, includingprovidingacomprehensivehabitatconservationplan (HCP).Other requirementswill includemeasurestoassurethesuccessfulimplementationoftheplan(suchas, amechanismfor Stateandlocal enforce-mentof groundwateruserestrictions,financialinstruments,managementagreements,etc.).Thecourtmonitorhasbegunwork on preparationofapreliminaryissuesdocument(detailedundertheGeneralConservationMeasuressection).Refine-mentof this documentinto a draft HCP, itsacceptanceby the Service,andgrantingof anincidentaltakepermitwouldprovidesignificantrelief from uncertaintyfor theparticipants.Suchapermitcould limit liability andlegal actionthatmightotherwiseoccurif takeoccursduringtheimplementationofconservationmeasures.

TheAquifer ManagementPlanandanyregionalor locally developedHCPshouldidentify responsiblepartiesandtheir roles.Theplanshouldbe clearabouthow actionscalled forwill be implementedandwhen(for example,under what flow andstorageconditions,weatherpatterns,etc.).

Significant progresstoward developingandimplementinga diverseregionalplanhasbeenmade,but thereis still a needto completeacomprehensiveplanfor assuringadequatespringflows.A teamapproachis neededtocoordinatediverseactivities,shareinformationandresources,andplancooperativelyandcomprehensivelyto developandimplementsolutionsregion-wide.Theworking groupcanbuild on experienceandaccomplishmentstodate to achievebetter cost-effectivenessandmore widespreadbenefits.

Work doneto date (outlinedin the GeneralConservationMeasuressection),such as theCourt Monitor’s emergencyreductionplanandthe attorney-devisedmunicipal wateremergencyreductionplan, providea model for additionalwork. Coordinationandextensionof individualmunicipalitiesefforts to createwaterconserva-tion ordinances,wastewaterre-useplans, and todevelopalternativesourcesofwatercould cost-effectively increasebenefitsfor theentire region.

2.12 ProvideServiceguidanceandsupport for the regional

Part 11

aquifermanagementplanningeffort

TheServiceshouldtakea moreproactiverolein supportof regionalplanningefforts.

Becauseoneof the goals/objectiveslikelyto be includedin aquifer managementis thedevelopmentof an endangeredspeciespermitapplication,the Serviceshould be involvedearlyon in the process.providingguidanceforHCP applicantsfor this region.This guidanceshould assist in developinga successful,multiparty, regionalapplicationwith maximumbenefit.Conservationneedsfor thisareaincludeanumberof complextechnicalproblems.andmoteguidanceis neededthanmightberequiredformostpermits.Thisguidanceshouldindudeexplanationsof thelogisticsofthe process.responsibilitiesoftheapplicants(includingneces-saiyfinancialcommitments),andthetypesofdocumentationthatareneeded.In addition,whileit is nottheresponsibilityoftheServiceto draftthehabitatconservationplansupportingtheapplica-tion for apermit, theServiceshouldprovidesometechnicaldirectionandguidancefor aregionalHCPor otherHCPsto assistin thedevelopmentof an acceptableapplicationpackage.The Serviceshouldprovidedirectionconcerningthe level oftakethatmight beaddressedthroughsuchapermit,areasonabletime-periodforthepermittocover, theelementsthat theServicefeelswouldhaveto beincluded,conservationopportunitiesorstrategiesthatmightbefruitful, issuesthatmustbeaddressed,andsupportinganalysesneededin theplan. In additionapplicantsshouldbeencouragedto initiateinformal discussionswith theServiceasearlyas possiblein the developmentprocesstoachievemaximumefficiency andbenefits.

The Service,working with affected stake-holders,needsto developbetterguidanceaboutreductionin groundwaterusethatwould besufficient to insurethathumanusedoesnotcausespringflowsto fall to levelsthatwouldcompromisethe survival and recoveryof thespeciesof concernor causejeopardy.It is impor-tant to developoperationalcriteria for theshort-term. It is also importantto continueto collectadditional informationso thatmodelscanberefinedandprovidemorereliableanalysesthatwill allow long-termcriteriato be developed.

66

Thereha-s beenconsiderablediversityin10~,inionSon levelsof groundwaterusethat

would preserveneededspringflowsundervariousconditioflS.To provideneededtechnicalguidancesill requirean interagencyteamof biologists,geOlogists~hydrologists.economists,andwaterresourceplanners.Thisgroupshouldexaminebaselineinformationandexistingmodelsand

build uponothereffortsto date(suchasemer-gen~waterreductionplans)to developbetterguidanceon aquiferlevelsneededundervaryingconditionsto supportthesurvival andrecoveryofthespecies.

In addition,theServiceshouldcontinueto giveadviceon potentialdirectandindirectimpactsofproposedconservationactionson fish andwildlife

resources.For example,theremaybe impactstocavespeciesif rechargeenhancementcausesfloodingor scouringof thesecavesor subterra-neanvoids, rechargecould causecontaminationharmful to subterraneanaquaticspecies,usingalternativewatersourcescouldinfluencethemaintenanceof adequatefreshwaterinflows tobaysandestuaries,andthe useofalternativewatersourcesmayimpactspeciesin the riversbetweenthe springsandthe bays(suchas Cagle’smapturtle). Theseconcernsaboutotherdirectandindirect impactsshouldbeaddressed.

TheServiceshouldprovideguidanceandsupportfor water managementplanningeffortsto easethe vulnerability of the Edwardsaquiferresources,as part of ongoing integratedeffortsto assistboth State andFederalwater planningandmanagementagencies.Watermanagementplanningin Texasshouldrequire integratedplanningfor both regional andriver basinefforts(including specific interbasintransferissuesaswell as morewidespreadplanningeffortssuchastheTrans-TexasProgram).Theseevaluationshelpwaterplannersin evaluatingfeasibility ofplans, incorporatingconservationactions,andinminimizingsocialandeconomicimpactsofrecoveryactivities.

Parr II

2.2 EncourageFederalagenciestoundertakeor actively promoteconser-vationactivitiesundersection7(a)(I) ofthe ESA

Sari Marcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAw.stic h osvsserilsRecovers I

Theseconservationactivitiescould taketheform of technicalassistanceor implementationofspecifictasksthatdirectlybenefittheaquiferor itslistedspeciesandtheirhabitats.

All Federalagencies,especiallythosewhoseactivitiesaffect, directlyor i ndirectlv, thequan-tiry or qualityof waterin the EdwardsAquiferandassociatedspringecosystems,shouldtakeactionswithin their authoritiesto conservethelistedspeciesand theecosystemsuponwhich thespeciesdepend.Section7(a)(1) of the ESA saysall Federalagenciesshalluse“their authoritiesinfurtheranceof the purposesof this Act bycarryingout programsfor the conservationofendangeredspeciesandthreatenedspecies...

OtherFederalagenciesmayhavestatutoryauthorityunderlaws otherthanthe ESAthatgive them opportunitiesto assistin theprotec-tion of the listed speciesand their ecosystems.Therearecomplementaryfunctionsin protect-ing humanhealthand in conservinghabitatforlistedspecies,for example.The EPA hasauthor-ity underthe CleanWaterAct, SafeDrinkingWaterAct, FIFRA andCERCLA for actionsthatcanbenefitendangeredspeciesas well as protecthumanhealth.Similarly theDepartmentofAgriculture’s mandatesfor preventingpollutlt~from agriculturalpracticeswould benefitendan-geredspeciessensitiveto suchpollutants.Situa-tions wherethereare authoritiesgrantedto anagencyunderits primarymission thatmayalsobenefit endangeredspeciesshould be consid-eredby theseagenciesin setting up programstobenefit listed species.By working cooperatively.agenciescanensureminimal harmandmaxi-mumpotentialbenefitsfrom theiractivitiesinthe courseof performingtheir dutiesunderboththeir enablinglegislationandthe ESA.

Examplesof Federalagenciesthat couldprovidetechnicalinformationor expertiseincludeUSFWS,USGS,USDA, the U.S.ArmyCorpsof Engineers,the Bureauof Reclamation,and the National Biological Service.Theirassistancecould be invaluablein the conserva-tion planningprocess.Many of theseagencies,andothers,canalso undertakerecoverytaskswith direct benefits.

An exampleofaFederalagencytaking~.

to benefitthe conservationof theecosystemswouldincludetheDepartmentof Defense.San

67

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedA1uaric Ecosystemskecoven’p~

Antonio military basesarecurrentlyimplement-ing awastewaterreusesystemfor landscapewateringandanaggressivecampaignto reducewaterconsumptionin their facilities. Similarly,theDepartmentofAgriculturemightbe able tostimulateandpromoteincreasingtheuseofwaterefficientirrigationequipment.

Agenciestakingbeneficialactionsneedrecognitionandsupport.Agenciesidentified ashaving the potential to take proactiveconserva-tion measuresshouldbe contactedandencour-agedto do so.

2.3 Developa Federalagencyconservationstrategyin theeventthat task2. 11 isnot implementedor is ineffective inensuringnecessaryspringflows.

A cooperativeapproach,with a Stateandlocal plandevelopedprimarily by the primaryaquifer usersis preferableto Federalregulatoryaction. Local users, leadersandagenciesmayhavevaluable backgroundandexpertisethatwill be helpful in developingandimplementinga balanced,long-term solution that achievesconservationobjectivesand minimizessocialandeconomicimpacts.In addition, for suchaplan to be effective, Stateand local enforce-ment of groundwateruselimits shouldbe inplace. Federalagencyrepresentativesshouldcontinueto work with Stateand local managersand regulatorsandsupporttheir efforts. How-ever, if an adequatestateor local solution is notimplemented,Federalagenciesmustdo whattheycan to assurethat springflowsare pro-tected.

2.31 Continueto supportproactiveFederalagencyconservationactions.

Theseare describedin task 2.2.

2.32 Continueto supportprivateproactiveconservationactions.

TheServiceandotherFederalagenciesshouldcontinueto encourageandassistindividualagencies,organizations,municipalities,etc. in

Parr II 68

their efforts to reducegroundwaterwithdrawals.Examplesof this might be communityefforts toreducelandscapewateringandpromotexeriscapelandscaping.developmentofwastewaterreuseplans,andpubliceducationcampaigns.

2.33 AggressivelypursueFederalagencycompliancewithobligationsfor informal andformal consultationsundersection7(a)(2) of the Act

Accordingto section7 of the ESA, Federalagenciesmustinsurethatanyactionthattheyauthorize,fund,or carrv out in the EdwardsAquifer region is notlikely to jeopardizethecontinuedexistenceof any listedspecies.AllFederalagencieshavean obligation to complywith section7(a)(2) requirementsof the ESAandshouldinitiate consultationwith theSer-vice for all actionsthat mayaffect listed spe-cies.

The Serviceshould continueto follow upon notificationstheyhave provided to Federalagencieswhoseactionsmaydirectly or indi-rectly impactthe survival of the listed speciesor adverselyaffect their critical habitat.

If no adequateandenforceableAquiferManagementPlanis developedby Stateandlocalentities(task 2. 1), theseFederalagenciesmayultimately haveto withhold permits or funds foractionslikely to jeopardizethe species.Thepoint atwhich anypermits or funds mayhaveto bewithheld or modifiedwould be deter-minedby theseFederalagenciesduring inter-agencysection7 consultations,with the issu-anceof a biological opinion pursuantto section7(b).

2.34 Examinethepotentialeffec-tivenessof StateandFederallegal action, andpreparetoinitiate suchaction if anemergencyappearsimminent

The StatecreatedtheEdwardsAquiferAuthority to regulateandenforcegroundwateruseof theEdwardsAquifer region.Dueto thecurrent Statelitigation over the EAA, it is notknownwhenthe EAA mayfunction. State

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryPlan

rovedgroundwaterdistrictshavethe authorityaP~egulateandenforcegroundwateruselimits

I~~~cludingtakingappropriatelegal action)(Ellis,i995~ The Serviceshouldbepreparedto supportState~regional.or local authoritieswho mayinitiate legalactionif necessaryandobtaininjunc-

cion~againstwaterusersto preventspringflowsfroni falling to levelsthatwould jeopardizethespecies.Becauseof the time it would takefor theaquiferto respondto cutbacks,theseinjunctionswouldhaveto be in placefar enoughin advance~oguaranteecurtailmentof groundwaterusein

rime to preventjeopardy.Considerationshouldbe givento filing injunctionswhen“take” levelsarereached,unlessit’s determinedthatthis is not

soonenoughto preventjeopardy.CurrentServiceestimatesshouldbeusedfor takeandjeopardylevels(Table2).

2.4 Developand implementlocal springand river managementplans

Work with specific cities and towns, their

local landowners,and/or the local generalpublic to developplans. includingmanagementguidelines.Theseplans shouldincorporatebothgeneraland site-specificmanagementguidancefor restoring,protecting.andmaintainingthehealth of the local ecosystemsfor the listedspeciesand addressinglocal threatsto thespecies.Plansshould also include the lakes atthe headwatersof both the SanMarcosandComal rivers andexaminerechargeand cavefeaturesin the areathat may be significant forsubterraneanspecies.Maintaining the healthoftheseecosystemsalso promotesthe healthandwell-beingof the local communitysince it

maintainswater quality for humanusesas well.Plansshould addresspotential problemslikerecreationalactivitiesand their impacts,pointandnon-pointsourcepollution. nonnativespecies.siltation, silt or gravel removal,andvegetationmanagement.Plan objectivesshouldbe to avoid impactswheneverpossible.orminimize them to an insignificant level. Work-ing cooperativelywith land managers.ap-proachescan bedevelopedthatminimize socialandeconomiccosts for usersandmanagersandpreservesustainablesocial andeconomicbenefitsfrom theresource.Plansshouldinclude

guidancewhereverpossibleon howlocalentitiescanconducttheirdesiredactivities(suchasvegetationcontrol,sedimentremoval,bankstabilization,recreation,etc.)without negativelyimpactinglistedspecies.ln somecasesfundingassistancemaybe availablefor managementprojectsthatresultin an improvementof habitatfor thespeciesof concern.

2.41 Developand implementManagementPlan(s) for theSan Marcossystem

Develop and implementa plan. as describedunder2.4, for theSanMarcosSpringsandRiverandSpringLake. This taskmayentail develop-ing separateplans for differentpartsof thesystemdueto multiple landowners.Guidelinesdevelopedfor the planmight include (but arenor limited to) issuesthat needto be addressedlike useof the SanMarcosRiver byrecrearionists,aquaticplant management,control of nonnativespecies.bank stabilization,litter control, point sourcedischarges.etc.Guidanceshould be developedto protect thelisted speciesandtheir habitatfrom uninten-tional harm by the public. Hopefully, publiccooperationwill aid in conservationof thesespeciesandthe public will not be inordinatelyrestrictedin their useof the aquaticecosystems.

Examplesof areaswhere developingman-agementguidelinesto protect the specieswouldbe helpful include aquaticplant managementinSpring Lake, wherevegetationcutting. controland removal needsto be plannedin a way thatis compatiblewith the needsof fountain dartersandSanMarcossalamanders,as well asTexaswild-rice. Similarly, managementtechniquesmight be developedto protectthe speciesandtheir habitatsfrom impactsfrom recreationists(e.g.. tubers,canoeists,swimmers,andfisher-men). Methodsto manageimpactsto streamsideareasandsensitivezonesin theriver maybedevelopedto protectfountaindartersandwild-rice. lr maybe possibleto re-routerecrearioniststo avoidimpactsin certainareas/sectionsoftheSanMarcosRiverduringcritical or sensitiveperiodsin thelife historyof thesespecies.

69

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryp~

A projectundertakenby Dr. GlennLongley(SWTSU)undertheSection6 Programtodevelopmanagementrecommendationsshouldprovidesomeusefulinformationto assistinaccomplishingthistask.The ciry of SanMarcosandSouthwestTexasStateUniversityareexplor-ing a partnershipto developa detailedmanage-mentplan.The Lions Club (ownersof amajortuberental operation)and the Servicehaveinitiated discussionexaminingpossiblerecre-ationalimpactsby tubersandmanagementoptions.

2.42 DevelopandimplementManagementPlan(s) for theComal system.

Developandimplementa plan,similar tothat describedunder2.41, for the ComalSpringsandRiver andLandaLake. This mayentail developingseparateplans for differentpartsof the systemdueto multiple landowners.Work on this taskwas initiated in 1995 througha partnershipinvolving the city of New-~Braunfels, the Service,the National Fish andWildlife Foundation,the GuadalupeBlancoRiver Authority, the Lower ColoradoRiverAuthority, New Braunfels Utilities, andtheNatureConservancyto developa managementplanfor the public areasof the Comal system.

2.5 Implementmeasuresnecessarytoprotectwaterquality in the aquifer

Basedin part on informationobtainedintask 1.28, as well as anyotheravailableinfor-mation, measuresshould be implementedtoprotectwaterquality in the aquifer.A prelimi-naryassessmentof adequacyof existing regula-tions to protectthe aquiferanda preliminaryexaminationof contaminationin the SanAntonio areahavebeendone,andboth includerecommendationsfor improvement,as dis-cussedin the GeneralConservationMeasuressection.This work should be expanded.Inaddition, river basinsoutsidethe SanMarcosandComalcontributerechargewatersto theEdwardsAquifer. Whiletheseareasarepredomi-nantly ruralatpresent,anevaluationshouldbe

Part ii 70

madeto determineif thereis aneedfor site-specificmanagementplansto reducepotentialwaterqualityconcernsfor thesesystemsaswell.

2.6 Encouragemanagementof spring,lakeriver, andcavehabitatsbyprivateindividualsandothers.

Throughownershipof adjacentlands,earlywaterrights agreements,andotherlegal agree-mentsthe SanMarcosandComalecosystemshaveamixtureofpublicandprivateownershipandinfluence.Many privateowners,exercisinggood stewardship,can help preservethe SanMarcosandComal aquaticecosystems.Ifuninformed,however,serious negative impactscould result, often unintentionally. Landownerswith rechargefeatures,cave habitats,shorelineproperties,etc. should be encouragedto preventpollution, destruction,or other adversemodifi-cationsof thesefeatures.A programshould bedevelopedto provide information and assis-tance,anddevelopa cooperativeeffort withlandownersandothersto ensurethe integrity oftheseecosystems.Efforts should also be madeto gainthe cooperationof recreationalusersofthe SanMarcosandComal aquaticecosystemssincetheyhavea large influenceon the biota ofthe ecosystems.

2.7 Establishand maintain captivestocksat appropriatefacilities

Becauseof the limited rangeof the listedspecies,a catastrophecould be disastrousforeachof them. Geneticallyrepresentativecap-tive stocksof eachspecies(including candi-dateswherefeasible) should be kept in at leasttwo facilities. Protocolshould be developedformaintainingthesestocksin such a way thattherewould besuitablestock for reintroductionor supplementationsif needed.This wouldentail careful attentionto the geneticmake-upof the captivestock, control of diseaseincaptivity, etc.

2.8 Reducepollution loadingsto SanMarcosandComalaquatichabitatsand caveswith Texas blind sala-manders

__________________ ______

r

Waterqualitycontinuesto beaconcernin thesandComalRiversdueto urbanization

SanMarcoifl the 5~~toundingareas.Catastrophicsingle~~cidents aschronicandpersistentpollution

areincreasinglylikely to occur.These

mustbe minimizedto increasethechancesof long-termsurvival ofthe listedspecies.Forexample,~eWmeansofhandlingwastewarer,stormwaterandstreetrunoff(especiallyfrom IH-35 bridgesinSanMarcos),andotherpollutantsourcesmaybeneed~d.Railroadcrossingsposeathreatto waterqualitY from catastrophicandsmallspills. and

currentefforts in the city of SanMarcosto rerouterail traffic shouldbesupported.In SanMarcos,stormwaterrunoffandoccasionalspillsofsewagefrom boththewastewatertreatmentplantandfrom leakycollectionsystemscurrentlyaredis-chargedinto the SanMarcosRiver. As thecityhasbecomeincreasinglyurbanized,theseprob-lemshaveincreasedin frequencyandseverity.Informationgainedfrom tasks1.22, 1.23, 1.24,1.25, 1.26,1.27,and1.28 shouldbeusefulincarryingout thistask.

2.9 Restoredamagedhabitatsanden-hancemarginal habitats

To enhancethe species’ populationsandhabitatsandto accomplishthe goal of maintain-ing the speciesthroughouttheir historic rangewill require somerestorationof damagedhabitatsand improvementof marginalhabitats.For example, for Texaswild-rice the areafromSpringLake to Rio Vista damprovidesthelargestamountof potential habitat,thoughsignificantpotential habitatexists below thedam as well andthereis even a smallamount(about 100 m

2 or 1076.5 fr2) of potentialhabitatat presentbelow the SanMarcoswastewatertreatmentplant. For the SanMarcosgambusiarestorationof the shadedbut opensubstratehabitatof the SanMarcosRiver downstreamfrom the IH-35 crossingof the river shouldbeattempted.For the fountaindarter,amongotherareas,thepotentialfor restorationandenhance-mentof habitatdownstreamof the SanMarcoswastewarertreatmentplant should be evalu-ated.

.‘ian Marcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquati~ E..osssteiui.Re~cs’erv I

2.10 Controland/orremoveselectnonna-rive organismsfrom the SanMarcosandComal aquaticecosystems

Nonnativeorganisms.with their actualandpotentialeffectson thelistedspecies,arenot anatural influenceon the listed speciesor theirecosystem(s).A programof selective removaland/orother control mechanisms,basedoninformationgainedin 1.29 andanyotheravailableinformation,shouldbe initiated toinsurethatimpactsto thelistedspeciesfrom thesenonnativesareremovedor reducedto an insignifi-cantlevel. Efforts to reducethelikelihood offurtherplantor animalintroductionsshouldalsobemade.

Low flow conditionsmayprovide an oppor-tunity for controlof somennonnativespeciesmoreeasilyor effectively,especiallyif non-destructivetechniquescan be developed.Atlow flows nonnativespeciesmay be moreexposedandconcentratedandeasierto elimi-nate, andsomenonnativespeciesare believedto havetheir greatestdetrimental impactsduring low flows. However, this is also the timethat anyremainingindividualsof listedspeciwill be moststressedandvulnerable.A fullevaluationof potential adverseimpactsto thephysicaland biological constituentsof thesystemwould needto be donebefore proceed-ing with control of nonnativesduring low flowconditions.This is neededto ensurethat listedspeciesare not harmedand that systemrecov-ery is nor impaired.delayed,or precluded.

2.11 Maintainandimplementacontingencyplanto bring speciesinto captiverefugiaif anemergencyexists

A contingencyplanwas developedfor remov-ing additionalindividualsof listedspeciesformaintenanceandcaptivepropagation.Thecontingencyplanis currentlybeingrevised,andwill includeall of thelistedspeciesaswell as someotheruniqueor rarespeciesofconcern.Thegoalof theplanis to providesecure,geneticallyrepresentativematerialofwild populations.Trevisedplanincludessomeproactivemeasuressubterraneanspecieswhereactionmustbeiniti-atedbeforeflows fall. Thisplanshouldbeconsid-

Part H 71

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecovey~

ereda last-ditcheffort, to preventextinctionofthespeciesandprovidematerialforrestorationefforts.At present,for somespeciesour ability to

~cessfullyrestorepopulationsto the systemcaptivematerialis limited becausereliable

captivebreedingandreintroductiontechniquesarenotyet workedout.Thecontingencyplanandcaptivepropagationcannotprovidefor therecoveryof thespeciesasdirectedundertheESA.While captivepropagationmayprovideforsurvival ofspeciesin theshort-term,it doesnotmeetthe full purposeof the ESA,which is toprotecttheecosystemuponwhich thesespeciesdepend.This planshouldbe updatedas neededandincorporatethelatestinformationon genet-ics, diseasecontrol,andotherfactorsrelatedtocaptivepropagationfor reintroductionpurposes.The planshould clearlyidentify who will dowhat, when,andhow.

2.12 Provide regulatoryprotection

The protectiveprovisionsin theEndan-geredSpeciesAct and regulationsshould bee.a~forced,as well as anyother regulatoryprotec-

provisions,including Stateand local ones.a rovisions in the ESA include “take” prohibi-tions, amongothers.Enforcementof theseprovisions involves such things as section 7consultationswith Federalagencies;and reviewof section 10 permit applications~performance,andcompliance;andFish andWildlife Servicelaw enforcement.

Accordingto section7 of theESA, Federalagenciesmustinsurethatanyaction theyauthorize,fund,or carryout in theEdwardsAquifer region is not likely to jeopardizethecontinuedexistenceof anylisted species.Thus,to ensuretheir actionsdo not causejeopardytheseFederalagenciesmay ultimately havetodecidewhetherto withhold permitsor fundsforactions likely to jeopardizethe species,if noadequateandenforceableAquiferManagementPlan is developed(seetask 2.33). If an effectiveAquifer ManagementPlanis implemented,thiscould enablecontinuationof Federalactivities

tout jeopardizingthe continuedexistenceofspecies.Thepointatwhichanypermitsor

fundsmayhaveto be withheld, or otheractionsneedto betaken,will bedeterminedby these

Part II

Federalagenciesduringinteragencysection7consultations.

Regulatoryagenciesand law enforcementdivisionsshouldbeprovidedwith currentinformationconcerningtheidentificationandecologicalrequirementsof eachof the speciessothatnegativeimpactsto thesespeciesfromindividualsor projectscan be identifiedandabated.

3.0 Monitorpopulations,habitats,andthreats

To assesstrendsin populationdynamicsofthe five listed speciesand to assessthe effec-tivenessof recoveryactions,eachof the fivespeciesandtheirhabitatsshould be monitoredand theirdistributionandpopulationscensusedon a regularbasis.Noneof thesespeciesisexpectedto be delistedin the foreseeablefuture.Therefore,to protectthe speciesfrom an irre-versibledecline,monitoringefforts for threatsandthespecies’ habitats,shouldalso be under-taken.

3.1 Monitor populationsandhabitats

Becauseeachspeciesis uniquewith its ownparticularsetof populationparameters,thespecific protocol involving eachspeciesshouldbe uniqueto theparticularpopulationin ques-tion. Populationsof the SanMarcosgambusianeedto be locatedbefore theycan be moni-tored (seeTask 1.16). Texaswild-rice, SanMarcossalamander,Texasblind salamander,andfountaindarter(both in SanMarcosandComal)shouldbe monitoredat least annually.More specific informationon samplingproce-duresis containedin PartII.A. in the discus-sionson recovery criteria.As recovery actionsproceedandmore dataare acquired,theserecommendedschedulesmaybe modified. Inmonitoringeachspecies,appropriatemethodsshouldbe usedto minimize interference.This isespeciallyimportantwith regardto the SanMarcosgambusia,as this speciesis critically indangerof extinction,if it still exists.

3.2 Monitor threats

1~

I

72

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic Ecosvsten,sRecovery11w

This taskshouldincludesuchthingsas

monitoringaquifer levelsandspringflows,waterquality~ andconditionof thespecies’habitat(suchasvegetationandsubstrate),as necessaryto detectthreatsbeforetheyresultin significantand/orpotentiallyirreversibleimpactsto thespecies.Otherthreatsalsoneedto bemonitored,andmayincludesuchthingsas nutriagiantramshornsnail,andtilapiapopulations,levelsof recreationaluseincertainareas,amountandareasof runoffimpacts,andsiltation.Monitoringofthepopulationsandhabitatsconductedaspartof task3. ~ mayalsoserveasan alertto threatsaffecting thespeciesandtheir ecosystems.

4.0 Public informationandeducation

It is imperativethatthepublicbecomeawareofandsensitiveto the needto protecttheseuniqueandfragileaquaticsystems,andtheproblemsassociatedwith ensuringthesurvivaloftheEdwardsAquifer andtheSanMarcosandComalaquaticecosystemsandtheiruniquefloraandfauna.Meansshouldbe developedto informthepublicandto gatherpublicsupportforprotectingtheseendangeredandthreatenedspeciesandtheirecosystems.Materialsproducedfor thisobjectiveshouldbedirectedtowardIncreasingthepublic’s generalawarenessof thelistedspeciesandtheirplight, actionsthatwouldresultin their conservation,andthehumanbenefitsandcostsofprotectingor not protectingtheecosystemsuponwhichthesespeciesdepend.Thesocialandeconomicbenefitsof goodstew-ardshipshouldbeillustrated.Attentionshouldbegivento thebig pictureandshowingtheinterre-latednessof thespringsystemsto everythingfromthecontributingzoneof theEdwardsAquifer, tothequalityof local drinkingwater, to thecontin-uedsupportof economiesdependenton theseriver systems,andto the baysandestuariesdownstream.

4.1 Produceeducationalmaterialsandinform a variety of audiences

A varietyof approachesshouldbe used,(includingmulti-media)so thatall segmentsandagegroupsof thepublicareawareof andin-formedof themessagediscussedunder4.0.

Part II

Audiencestargetedshouldincludepolicy makers,as well as schoolchildren.Informationshouldbeincludedon what’s neededfor speciesconserva-non,includingmajoractionslike groundwaterpumpinglimits, as well as thosethingsindividuals can do themselves(like conservingwaterandnot releasingnonnarivespeciesinto thesystems).Economicandsocialconsequencesoffailing toprotecttheaquiferandits speciesshouldbeincluded.Projectsto achievethismight includefactualbriefingmaterialsfor public policy makersandregulators,informationpacketsfor teachers,informationkiosksforrecreanionists,brochures,museumandaquariumdisplaysandinterpretivematerialsaboutthespeciesandtheir vulnerabilirx’.etc.Live displaysof thespeciesareveryeffectiveandshouldbeallowedif it is determinedthattheywill beprovidinginformationto asignifi-cantaudience,andwill beproperlycaredfor. Livedisplaymaterialshouldcomefrom propagatedstockswhereverpossible,but collection from thewild might bepermissibleif collectionof afewindividualswill not do unacceptableharmto thespeciesin thewild.

4.2 Encouragepublic participationinconservationefforts

Forconservationof thelistedspeciesto occur,thepublic mustbeinvolvedin recoveryactivities.Supportprogramsfor environmentallysensitiveactivitiesassociatedwith theEdwardsAquifer andtheSanMarcosandComalaquaticecosystemsneedto bedevelopedand/orcontinued.Thesecouldbe of the form of “Aquifer/River Aware-ness”eventsspecificallydesignedto enhancethepublic’sawarenessandempathytowardtheconservationneedsof thespeciesandtheirecosys-tems.A citizens’ committeecouldbeestablishedto coordinatelocal efforts,provideinputanddirectcitizen attemptsin fosteringawarenessfortheuniquenessof theseaquaticecosystems.Inaddition,thepublic mayalsobeinvitedtoparticipateon ImplementationPlanningTeamstoidentifyspecificwaysto accomplishcertainsignificantrecoverytasks,whileminimizingeconomicandsocialcosts.The planscalledfctask2.4 mayalsobegoodvehiclesfor participdnonoflocal landownersandotherinterestedparties.

73

‘1SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPlai,

D. REFERENCES CITED

cridge,RE. andP.1. Fonteyn.1981.Naturalizationof Colocasiaesculenta(Araceae)in the San MarcosRiver, Texas.S.W Nat.26(2):210.

Armour, C.L. 1991.Guidanceforevaluatingandrecommendingtemperatureregimesto protectfish. InstreamFlow InformationPaper.USFWSBiological Report.90(22) l.3pp.

Bailey, RM., andWA. Gosline.1955.Variationandsystematicsignificanceofvertebralcountsin theAmericanfishesofthefamilyPercidae.Misc. Publ.Mus.Zool. Univ. Mich. No. 93. 44

pp.Baker, J.K. 1957.Euiyreatroglodytes:a newblind

salamanderfrom Texas.TexasJ.Sci. 9(3): 328-336.

Baker,J.K. 1961.Distributionof andkeyto theneotenicEuryceaof Texas.S.W Nat. 6(1):27-32.

Ball, J.,W Brown, andR Kuehne.1952.LandaParkLakeis renovated.TexasGameandFish10:8-10.

Jeaty,H.E. 1972.ZizaniatexanaHitchc. (Texaswild-rice): A Rareandendangeredspecies.Unpublishedmanuscript.BaylorUniv., Waco,Texas. 31 pp.

Beary, H.E. 1 975. Texaswild-rice. TexasHorticulturist2(1): 9-11.

Beary, H.E. 1976.TransplantingZizania texana(Texaswild-rice) in Bell County,Texas.Unpublishedreport. Baylor Univ., Waco,Texas.

Berkhouse,C. andJ. Fries. 1995. The criticalthermalmaximumof SanMarcossalamanders.National Biological ServiceInformation Bulletin No 46. 2 pp.

Bishop,S.C. 1941.Noteson salamanderswithdescriptionsof several new forms. 0cc. Pap.Mus. Zool., Univ. Mich., No. 45 1:6-9.

Bishop.S.C.1943. Handbookof salamanders.ComstockPubI. Co., Ithaca, NewYork. xiv +

555 pp.Blackburn,D., T.M. TaylorandD.L. Sutton.

1971 . Temperaturetoleranceandnecessarystockingratesof Marisacornuarietisfor aquaticweedcontrol.Proc.EuropeanWeedRes.

Part Ii 74

Council Int.: Symposiumon aquaticweeds.3:79-85.

Bogart,J.P 1967.Life history andchromosomesof some of the neotenicsalamandersof theEdward’s Plateau.M.A. Thesis. University ofTexasat Austin, Texas.79 pp.

Bradsby,D.D. 1994. A recreationalusesurveyofthe San MarcosRiver. M.S. thesis,SouthwestTexasStateUniversity. San Marcos,Texas. 82

pp.Brandt,T.M., J. Schulse,andD.M. Schleser.

1993.Laboratoryculture of the SanMarcossalamander,Euiyceanana. InterimReport.October 1993.

Brown, WH. 1954. The Texasdwarf neotenicsalamander.Aquarist(San Antonio AquariumSociety) 3(3):85-89.

Brown, B.C. 1967.Euryceanana.CatalogueofAmericanAmphibiansandReptiles,p. 35.

BruneG. 1981.SpringsofTexas.Vol. 1. Branch-Smith, Inc., FortWorth, TX 566 pp.

Burr,B.M. 1978.Systematicsofthe percidfishesofthe subgenusMicroperca,genusEtheostoma.Bull. AlabamaMus. Nat. Hist. 4:1-53.

Burt, WH. andR.P. Grossenheider.1964.AField Guideto theMammals.HoughtonMifflinCompany,Boston.

Chippindale,PT. andD.M. Hillis andA. Price.1992. CentralTexassalamanderstudies.Section6 Interim Report.U.S. FishandWildlife Service,Austin, Texas.

Chippindale,PT., D.M. Hillis andA.H. Price.1992. CentralTexas neotenicsalamanders(Eu?yceaand Typhiomolge):Taxonomicstatus,relationships.andgeneticdifferentiation.Section6 Interim Report. U.S. FishandWildlife Service,Austin, Texas.

Chippindale,PT., D.M. Hillis, andA.H. Price.1993. CentralTexassalamanderstudies.DraftSection6 Reportsubmittedto U.S. Fish andWildlife Service,Austin, Texas.

Chippindale,PT., D.M. 1-lillis andA.H. Price.1994.Relationships,status,anddistributionofcentralTexashemidacrylineplethodontidsalamanders(Euryceaand Typhlomolge).FinalSection6 Report,July 1994.

4

r

L

SanMarcos& Coma] 5Pt~~~5& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryPlan

Colleffe~ B.B. 1962.The swampdartersof thesubgenusHololepis(Pisces,Percidae).Tulane

Stud.Zool. 9:115-211.Collette, B.B. 1965. Systematicsignificanceof

breedingtuberclesin fishesof the familypercidae.Proc. U.S. NatI. Mus. 117:567-614.

Collette,B.B., andP. Banarescu.1977.Systematicsandzoogeographyof the fishesof the family Percidae.J. Fish. Res. BoardCan.34:1450-1463.

Collette,B.B., andL.W Knapp. 1966.Catalogof type specimensof the darters(Pisces,Percidae,Etheostomatini).Proc. U.S. Natl.Mus. 119:1-88.

Correll,D.S.andH.B. Correll. 1975.Aquaticandwetlandplants of the southwesternUnited States.StanfordPress,California.

Crowe,J.C. 1994. Detailedhydrogeologicmapsof the ComalandSanIviarcosRiversforendangeredspecieshabitatdefinition,Texas.M.S. thesis,TheUniversityofTexasatAustin,154 pp.

Distler, D.A. 1968.Distribution andvariationof Etheostomaspectabile(Agassiz) (Percidae,Teleostei).Univ. Kans. Sci. Bull. 48:143-208.

Dote,WE. 1969.Wild-rice. Can. Dept. Agric.PubI. 1393. 84 pp.

Dowden,D.L. 1968. Populationdynamicsofthe SanMarcosSalamander,Eu~yceanana.M.A. Thesis, SouthwestTexas StateUniversity, San Marcos,Texas. 44 pp.

Edwards,R.J. 1976. Relativeand seasonalabundancesof the fish faunain an urbancreekecosystem.M.A. Thesis,Univ. of TexasatAustin, Texas. 84 pp.

Edwards,RJ.,E. Marsh,andC. Hubbs. 1980.The statusof the SanMarcosgambusia,Gambusiageorgei.U.S. FishandWildlifeServiceEndangeredSpeciesReport9. 34 pp.

EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict. 1989.Compilationof hydrologicdatafor theEdwardsAquifer,SanAntonio area,Texas,1988,with 1934-88summary:Bulletin 48,157 pp.

EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict. 1991.Compilationof hydrologicdatafor theEdwardsAquifer, SanAntonio area,Texas,1990,with a 1934-90summary.EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict Bulletin 50,December1991, 169 pp.

Part ii

EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict. I 992a.Reportof the technical datarevie~’ panelonthe water resourcesof the south centralTexasregion.307 pp.

EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict 1992blnvestigarionof the fresh/salinewaterinterfacein the EdwardsAquifer in NewBraunfelsand San Marcos,Texas.Report92..02. 18 pp.

EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrict. 1993.

Urban Developmenton the EdwardsAquiferRechargeZone. Report93-09. 40 pp.

Ellis, G.M. 1995.The Law GoverningWaterDistricts, Chapter49, WaterCode.TexasWaterLaw Conference.November30 &December1, 1995.austin, Texas.

Emery, WH.P. 1967.The declineandthreatenedextinction of Texaswild-rice(ZizaniatexanaHitchc.).S.W. Nat. 12:203-204.

Emery,WH.P 1977.CurrentstatusofTexaswild-rice. S.W. Nat. 22:393-394.

Emery,WH.P.andM.N. Guy. 1979.ReproductionandembryodevelopmentinTexaswild-rice (ZizaniarexanaHitchc.) Bull.TorreyBot. Club. 106:29-31.

Evermann,B.W andWC. Kendall. 1894.Fishesof Texasand the Rio Grandebasin,consideredchiefly with referenceto theirgeographicdistribution.Bull. U.S. FishComm.for 1892:p. 57-126.

George,WO., S.D.Breeding,andW H.Hastings.1952.Geologyandgroundwaterresourcesof Comal County,Texas.U.S. Geol.SurveyWater SupplyPaper 1138.

Gilbert,C.H. 1887.Descriptionsof new andlittle knownetheostomatoids.Proc.U.S. Nat.Mus. 10:47-64.

GreaterSanMarcos Economic DevelopmentCouncil. 1994.SanMarcos:An economicanddemographicprofile. January1994.6 pp.

Gregory,RL. andM.L.A. Goff. 1993.NewBraunfels,Comal County,Texas.A pictoralhistory. RogerNuhn, Editor.TheDonningCompany,Publishers.192pp.

Guadalupe- Blanco River Authority. 1988.TheEdwardsAquifer: UndergroundRiver ofTexas.63 pp.

Guyton,WF. andAssociates.1979.Geohydrologyof Comal,SanMarcos,and

75

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& Associ~teJAquaric EcosystemsRecoveryP1ai

HuecoSprings.Tex. Dept. WaterRes. Rep.234. 85 pp.

Hitchcock,A.S. 1933. New speciesandnewnamesof grassesfrom Texas.Jour. Wash.Acad. Sci. 23:449-456.

Hitchcock,A.S. 1950.Manual of the grassesofthe UnitedStates.GovernmentPrintingOffice,Washington,DC.

Home, F.R.,T.L. Arsuffi, andRW Neck. 1992.Recentintroduction andpotential botanicalimpactof the giant rams-hornsnail,Marisacornuarietis(Pilidac) in the ComalSpringsEcosystemof CentralTexas. S.W. Nat.,37:194-214.

Hubbs,C. 1954.Correcteddistributionalrecordsfor Texasfresh-waterfishes.Tex. J.Sci. 6:277-291.

Hubbs,C. 1957.DistributionalpatternsofTexasfresh-waterfishes.S.W Nat. 2:89-104.

Hubbs,C. 1958. Fertilityof F1 hybridsbetweenthe percidfishes.EtheostomaspectabileandE.lepidum.Copeia1958:57-59.

Hubbs,C. 1959.Laboratoryhybridcombinationsamongetheostomatinefishes.Tex. J. Sci. 11:49-56.

lubbs,C. 1967.Geographicvariationsinsurvival of hybrids betweenetheostomatinefishes. Bull. Tex. Mem. Mus. No. 13. 72 pp.

Hubbs,C., andC.M. Laritz. 1961.Occurrenceof a natural intergenericerheosromarinefishhybrid. copeia196:231-232.

Hubbs,C., RA. Kuehne,andJ.C.Ball. 1953.The fishesof the upper GuadalupeRiver,Texas.Tex. J. Sci. 5:216-244.

Hubbs,C. andA.E. Peden.1969. Gambusiageorgeisp. nov. from SanMarcos,Texas.Gopeia1969 (2):357-364.

Hubbs,C. andV.G. Springer.1957.A revisionofthe Gambusianobilisspeciesgroup,withdescriptionsof threenew species,and noteson their variation, ecology,andevolution.TexasJ. Sci. 9:279-327.

Hubbs,C.,J.M. Stevenson,andA.E. Peden.1968.Fecundityandeggsize in two centralTexasdarterpopulations.S.W Natur. 13:3Gb324.

‘iubbs, C. andK. Strawn.1957a.Relativevariability of hybridsbetweenthedartersEtheostomaspecrabileandPercinacaprodes.Evolution 11:1-10.

Part II

Hubbs,C. andK. Strawn. I 957b.The effectsoflight andtemperatureon the fecundirvof thegreenthroatdarter,Etheosromalepidum.Ecology 38:596-602.

Hubbs,C. andK. Strawn. 1957c. Survival ofFhybrids betweenfishesof the subfamilyEtheosrominae.J. Exp. Zool. 134:33-62.

Jordan,D.S.andB.W. Evermann.1896.Thefishesof North andMiddle America: adescriptivecatalogueof the speciesof fish-like vertebratesfound in the watersof NorthAmerica, north of the Isthmusof Panama.Bull. U.S. Nat.Mus. 47:1-1240.

Jordan,D.S.andB.W Evermann.1900.Thefishesof North andMiddle America: adescriptivecatalogueof the speciesof fish-like vertebratesfound in the watersof NorthAmerica,North of the Isthmusof Panama.Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 47:3137-3313.

Jordan,D.S.andC.H. Gilbert. 1886.List offishes collectedin Arkansas,Indian Territory,andTexas, in September1884,with notesanddescriptions.Proc.U.S. Nat. Mus. 9:1-25.

Jordan,T., D.T. Roberts,andD.M. Schleser.1992.Captivereproductionof Euryceaneotenes,the ComalSpringsSalamanderat theDallas Aquarium. American AssociationofZoological ParksandAquariumsRegionalConferenceProceedings.

Jurgens.K. 1951. The distribution andecologyof the fishesof the SanMarcosRiver. M.S.Thesis,The University of Texasat Austin..3.3pp.

Klemt, WB., T.R Knowles,G.R. Elder, andT.W. Sieh. 1979.Ground-waterresourcesandmodel applicationsfor the Edwards(BalconesFaultZone)Aquifer in the SanAntonio Region,Texas.Tex. Dept. WaterResourcesRep. 239, 88 pp.

Kuehne,R.A. 1955. Streamsurveysof theGuadalupeand SanAntonio rivers, TexasGameandFishComm. IF Rep. Ser. No. 1.56 pp.

Linam, G.W, K.B. Mayes, andK.S. Saunders.1993.A HabitatUtilization andPopulationSite Estimateof FountainDarters(Etheostomafonticola) in the ComalRiver, Texas.TexasJournalof Science,45(5):341-348.

Linam, L.A. 1993.A reassessmentof thedistribution, habitatpreference,and

rI

76

SanMarcos& Coma]Spriisgs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryThat.

populationsize estimateofthefountaindarter(EtheostomafOnticola)in theSanMarcosRiver,Texas.Section6 report.TexasParksandWildlife Department,Job2.5. March 12,1993.3~pp.

~ongley~G. 1975.Environmentalassessment,upperSanMarcosRiver Watershed.ContractNo. AG-48-SCS02156for the SoilConservationService. EnvironmentalSciencesof SanMarcos,Texas.367 pp.

Longley’, G. 1978.Statusof theTexasBlindSalamander.EndangeredSpeciesReport2.U.S. FishandWildlife Serv., Albuquerque,NM. 45 pp.

Longley, G. 1991.Statusand trendsof theEdwards(BalconesFault Zone) Aquifer inthe San Antonio Region.pp. 4-18 In:Proceedingsof SouthTexasIrrigationConference.Guy Fipps, (ed.) 146 pp.

Mackay,M.R. 1952.The spermatogenesisofthe neotenicsalamanderEu?yceanana Bishop.M.S. Thesis. University of Texas atAustin,Texas.35 pp.

Maclay, R.W. and L.F. Land. 1988. Simulationofflow in the EdwardsAquifer. SanAntonioRegion,texasand refinementof storageandflow concepts.U.S. GeologicalSurvey Water-Supply Paper2336,48pp.

Marsh,E. 1980. The effectsof temperatureandphoroperiodon the terminationof spawningin the orangethroardarter(Etheostomaspectabile) in centralTexas.Tex. J. Sci.32:129-142.

Maruska,E.J. 1982.Presentationto theAmerican Association of Zoological ParksandAquariums.CincinnatiZoo, Cincinnati,OH. I0 pp.

McCoig,G.M.,J. A. Cradir.andL. Fox. 1986.Propertyownership.waterrights andrecreationaluseof the San MarcosRiver. cityof San Marcos.62pp.

McKinney,D.C. andJ.Sharp.1995. Springflowaugmentationof ComalSpringsandSanMarcosSprings,Texas: phaseI- feasibilitystudy. TexasWater DevelopmentBoard.

McKinney, D.C. andD.W Watkins. 1993.Managementof the EdwardsAquifer: Acritical assessment.BureauofEngineeringResearch,University of Texasat Austin,

BalconesResearchCenter,Austin,Texas78712.94 pp.

Mitchell, R.W, andJ.R.Reddell.1965 Ernyceatridentifera, a newspeciesof troglobiticsalamanderfromTexasandareclassificationoiTyphlomolgerathbuni.TexasJ. Sci. 17(1):12-27.

Neck, R.’W. 1984.Occurrenceof the stripedram’s horn snail,Marisa cornuariezis, in centralTexas (Ampullariidae).Nautilus 98: 119-120.

Nelson,J. 1993. Populationsize,distribution,andlife history of Euiyceanana in the SanMarcosRiver. M.S. Thesis,SouthwestTexasState University, 43 pp.

Norris,WE., Jr., PA. Grandy.andWK. Davis.1963. Comparativestudieson the oxygenconsumptionof threespeciesof neorenicsalamandersasinfluencedby temperature,body size,andoxygen tension.Biol. Bull.125(3): 523-533.

Page,L.M. 1974.The subgeneraof Percina(Percidac: Erheostomatini).Copeia 1974(1):66-86.

Page,L.M. 1977.The lateralissystemof darters(Etheostomatini).Copeia 1 977(?): 472-475.

Page,L.M., andG.S. Whirt. 1972.Lactatedehydrogenaseisozymes,malaredehydrogenaseisozymesand tetrazoliumoxidasemobiliries of darters(Etheostomarini).Comp. Biochem. Physio.44B: 611-623.

Potter, F. and S. Sweet.1981. Genericboundariesin Texascave salamanders,andaredescriprionof Typhiomolgerobusta(Amphibia:Plethodontidae)Copeia1981:64-75.

Power, P.J. 1990. Effects of oxygenconcentrationandsubstrateon seedlinggrowth ofZizania texana(Texaswild-rice).M.S. Thesis,SouthwestTexasStateUniversity. 3Spp.

Puenre,C. 1976.Statisticalanalysisofwater-levelspringflowandstreamflow for the EdwardsAquifer in south-centralTexas.U.S.G.S.Rep.58 pp.

Pulich,W Jr., S. PerryandD. German.1994.Habitat andland useinventoryandchan’detectionanalysisof theSanMarcosRivercorridor. In: Spain,B. (ed.)The SanMarcos

Part U 77

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPl~

River: acasestudy.TexasParksandWildlifeDepartment.Austin, Texas.169pp.

ResearchandPlanningConsultants.1994.Analysis of water supply alternativesfor theEdwardsAquifer region.SierraClub Report.56 pp.

Rice, G. 1994. Contaminationof the EdwardsAquifer in BexarCounty.AGUA report. SanAntonio, Texas.25 pp.

Rose,F. and P.J. Power. 1992. Performancereport on managementandcontinuedresearchon Texaswild-rice (Zizania texana).Submittedto U.S. Fish andWildlife Service,Region2.

Rose,F. and P.J. Power. 1993. Performancereporton managementandcontinuedresearchon Texaswild-rice (Zizaniatexana).Submittedto U.S. Fish andWildlife Service,Region2.

Rosen,D.E., andRM. Bailey. 1963.Thepoeciliid fishes(Cyprinodontiformes),theirstructure, zoogeography,and sysremarics.Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 126:1-176.

Rothermel,S.R, andA.E. Ogden. 1987.Hydrochemicalinvestigationof the ComalandHuecoSpring systems,Comal County,Texas: EdwardsAquifer Researchand DataCenterRI -87, 182 p.

Russell, B. 1976. Distribution of TroglobiticSalamandersin the SanMarcosarea,HaysCounty, Texas.TexasAssociationforBiological Investigationsof TroglobiticEurycea(BITE) Report7601.3Spp.

Schenek,J.R 1975.Ecologyof the fountaindarter,Etheosromafonticola (Osreichthyes:Percidae).M.S. Thesis,SouthwestTexasState Univ., San Marcos,Texas. 100 pp.

Schenk,J.R.,andB.G. Whiteside. 1976.Distribution, habitatpreferenceandpopulationsize estimateof Etheostomafonticola (Osteichthyes:Percidae).Copeia

1 976(4):697-703.Schenck,J.R,andB.G. Whiteside.1977a.Food

habitsand feedingbehaviorof the fountaindarter,Etheostomafonricola(Osreichthyes:Percidae).Southwest.Nat. 21(4):487-492.henck,J.R.,andB.G. Whiteside. 1977b.Reproduction.fecundity, sexualdimorphismandsexratio of Etheostomafonticola

Part Ii

(Osteichthyes:Percidae).Amer. MidI. Natur.98(2):365-375.

Schwerman,N.H. 1967.A morphologicalstudyof the external features,viscera,integument,andskeletonsofEuryceanana.Unpubl.M.A.Thesis.Baylor University, Waco,Texas.26 pp.

Schleser,D., D. Roberts,L. Ables, andC.Yancey. 1994. An updateon Comal Springssalamanders(Eur’ycea neotenes)reproduction,anda preliminaryreportof courtshipandreproductionof the Texasblind salamander(Typhlomolgerathbuni) attheDallas Aquarium.Paperpresentedat the Amphibian TaxonAdvisoryGroup by the DallasAquarium.NewOrleans.11 pp.

Seaman,D.E. andWA. Porterfield. 1964.Control of exoticweedsby the snailMarisacornuarietis.Weeds12:87-92.

Silveus, WA. 1933.Texasgrasses.The CleggCo., SanAntonio, Texas.782 pp.

Spain,B. (ed.) 1994.The San MarcosRiver: acasestudy. TexasParksandWildlifeDepartment.Austin,Texas. l69pp.

Stejneger,L. 1896. Descriptionof a new genusandspeciesof blind, tailed barrachianfromthe subterraneanwatersof Texas. Proc. Nat.Mus. 18: 619-621.

Strawn,K. 1955.A methodof breedingandraisingthreeTexasdarters.PartI. AquariumJ. 26:408-412.

Strawn,K. 1956.A methodof breedingandraisingthreeTexasdarters.PartII. AquariumJ.27:l1, 13-14, 17, 31-32.

Sweet,S.S. 1978.The evolutionarydevelopmentof the TexasEuiycea (Amphibia:Plethodontidae).Ph.D. Dissertation.Univ.Calif., Berkeley,California. 450pp.

Taylor,J.N.,WR.Courtenay,Jr.,andJ.A.McCann. 1984.Known impactsof exoticfishesin the continentalUnitedStates.In:Distribution, Biology, andManagementofExotic Fishes,W.R. Courtenay,Jr. andJ.R.Stauffer,Jr., (eds.).JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,Baltimore. pp. 322-373.

TechnicalAdvisoryPanel.1990.Technicalfactorsin EdwardsAquifer useandmanagement.Preparedfor SpecialCommitteeon theEdwardsAquifer. 57 pp.

78

SariMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAqriauc Lcoss-s,e,ris NC “z-r~ ~.-rel1 E E.. WH.P.Emery.andH.E. Beany.

w ‘~ 978. ObservationSon Zizania texana(Texas

wil&rice). an endangeredspecies.Bull.

TorreyBot.Club 105:50-57.TexasAlmanac.1973.Texasalmanacandstate

industrialguide. 1974-1975,A.H. Belo Corp.,

Dallas. 704 pp.Texas Departmentof Water Resources.1977.

continuingwaterresourcesplanninganddevelopmentfor Texas. PhaseI. Draft.

TexasParksandWildlife Department.1989.Interim reporton conservationof the upperSan MaXcOs ecosystem: Texaswild-rice(Zizaflia zexana).Submittedto U.S. Fish andWildlife Service,Region 2, Albuquerque,N.M.

TexasParksandWildlife Department.1992.Performancereport on conservationof theupperSanMarcosRiverecosystem.Submittedto U.S. FishandWildlife Service,Region2,Albuquerque.N.M.

TexasWaterCommission.1989. Ground-waterquality of Texas-anoverviewof natural andman-affectedconditions.Austin, Texas.197pp.

TexasWaterDevelopmentBoard. 1968.Reconnaissanceof the chemical qualities ofthe surfacewatersof the GuadalupeRiverBasin,Texas. Report88. Austin, Texas.

TexasWaterDevelopmentBoard. 1990. Waterfor Texas:TodayandTomorrow.Austin,Texas.

TexasWaterDevelopmentBoard. 1992. Waterfor Texas:Today andTomorrow.Austin,Texas.

TexasWater DevelopmentBoard. l992a.Projectionsof PopulationandWaterDemands.Austin, Texas.

Thorkildsen,D., andP. McElhaney.1992.Model refinementandapplicationsfor theEdwards(BalconesFault Zone) Aquifer inthe SanAntonio Region,Texas.TexasWaterDevelopmentBoardReport340. July 1992.33 pp.

Tupa,D.D., andWK. Davis. 1976.Populationdynamicsof the SanMarcossalamander,EuryceananaBishop.TexasJ.Sci. 32:179-195.

UrbanDrainageandFloodControlDistrict. 1992.UrbanStormDrainageCriteriaManual.Vol. 3.BestManagementPractices,Stormwater

Quality, UrbanDrainageandFlood ControlDistrict, Denver,Colorado.

U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers.1964.Surveyreporton EdwardsUndergroundreservoir:Guadalupe,SanAntonio andNuecesriversand tributaries,Texas. Main Report.FortWorth. 198pp.

U.S. Bureauof the Census.1982.1980 censusof the population.Vol 1. Characteristicsofthe Population.Chap.B. GeneralPopulationcharacteristics.Pt. 45. Texas.791 pp.

U.S. Bureauof Reclamation.1972.Memorandum:SanMarcos Pool of EdwardsUndergroundAquifer. Bureauof Reclamation(SouthwestRegion). 8 pp.

U.S. Bureauof Reclamation.1973.Memorandum:Performanceof EdwardsAquiferwhensubjectedto arapidincreaseinwell discharge.Bureauof Reclamation(SouthwestRegion). Looseleafn. p.

U.S. Bureauof Reclamation.1974.Memorandum: Performanceof EdwardsAquifer whensubjectedto increasingwelldischarge.Bureauof Reclamation(SouthwestRegion). Looseleafn. p.

U.S. Departmentof Agriculture. 1978.FinalWatershedplanandenvironmentalimpactstatement.UpperSanMarcosRiverWatershed,ComalandHays Counties,Texas.Soil ConservationService.

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency. 1991.TechnicalSupportdocumentfor waterquality-basedtoxics control. PB91-127415.

U.S. Fish andWildlife Service.1980.Selectedvertebrateendangeredspeciesof the seacoastof the United States- the Texasblindsalamander.Biological ServicesProgram.FWS/OBS-80/0l.14.

U.S. FishandWildlife Service.1990.EndangeredSpeciesPermit Report. Austin,Texas.

U.S. FishandWildlife Service.1994.EndangeredSpeciesPermit Report.Austin,Texas.

U.S. GeologicalSurvey.1967-71.WaterresourcedataforTexas.PartI. Surfacewaterrecords.U.S. Geol. Surv.,FederalBldg.,Austin,Texas.

U.S. GeologicalSurvey.1995.WaterresourcdataTexaswateryear1994.Volume 3. Lwater-damreportTX-94-3

Part II 79

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryPlan

Vaughan,Jr.,J.E. 1986.Populationandautecologicalassessmentof Zizania texanaHitchcock (Poaceae)in the San MarcosRiver. M.S. Thesis,SouthwestTexas StateJniversiry.

Wake, D. 1966. Comparativeosteologyandevolution of the lungless salamanders,familyPlethodontidae.Mem. So. Cal. Acad. Sci.4:1-111.

Wanakule,N. 1988.Regressionanalysisof the SanMarcosSpringflowsandwater levelsof theindex well in SanAntonio. EdwardsAquiferResearchandDataCenterNo. RI -88. SanMarcos,Texas.34 pp.

Part II

Wanakule,N. 1990.Stochasticdroughtanalysisofthe EdwardsAquifer. EdwardsAquiferResearchandDataCenterNo. Rl -90, SanMarcos,Texas.32 pp.

Wanakule,N., and R. Anaya. 1993. A lumpedparametermodelfor the EdwardsAquifer.TexasWater Resourceslnstiture,TechnicalReportNo. 163. TexasA&M University.84 pp.

Wiley, E.O. 1981.Phylogenetics:The theoryandpracticeof phylogenericsystematics.JohnWiley andSons.New York. 439 pp.

r

80

r

PART III

RECOVERY PLANIMPLEMENTATION

SCHEDULE

SanMarcos& coma]Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPlan

The ImplementationSchedulethat follows

outlinesactionsandestimatedcostsfor imple-mentingthis recoveryplan. It is a guideformeetingthe objectivesdiscussedin PartII of thisplan.This scheduleindicatestaskpriorities, tasknumbers,taskdescriptions,durationoftasks,responsibleagencies,andestimatedcosts.Theseactions,whencomplete,shouldaccomplishtheobjectivesof thisplan.TheServicehasidentifiedagenciesandotherpotential“responsibleparties”to helpimplementthe recoveryof thesespecies.This plandoesnot commitany“responsibleparty” to actuallycarryout aparticularrecoverytaskor expendthe estimatedfunds.Likewise, thisscheduledoesnot precludeor limit otheragenciesor partiesfrom participatingin the recoveryprogram.

Thetotal estimatedcostof recovery,accord-ing to eachpriority, is providedin theExecutiveSummary,not in theimplementationschedule.In theimplementationschedule(PartIII) theestimatedmonetaryneedsforall partiesinvolvedin recoveryareidentified for thefirst 3 yearsonly.Estimatedfundsfor agenciesincludeonly projectspecificcontract,staff,or operationscostsinexcessof basebudgets.Theydo norincludebudgetedamountsthatsupportongoingordinaryresponsibilities.

In this recoveryplan, severaltasks outlinedaredriven by multiple socialandeconomicneedsin addition to endangeredspeciesrecovery.Forexample. developingalternativewater suppliesto meetthe projectedfuture needsof cities andtownsoverthe EdwardsAquifer areais ataskthatmustbe implementedto providefor futurecommunitysecurityandgrowth as well asendangeredspeciesrecovery.Protectionof waterquality in the aquiferandin the ComalandSanMarcosecosystemsis necessaryto protecthumanas well asendangeredspeciesinterests.Imple-mentationcosts of sometasks or task elementsmayactuallybe largely offset (or evencost-saving) for the entitiesimplementingthem. Forexample,water conservationprogramshaveexpensesassociatedwith them, but the reduc-tion in demandfor additional water may alsosavemoneyby reducingthe costs of developingnew water supplies,water treatmentcapacityand operationsfor municipal use, andwastewa-ter treatmentcapacityandoperationsthat

would beincurredin theabsenceofaconserva-tion program.Apportionmentof costs betweenCity planningand developmentfunctionsandESA complianceis extremelydifficult For tasksof this naturethe Servicehas includedin its

costestimateonly the Portion of Costsallocat..ableto endangeredspeciestecove.-v not theentire cost of the task.

Cost for sometasksin the recoveryplanatenor yet determinable,becausethey dependonthe natureof thestrategiesselectedfor usein theregional Aquifer ManagementPlanor localmanagementplans thatare not yet developed.Thesetaskswhereexpensescannotyetbe calcu-latedare representedin the costscolumnwiththedesignationNYD for “not yet determinable”.

The terms“ongoing” and“continuous”appearin the implementationschedule.Theterm“continuous” is usedto denotetasksthatareexpectedto requireconstantattentionthroughouttherecoveryprocess,andthereforehaveanindefinite duration.The term “ongoing” is usedintherecoveryplanto identify tasksthathavealreadybeenstarted,but arenot yetcomplete.

Priorities in columnoneof the followingimplementationscheduleareassignedusingthefollowing guidelines:

Priority I - An actionthatmustbetakentopreventextinction or to preventthe speciesfromdecliningirreversiblyin theforeseeablefuture.

Priority 1. - An actionthat by itself will notpreventextinction,butwhichis neededto carry

out a priority I task.

Priority 2 - An actionnecessaryto preventasignificantdeclinein speciespopulation/habitatquality,or someothersignificantnegativeimpactshortofextinction.

Priority 3 - All otheractionsnecessaryto meetthe recoveryobjectives.

I

Parr Iii 82

SanMaccos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic Ecoss’ste,nsRecoveryPIaJ

The following abbreviationsusedin theImplementationSchedule:

ADC - Animal DamageControl (USDA)BR- U.S. Bureauof ReclamationEAA - EdwardsAquifer AuthorityEPA - U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyEUWD - EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistrictFWS- U.S. FishandWildlife ServiceES - EcologicalServicesLE - Law EnforcementPAO - PublicAffairs OfficeWM - WaterManagementGBRA - Guadalupe-BlancoRiverAuthorityGW’D - GroundWaterDistrictsLCRA - Lower ColoradoRiverAuthorityNB - City of New Braunfels(includingNew

BraunfelsUtilities, in somecases)

NFWF - NationalFish andWildlife FoundationNGO - NongovernmentalOrganizationsSA - Cirv of SanAntonioSMNFH&TC - SanMarcosNationalFish

Hatchery& TechnologyCenterNRCS - NaturalResourceConservationServiceSM - City of SanMarcosSMRF - SanMarcosRiver FoundationSWTSU - SouthwestTexasStateUniversityTDA - TexasDepartmentof AgricultureTNC - TexasNatureConservancyTNRCC - TexasNaturalResourceConservation

CommissionTPWD - TexasParksandWildlife DepartmentTSL - TexasStateLegislatureUSGS- U.S.GeologicalSurvey

r

Part lii 83

eSANMARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

PRIORITY I TASK# TASKDESCRIPTION

TASK

DURATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY

COST ESTIMATES($ 000)

COMMENTS

12.11 Assemblea working group todevelopandpromoteacomprehensiveshortandlong-termregionalplan foraquifer managementthatconsidersall users

ongoing ESTNRCCTPWDSA, SM, NB, BR,USGS,EUWD,GBRA, GWD,UVALDE AND

MEDINA

COUNTIES,

TSL,OTHERS

20.0

5.0

NYDin part

20.0

5.0

NYDin part

20.0

5.0

NYDin part

Total costsdependon numberofcooperators,strategiesselected,andtimeframe forimplementation.

12.34 Examinethe potentialeffectivenessof legal actionssuch asrequestinginjunctionsandprepareto initiate suchaction if a crisis appearsimminent

asneeded

EAAGWDSANBSMEUWDES

LE

20.0

10.0

20.0

10.0

20.0

10.0

Initiated only inabsenceof adequatestateor local actionto curtailgroundwateruse.

12.41 Developandimplement

managementplan(s) for theSan Marcossystem

ongoing ES

SWTSUTPWD

SMSMRF

OTHERLANDOWNERS

20.0

5.08.0

10.0

7.0

20.0

5.08.0

10.0

7.0

•SAN MARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

TASKDESCRIPTION

TASK

DURATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY

COSTESTIMATES($ 000)

COMMENTS

5.02.51.0

30.02.02.0

2.05.01.01.0

1.0

5.02.51.0

30.02.02.0

1.05.01.01.0

1.0

5.02.51.0

2.02.0

0.55.01.01.0

1.0

Provideregulatoryprotection ongoing EAAESLETPWDTNRCCSMNB

Includesconsultationwork,enforcementactivities,etc. Mostare prograrnaticafterguidancedevelopment.

Encouragepublicparticipationin conservationefforts

ongoing ESEUWDSWTSUSM

NBTPWD

Usessupportfromtask4.1.

IdentiFydiseasesandparasites 3 ES

SMNFH&TC *SWTSUTPWDOTHERS

1.875

2.500

.625

1.875

2.500

.625

1.875

2.500

.625

Restoredamagedhabitatsandenhancemarginalhabitats

ongoing ESTPWDSM

NBOTHER NGOs

Dependentonpriority projectscurrently

unidentifiedorscheduled.

I.

Aa this RecoveryPlangoesto print. the San MarcosNational Fish Hatcheryand Technical Centerhasbeen idenrified for possible closure because of budge’ redochofls

eSAN MARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

PRIORITY I TASK I TASKDESCRIPTION

TASK

DURA~ON

(years)

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY

COSTESTIMATES($ 000)

COMMENTS

Landowners includeComa1 Co. Rec.District No. 1,Schlitterbahn, andothers.

YRl jYR2[YR3

10.0 10.05.0 5.00.5 0.5 NYD

20.0NYD4.5 4.520.0

12.42 Developand implement

managementplan(s) for theComalRiver system

ongoing NB

GBRATNCOTHER

LANDOWNERSLCRANFWFES

12.5 Implementmeasuresnecessaryto protectwater

quality in the aquifer

contin-uous ESEPA

EUWDTNRCC

NYD NYD NYD

Dependentonconclusionsof task

1.28.

12.7 Establishand maintaincaptivestocks

ongoing ESDallasAquariumSMNFH&TC*SWTSU

TPWD-A.E.WoodOTHERS

12.5

NYD12.5

8.05.0

NYD

5.0

NYD10.0

2.03.0

NYD

5.0

NYD10.0

2.03.0

NYD

Dependentonresultsof task 1.4 inpart.

12.8 Reducepollution loadingstoSan MarcosandComal

aquatichabitatsand caveswith Texasblind salamanders

contin-uous ESEPA

TNRCCSM, NBLANDOWNERS

NYD NYD NYD

Costsdependentonconclusionsof tasks

1.22, 1.23, 1.24,1.25, 1.26, 1.27, &1.28

* Aa this RecoveryPlan goesto ptint, the SanMarcosNational Fish Hatcheryand TechnicalCenterhasbeen identified for possibleclosure hccaoscof budgetreductions.

eSANMARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

PRIORITY I TASK #

DESCRIPTIONTASK

DURATION

TASK

(years)

PARTY

RESPONSIBLE

COSTESTIMATES

(S 000)COMMENTS

YRl YR2

111 Maintain andimplementacontingencyplan to bringspeciesinto captiverefugia ifan emergencyexists

ongoing ESSMNFH&TC *SWTSUTPWDDallasAquariumUvaldeNFH

CincinnatiZoo

25.015.523.010.0

NYD

25.015.523.010.0

NYD

30.040.010.030.0

NYD

Year 3 reflectscostsfor an unpredict-ablelow flow periodwhentask isimplemented.

10 1. 15 IdentiFy habitat characteristics

and requirements

ongoing ES

TPWD

70.0

30.0

150.0

30.0

150.0

30.0

Supportspriority

onesub-task2. 11 inpart.

10 1.16 Conductsearchesto locateSan Marcosgambusia

3 ESTPWD

SWTSU

8.02.0

1.0

8.02.0

1.0

8.02.0

1.0

Supportspriorityonetask 2.7.

10 1.21 Determineimpactsfromtourismenterprisesandrecreationaluseof springsandrivers etc.

3 ESSMTPWDSMRFLionsClub

25.05.03.0

10.05.03.0

10.05.03.0

Supportspriorityone task 2.41

Aa this RecoveryPlangoesto print, the SanMarcosNational FishHasclscrvandTechnicalCenterhas been identifiedbr ;ussibleclosurebecauseofbudgetreductions

eSANMARCOSICOMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

PRIORITY I TASK # TASKDESCRIPTION

TASK

DURATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY

COST ESTIMATES($ 000)

COMMENTS~2I10 1.25 IdentiFy and determine effects

of pollutants from pointsource discharges and otherdischarges on listed speciesand their habitats

5 ES

EPANBSMTNRCCTPWD

30.0 50.0

10.020.0

50.0

10.020.0

Supports priority

one task 2.8.-some costs coveredin EPA permits-includesstormwater, utility,

and commercialdischarge

10 1.26 Assesswaterquality in the SanMarcosaquaticecosystemanddeterminepossiblesourcesofnegativeimpacts

2 ESEPAEUWDTPWDTNRCCUSGS

NYD5.0

24.0

15.0

NYD5.0

5.0

Supportspriorityone task 2.8.-contributestomanagementplan(2.41)-USGShas

supportedoneyearof study.

10 1.27 Assesswaterquality in theComalaquaticecosystemanddeterminepossiblesourcesofnegativeimpacts

2 ESEPAEUWDTPWDTNRCC

USGS

NYD

24.0

15.0NYD

5.0

5.0

Supportspriorityone task 2.8.-USGShassupportedoneyearof study

-contributesto

managementplan(2.42).

‘As this RecoveryPlangoesto print, the SanMarcosNational Fish Hatcheryand TechnicalCeorer hasheetsidentified for possihleclos,,tebecauseof budgetreductions.

1

.

DESCRIPTION DURATION(yeats)

1~ARTY COMMENTSY~2

10 1.28 Assessadequacyof existingaquiferwaterqualityprotectionprovisions

2 ESWMEPAEUWDTPWD

TNRCCOTHERS

1.05.0

NYD5.0

1.05.0

NYD5.0

Supportspriorityonetask 2.5.-contributesto mgt.plan (sub-task2.11).

10 1.4 Developcaptivebreedingandreintroductiontechniquesforall species

5 ESSMNFH&TC *SWTSUTPWDDallasAquarium

58.025.05.0

17.0

NYD

58.025.05.012.0

58.0

5.012.0

Supportspriorityone task 2.7.-costswill declineiftrials yield successearlier.

10 2.12(sub-task)

ProvideServiceguidanceand

supportfor the regionalaquifer managementplanning

effort

ongoing ES 6.25 6.25 6.25 Supportspriority

onesub-task2. II.

10 2.31 Continueto supportproactiveFederalagencyconservation

actions

ongoing ESOtherFed.Agencies

.50NYD

.50NYD

.50NYD

Supportspriorityonesub-task2.11.Frombasecostsin jpart. I

* As this RecoveryPlangoes to print, theSan MatcosNationalFish HatcheryandTechnicalCenterhasbeen identified for possibleclosurebecauseof bridgesreductions.

eSANMARCOSICOMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

PRIORITY I TASK I TASKDESCRIPTION

TASK

DURA~ON

(years)

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY

COSTESTIMATES($ 000)

COMMENTSYR1 YiR2 YR3

10 2.32 Continueto supportprivateproactiveconservationactions

ongoing ESOther Fed.Agencies

5.0NYD

5.0NYD

5.0NYD

Supportspriorityone task2.11 -e.g.programsPartners

for Wildlife.

10 2.33 AggressivelypursueFederalagencycompliancewithobliga- tions for informal andformal consultationsetc.

Ongoing ES .50 .50 .50 Supportspriorityonesub-task2.11from basecostsinpart.

10 3.1 Monitor populationsandhabitats

ongoing ESSMNFH&TC *TPWD

10.03.06.0

10.03.06.0

10.03.06.0

Supportspriorityone tasks2.41,2.42,2.5, 2.8, and2.11 inpart.

10 3.2 Monitor threats ongoing ESEPAEUWDEAANBSMNFH&TC *SMTNRCCTPWDUSGSOTHERNGO’S

15.05.0

17.05.05.025.015.020.015.0

5.0

5.05.05.010.05.04.05.0

5.0

5.0

5.05.010.05.0

4.05.0

Supportssamepriority one tasks

notedfor task3.1above. Partof basicmissionfor many

agencies.

* As ~ RecoveryPlangoesto print, theSanNiarcosNational Fish HatcheryandTechnicalCenter hasbeen identified Cot possibleclosure becauseof budgetreductions.

•SAN MARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

TASKDU

RATION

PRIORITY I TASK I TASK

DESCRIPTION J

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY

COST ESTIMATES($ 000)

IT

YRl IYR2IYR3COMMENTS

10 4.1 Produceeducationalmaterials

and inform avariety ofaudiences

3 ES

EUDFAATPWDSMNBSA

OTHERS

4.5

4.0

1.5

4.5

4.0

1.5

4.5

4.0

1.5

Supportspriority

one tasks2.11, andsubtasks2.11, 2.41,and2.42.

2 1.11 Determinefood habits 3 ESSMNFH&TC *OTHERS

7.52.5

7.52.5

7.52.5

2 1.13 Determinereproductiveparameters

3 ESSMFH&TC *SWTSU

TPWD

7.55.0

2.5

7.55.0

2.5

7.55.0

2.5

Supportspriorityone task 2.7.

2 1.14 Determinesurvivorshippatterns

3 ESSWTSUTPWDOTHERS

7.5

2.5

7.5

2.5

7.5

2.5

As this RecoveryPlan goesto print, theSan MarcosNational Fish HatcheryandTechnicalCentethasbeen identified for possibleclosurebecauseofbudgetreductions.

eSAN MARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

PRIORITY # TASK ~ TASKDESCRIPTION

TASK

DURATION

(years)

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY

COST ESTIMATES($ 000)

J COMMENTSyg~

2 1.22 Compile information on thecharacteristics of the SanMarcos watershed

2 ESEPASCSSM

TPWDUSGS

2.0

1.0

1.01.0

2.0

1.0

1.01.0

TPWDhascompiled a great dealof useful informationalready.

2 1.23 Compileinformation on the

characteristicsof the Comalwatershed

2 ES

EPANBSCSTPWD

USGS

2.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2 1.24 Compiledatapertainingtopesticideandherbicideuse in

the San MarcosandComalwatersheds,etc.

2 ESEPA

SCSTDATNRCCTPWDUSGS

2.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

USGSis examiningpesticidesin water

samples.

2 1.29 Determinenegativeimpactsby non-nativespeciesand

developcontrol mechanisms

5 ESTPWD

SMNFH&TC *

OTHERS

7020

30

7020

30

7020

30

* As” ‘~ecoveryPlangoesto print, the SanMarcosNational Fish Hatcheryand TechnicalCenterhasbeen identified for possible closurebecause of budge’ redu’ztjon’.

echnicalCenterhas been idenrjn~d hr possibic c/osurebecauseofbodg~~ reduce,0,,,

I

•SAN MARCOS/COMAL RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

PRIORITY # TASK# TASKDESCRIPTION

TASK

DURATION(years)

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY

COST ESTIMATES I($ 000)

COMMENTSYRl Yg2 YR3

2 1.3 Determineaquifercharacteristicsand rechargepatternsandzones,etc.

3 WMEUWDTNRCC

5.0 5.0 5.0 Contributestomanagementplansub-task2. 11. - this

USGS task may involveotherresponsibleparties.

2 2.2 EncourageFederalagenciestoundertakeor activelypromote

conservationactivities under

continu-ous ES 0.50 0.50 0.50 fundedby basebudgetin part.

Section 7(a)(1)of the ESA

2 2.10 Control and/orremoveselectnon-nativeorganisms,etc.

2 2.6 Encouragemanagementofspring, lake, river, andcavehabitatsby privateindividualsandothers

ongoing ESTPWDSMNBTNRCCLCRASMRFOTHERNGOs

ES

ADCSMNBTPWD

5.01.01.01.0

0.5

5.01.01.01.0

0.5

0.5 Costsreflect initialdevelopmentcosts.Activities wouldthen be incorporated

in basicprogramservices.

[)ependenr011

resultsof task 1.29.

- S >,, tor I s beenidentified for possible .los, re beca se ofbudgetreducrio’15

SanMarcos& coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoveryPias~

APPENDIXSUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED

FISH:

Dr. Tom BrandtDr. ClarkHubbsDr. RandyMossDr. Bill Seawell

SALAMANDERS:

CaseyBerkhouseJoeFriesDr. Ed MaruskaJanetNelsonDr. Andy PriceDavid Schleser

INVERTEBRATES:

Dr. David BowlesDr. CherylBarrDr. TomArsuffi

TEXAS WILD-RICE:

Paula Power

HYDROLOGY:

SteveCullinanGeorgeOzunaDr. GeorgeVeni

Commentswere received from the individu-als and agencieslisted below:

City of NewBraunfels,David WharleyCity of San Antonio and SanAntonio Water

SystemBoard, Joe AcevesDr. Bob Edwards,SanMarcos/Comal

RecoveryTeam Leader, DepartmentofBiology, UT PanAmerican,EdinburgTexas

EnvironmentalDefenseFund,PeterEmerson

Dr. Clark Hubbs,Departmentof Zoology,theUniversity ofTexasat Austin

Kirk Patterson,SanAntonioSierraClub andClark Hubbs.attorneyP.M

SchenkkanSociety for ConservationBiology. Univer-

sity of Texas,Austin StudentChapter,L. Ramakrishnan

TexasParksandWildlife Department,Ms.JanetNelson

TexasParksandWildlife Department,Ms.Jackie Poole

TexasParksandWildlife Department,Dr.Andy Price

U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,AnthonyF. Maciorowski

GeorgeVeni, GeorgeVeni and Associates

All commentswereconsideredwhenrevising the draft plan. The Serviceappreciatesthe time that eachof the commenterstook toreviewthe draftandto submittheir comments.

The commentsdiscussedbelowrepresentacompositeof thosereceivedprior to the closeofthe public commentperiod.Commentsof asimilar natureare groupedtogether.Substantivecommentsregardingthe approach,methodol-ogy, or financial needcalled for in the draftplan, or suggestingchangesto the plan areaddressedhere.Commentsreceivedrelatingtothe original listing decisionor aboutthe Endan-geredSpeciesAct (ESA) in general that did notrelateto the recovery of the speciesspecificallycoveredin this recoveryplan are not discussedhere.Commentsregardingsimpleeditorialsuggestionssuch as betterwording or spellingandpunctuationchanges,were incorporatedasappropriatewithout discussionhere.

Commentsreceivedare retainedas a part ofthe AdministrativeRecordof recoveryplandevelopmentin theEcologicalServicesFieldOffice, Austin,Texas.

I

4.-

5’

‘4

C

C

-C

C

5-)

C-C

I--CC

C

/Ap penclix 94

SanMacos& coma]Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecover5-PAL,

TECHNICAL ISSUES

Background Geography,

Geology, arid Hydrology

Comment: Thepropertechnicalnameforthe portionof the EdwardsAquifer discussedinthe recoveryplanis: SanAntonio SegmentoftheEdwards(BalconesFaultZone)Aquifer. In thefirst usein the documentthis exactnameshouldbegiveh, andnotedthat all subsequentrefer-enceswill usethe abbreviated“EdwardsAquifer.”

ServiceResponse:To avoid confusionconcerningthegeologicaland hydrologicalareacoveredby theRecoveryPlan,this suggestionhasbeenincorporatedin the plan.

Comment: A bettermap is neededforFigure 1 andFigure3.

ServiceResponse:The figures have beenimproved.

Comment: It would be helpful if thedistributionof thespecieswere displayedonmaps.

and

Comment:The discussionoffountaindartersshould be expandedto identify thespecific locationsand preferredhabitatsin theComal Springsecosystem.The plan shouldstatethat the highestdensityis in thenaturalchannelbelowthe dischargefrom LandaLake, andtheflow regimethere.

ServiceResponse:This information isavailablein thePlan textandin citedreferences.Traditional dot-styledistribution mapsshowingonly siteswhere collectionshave beenmadeandcould be misleadingif theyled readerstodiscountthe possibilityof the occurrenceof thespeciesin other areasas well.

In a similar vein, detaileddiscussionsofpresentlocalitiesof high densitiesof individualsmaymisrepresentnaturalfluctuationsin thesystem,the importanceof individualsthatoccurin other areas,or the importanceof areaswithpotentialhabitat(or restorablehabitat)for thefuture recoveryofthe species.In thecaseofthefountaindarters,recentServicesurveyshave

yieldeddatashowingtheoccurrenceoffountaindartersthroughoutthe Comalsystemdown tothe confluencewith the GuadalupeRiver, withhigh densitiesin severalareas.Servicesurveysinthe SanMarcoshaveshownfountaindarterstobepresentfrom SpringLakedown to an areabetweenthe city wastewatertreatmentplantoutfall andthe confluencewith the BlancoRiver.Thisrecentinformationhasalsobeenaddedtothe plan.

For recoveryplanningpurposesconsider-ation is given to historicalaccounts,pastscien-tific records,currentdistributionsas evaluatedfrom recentsamplingefforts, andpotential (butuninhabited)habitatthatis importantfor therecoveryof the species.The generalareaofgreatestimportancefor recoveryof Texaswild-rice, andthe SanMarcossalamanderis includedin their critical habitatdesignations,which aredescribedin detail undereachspecies.For thefountaindarterthe habitatareasin both theSanMarcosandComal systemsarevery important.For the Texasblind salamanderonly limitedinformation is available,andfor the SanMarcosgambusiatherehasbeendifficulty finding anyremainingindividuals, so the areaneededforrecoveryfor thesespeciesis unclear.

Comment: I disagreewith the statementthatthe SanMarcosRiver flows mostlyover afirm gravelbottom. I would characterizeit as amud/silt bottom.

Service response: Crowe (1994) mappedthesubstratesofthe ComalandSanMarcosrivers and showsthe majorityof the substrateasgravelor gravel/sandcomposition(herFigure38). However, the Servicedid not meanto implythat thesubstrateis not variable.As notedbyCrowe,substrateis highly correlatedwith flowvelocity, andwherevelocities are low, mudaccumulates.The substratecanalso bevariednearthebanksfrom bankerosionor reductionin flow velocities,or nearstormwaterdrainageareasby siltation from runoff. Becauseof thesefactorsandin the interestof clarity andunder-standingthe text in this sectionhasbeenex-panded.The Service,TexasParksandWildlifeDepartment,andotheragenciesarealsocur-rentlystudyingriver habitat,indudingsubstrates,andeventuallymoredetailedinformationabout

Appendix 95

SanMarcus& coma] Springs & AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPI.’i

substratein theComalandSanMarcosrivers willbecomeavailable.

comment: It might be usefulto summarize

the informationon the SanMarcosandComal

5ysrems(suchasflow regime,discharge,runoff,listedspecies~candidatespecies,introducedspecies~algal cover, etc.) in tablesor graphsso

that the readercanmorereadilydiscernwhatenvironmentalandbiological featuresarecom-mon to both, andwhich setthem apart.

ServiceResponse: RecoveryPlan guid-

ancestressesthat backgroundmaterial shouldbe briefandconcentrateon laying out thepertinent issuesand tasks necessaryto addressthem in a way that presentsbasictechnicalinformationneededbut is also accessibletonon-technicalreaderssuch as landowners,public officials, andlocal land managers.Hydro-logical informationfor the EdwardAquifer andthe SanMarcosandComalSpringsandrivers(suchas time-seriesdischarges,flow regimes,runoff data, etc.) is too voluminousto includein the plan in graphicalor tableform. Thisinformation is readily availablein severalof thecited references.

Comparativespecieslists may be helpful indemonstratingdifferencesandsimilaritiesin thesystems,anda tableof listed andcandidatespeciesandmajor introducedspecieshas beenincludedin the plan, alongwith somesummarystatisticson springflows.

Comment: The drafttexton page8 givesdischargedataonly from 1973-1975.What is thesignificanceof this time period? It seemsitwould be morehelpful to includethe maximum,minimum,andmeandischargesfor the entireperiodof record.

Service Response: The Serviceagreesandthe text in this sectionhasbeenrevised.

Comment: You shouldnotein the planthat the flows at SanMarcosSpringshavebeenbelow200 cfs25 timessince1957 with dura-tions as long as 294 days.San MarcosSpringsflows havebeenbelow 100 cfs 42 times since1917,includingoneperiodof 454 days.

ServiceResponse:TheServicehasrevieweddataregardingflows in the river systemsfor the

Appendix

periodof record(particularlyperiodsof lowflows). Weknowthattherehavebeenperiodsoflow flow, someof relatively long duration,andthisis notedin theplan. However,the numberoftimesthatflows havebeenbelowa particularpoint is not particularlyusefulin termsof inter-pretingbiological impacts.Historical records(especiallyforthe SanMarcos)aresomewhatincomplete,andthereportedflows arecorrectedriverdischargesandnot actualspringflows.Biologicalinterpretationis difficult becausethereis almostno informationavailableabouthabitatconditionsin theriver (e.g.,dry andwetspots)atthetime, populationinformationfor the speciesofconcern,andhumanactivitiessuchasdiver-sions,discharges,numberanddistributionofwells, andpumpinglevels.

More importantin termsof the survival andrecoveryof the speciesis the actual springflowsneededtodayto maintainnecessaryhabitats,which the Servicehasestimatedand is workingto refine. Theseneedscan thenbe evaluatedintermsof currentsizeableand increasingaquiferwithdrawals,increasingfrequenciesanddura-tion of low flows, and the potentialfor thepermanentloss of flow from the springs.

Comment: Many peopleare usedtothinkingin termsof theJ-17well referenceforaquifer levels (a well locatedin Bexar County,nearSanAntonio). Table I should includeanestimateof theJ-17 levels that correspondto“take” and “jeopardy” numbers.

ServiceResponse:While the ServiceacknowledgesthatmanyusetheJ-17 well as anindex of aquiferlevels,theServicedoesnotbelievethatthis shouldbe the preferredorstandardindex for monitoringaquifer levelsintermsof maintainingnecessaryspringflowsforthe speciesof concern.The Service’stakeandjeopardylevelswere evaluatedin terms ofspringflowsneededto maintainthe speciesintheir naturalenvironment.While the correlationbetweenJ-17andflows at Comal Springsisgood,a goodcorrelationbetweenwellJ-17andthe SanMarcosspringflowshasnot beenestab-lished. Further,local pumpingcenters(e.g., SanMarcosmunicipal waterwells) could affectspringflowsin a mannerthatwould not bereflectedin well J-17levels.Similarly. local

I

96

rechargeeventsin HaysCountymayaffectspringflows,yet not significantly alteraquiferlevelsin BexarCounty

A more direct andaccuratemethodofmonitoringComaland SanMarcosspringflowsis desirable.Working cooperativelythe USGSandthe EdwardsUndergroundWaterDistricthaveestablisheda streamgagejust belowSpringLakethatwouldmeasureSanMarcosspringflowplus runofffrom SessomandSink creeks.DryComalandBliederscreeksin New Braunfelsarealsobeinggaged.Thesegageswill give a muchbetterunderstandingof springflowsandfloodevents.Local wells in ComalandHays countiesthathave beenusedin the pastto monitor localaquifer levelsandestimatespringflowsprovidevaluableinformation andshould continueto bemonitoredas well.

Citationshavebeen addedto the text toassistthosewho wish to examinecorrelationsbetweenspringflowsandJ-17 well levels.

Comment: Somereferencescalculatethatonly 50-57% of the waterrechargingtheEd-wardsAquifer comesfrom theNuecesRiverbasin,not 78%.

ServiceResponse:The Serviceis awarethatreferencesvarv in their calculationsoftheamountof rechargecontributedby the basinswestofBexarCounty,andtheaccuracyof theseestimatesis unknown.To moreclearlyreflect the lower endof theseestimates,wehavechangedthelanguageto read“Cinvesrigatorshaveestimatedthat 50-78%” ratherthan“up to 78%.”

Comment: The discussionof SanMarcosSpringsdoesnot includetheir local rechargearea.This shouldbe included,as it is relevanttowaterquality protectiondiscussedlater in therecovery plan.

ServiceResponse: This information hasbeenaddedto the discussion.

Comment:The planshouldstatethattheEdwardsAquifer isan undergroundriver, factu-ally andlegally. It flows at ratesseveralthousandtimesthoseof mostaquifers,throughcavernslargeenoughthattheyhavesupportedtheevolu-tion of uniquefish, salamanders,andinverte-brates.

App~~nJix

San Macos & Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecove,-~,pj~

ServiceResponse:Becauseofthe character..isticsof theEdwardsAquifer (which includerelativelyrapid flow throughundergroundcaverns),therehasbeendebateamonghydrologists regardingwhetherit should be termedanaquiferor an undergroundriver. This differencein terminologycouldhaveramificationsin termsof water-rightslaw in Texas, the right of theState to regulatethewater, andwhich stateagencywould haveregulatoryauthority. Recog-nizing thetremendousmovementof waterthroughthe aquiferand its significanceas anatural resource,the TexasWaterCommissiondedaredtheEdwardsAquifer an undergroundriver (TWC Rules, 17 Tex. Reg.6601-6620)onSeptember25, 1992. In May of 1993, however,a SenateBill (S.B. 1477) passedin the Statelegislaturededaringthatthe EdwardsAquifer isadistinctivenaturalresourcein thestate,auniqueaquifer,andnotan undergroundstream.Info rma-nonaboutthedeclarationof theEdwardsAquiferasan undergroundriver, andtheStateLegislature’ssubsequentdeclaration,hasbeenaddedto the text.

Water Quality

Comment: Hydrologist GeorgeRicere-centlyreviewedUSGS andStatedataandfound54 wells in BexarCountyhavereportedmercuryandchlorinatedsolvents.Fewhadlevelsabovethatpermittedin drinkingwaterstandards,however,20yearsagotherewerevirtually noreportsof thesecontaminants.Thissuggestsasteadydegradationof theaquiferwatersupply,andif it continuescontaminationgreaterthandrinkingwaterstandardswill becommonwithin20 years.

ServiceResponse: Rice’s report examinedcontaminantsin wells sampledfrom 1982 to1992,and this informationhasbeenaddedtothe plan. It should be notedthat no earlymeasurementsare availablefor comparison,thoughthe correlationbetweenelevatedcon-taminantsandexpandingurbanization(increasingpotentialsourcesof pollution) is suggestiveofrecentcontamination.Ricealsomadeno specificprojectionsforthe next20 years.

rI

97

San Maxcos& Coma] Speings& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoverx-Plan

Comment: In waterqualitydiscussions,

J motorvehicle accidentsshouldbeaddedasa~orenrialmajorsourceof pollution to the spring

5ystem.Service Response: The draft had noted

the potential for tractor-traileraccidentstocausesignificant contamination;the moregeneralimpactsfrom motorvehicle and railroadaccidentshavebeenaddedto the plan.

Comment: The planshould specificallystatethatdecliningwaterlevelsin the Edwardsdueto excessivepumpingnot only threatenComal andSanMarcosspringflowsanddepen-dentspecies,but also threatento poison theEdwardsas a humandrinkingwatersupply.Theplanshould provideadetaileddescriptionof therisk that the bad-waterline will move if exces-sive pumpinglowers aquifer levels belowacritical point, including discussionsand findingsfrom thecourt proceedingin JudgeBunron’scourt togetherwith anyrecentfinal publishedwork thatshedsadditionallight on thematter.The planmustnotethatJudgeBunron hasfoundthatevenif the needsofthe speciesweredisre-gardedentirelythishumanwaterqualityconcernrequiresthatpumpingbelimited to thatnecessatyto maintainflows atthe Comal at all times.

and

Comment: The draft discussesthe possibil-ity thatthe badwaterline could movewithoutanydatato substantiatethis. USGS reviewofwells atComal andSanMarcosSpringsduringthe droughtsof 1989 and1990 foundno evi-denceof changein waterchemistryduetodecreasedspringflowandloweredwater levelsatthat time.

ServiceResponse:The draftplandiscussesthe possibility that the badwaterline couldmovein the threatssectionunderwaterquality.Thediscussioncoverswhat is known aboutthis

threatat presentanddirectsthe interestedreaderto additional information.Additional informa-tion hasbeenincludedaboutthe risk of move-mentof the bad-waterline, andadiscussionofthe USGSdatafrom 1989 and1990 hasbeenadded.Informationavailableatpresentis notdefinitive. As moreinformationbecomesavail-abletheServicewill carefullyevaluateit and

Appendix

ensurethatnewdataare takeninto accountinimplementingspecifictasksundertheplan.

In addition to concernsaboutthe badwaterline, the plan also discussesthe concernthat ifaquifer levels fall, deteriorationof waterqualitymayoccur dueto the decreaseddilution poten-tial for anycontaminantsin the system.Wehavemodified the text to emphasizehowseriousa potentialchangein water chemistrycould be to the species,and the close linkbetweenpreservationof the environmentsofendangeredspeciesandthe healthof the humanenvironment.

Comment: Task 1.24 compiling informa-tion on pesticideandherbicideusein the ComalandSanMarcoswatershedsshouldalso includedata collectionon useof thesechemicalsinsurfacewatershedsthat drain into the cavesknownto containTexasblind salamanders.

ServiceResponse:Languagehasbeenaddedto thistaskto clarify the needto collectthisinformationaswell.

Comment: Task 1.3 discussesdeterminingaquifercharacteristicsandrechargepatternsandzonesthat influencespringflows.You also needto monitorthe generalwaterquality trendsinthe aquifer for potentialimpactson springquality.

Service Response: This is coveredundertask 1.28 (whichcalls for assessingwaterqualityin the aquiferandprovidingfor protectionagainstboth catastrophicandchronicwaterquality problems),undertask 2.5 (which callsfor implementingmeasuresdeemednecessarytoprotect thequality ofwater in the aquifer),andundertask3.2 (which calls for monitoringwaterquality).

Fish

Comment: In thefountaindarterback-ground section,under“Habitat,” you needtoaddconstanttemperatureto thelist of require-ments.You discussit ascritically importanrinpassagesbeforeandafter thisoneandit shouldbelistedasarequirement.

98

SanMarcos & Coma] Springs & AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecove~-Plan

ServiceResponse:We agreetemperaturesshouldbe addressedasahabitatrequirement.Researchhasshownthat temperaturesvary inboth systems,including the lakes. As noted inthetext thereis a typical gradientof slightlyincreasingtemperaturevariability from theheadwarersto thelower reaches.However,significantdeviationsfrom this temperatureregimemaybe a real problem.To betterreflectthis, the language“Constantwatertemperatureswithin the naturalandnormal river gradients”hasbeenaddedto the list of habitatrequire-ments.

Comment: The loss of 46% of the allelesin the hatcherystrainsof E. fonticola suggeststhis speciesmay be especiallyvulnerabletogeneticdrift. It would be helpful to give thenumberof fishesusedto initiate thehatcheryculture. Ar any rate, effective populationsize

~vouldbean importantconsiderationin futurehatcherybreedingefforts.

Service Response: The Serviceagreesthat this is an importantconcernandhasfundedstudiesto clarify the geneticvariabilityin the species.Preliminaryresultsindicatethatfountain dartersin the wild haveconsiderablegeneticvariability. Provisionsfor adequatelysamplinggeneticdiversity andmaintainingcaptivestocksis a taskcoveredin the plan~ aswell as in the contingencyplan revision cur-rently underway.The text in the plan hasbeenexpandedto include a little more informationaboutthe previoushistory of captivebreeding.

Comment: It is erroneouslypresumedinthe plan thatthe populationat the Comalmustreceivefull protectionunderthe ESA. It shouldbe designatedas “experimentalnon-essential”to minimize socialandeconomicimpactsof theplan, and to provide yourselvesgreaterregula-tory flexibility for this population.

ServiceResponse:TheSecretaryof theInteriorwas given the authorityby Congresstodecidewhetherpopulationsreleasedprior toOctober13, 1982,areexperimentalandwhetherthe populationis essentialto the continuedexistenceof the speciesin question.

TheServicehasthoroughlyreviewedthesituationof the fountaindartersin the Comal

system.Fishreleasedby theTexasParksandWildlife Departmentfollowing treatmentwithtoxinsfor nonnativespeciescontrol in theComalRiver werewild individualstrappedandheldfor a very shorttime for this purpose.Thisoperarion~which did not eliminatethe naturalpopulationof the Comal, was a managementtechnique.It w~s not an experimentanddid notconstitutea reintroduction.

ComalSpringswentdry in thedroughtofthe 19SOs, andthis is generallybelievedto haveresultedin the extirpationof the naturalpopula-tion becauseindividualswere not found insubsequentrepeatedsampling. However, thequestionof whetherthe naturalpopulationwascompletelyeliminatedcan not be definitivelyanswered.Fountaindartersfrom the SanMarcoswereintroducedinto the Comalsystemin 1975 and 1976 as a conservationmeasure,torestorethe wild population,andto maintainthedistributionof the speciesover its historicalrange.This stockingwas successfulin restoringfountain dartersto the Comal,wheretheyarenow abundantand relatively widespread.

Having the speciespresentin both systemsaffordsgreaterprotectionagainstextinctionthanif the specieswere in a single river system.Preliminarygeneticanalysishasshownsomegeneticdifferencesbetweenthe ComalandtheSanMarcospopulations.

Becauseof theimportanceof havingtwopopulationsin assuringthe speciesdoesn’tgoextinctandthe possibility thatthe Comalpopulationwasneverentirelyextirpated,theServicehasdecidednot to designateit as anexperimental,nonessentialpopulation.TheServiceregardsthe Comalpopulationand itshabitatassignificant andessentialto the survivalof the speciesover its historic range.

Comment: The recovery plan notesthatthe mostimportanthabitatrequirementof thefountaindarter is “adequatespringflows,” yetDr. BobbyWhitesideandDr. RandyMosshavetestifiedin court thatthe fountaindarterre-quireswaterof”a certainquality” but thatthesourcedoesnothaveto be springflow.

ServiceResponse:The testimonyof Dr.WhiresideandDr. Moss specificallypertainedtowaterqualityneedsof thefountaindarter,and

Appendix 99

0or to its overall survivalandhabitatneedsin the

7 ~jld. While the fountain dartermayphysiologi-

cally be able to survivein watersotherthanthosederivedfrom the SanMarcosor ComalSprings,rhis doesnot meanthatthespeciesoverallhabitat

needsfor long-termsurvival in thewild do notrequirespringflow.TheESArequiresnot onlytheconservationof thelistedspecies,but alsotheecosystemuponwhichthespeciesdepends.TheServicebelievesthatoneof themostimportantrequirementsin preservingthehabitatthatthefountaindarterinhabitsis to maintainspring-flows.

Comment: In the speciesaccountforGambusiageorgei,it wouldseemappropriatetodiscusshabitatchangesin the habitatsection,inparticularthe potential role of the elephantears,eventhough it was alreadymentionedin thethreatssection.

Service Response: This seemsappropriatein the contextof habitat,andthe texthasbeenmodified.

Comment: The Serviceshould note in theplan thatit knewaboutthe imminentextinctionof the SanMarcosgambusiain 1980 (from yourown statusreport),yet until Decemberof 1989did nothingexceptoccasionalsearchesfor thespecies.The Servicedid nothingto savethespeciesandnow it is probablyextinct. Thishighlightsthe importanceof actingto saveendangeredspeciesinsteadof merely monitor-ing their declineandextinction.

Service Response: The Servicestrivestoimplementeffectiverecoveryactionsin additionto monitoringwhereverpossible.The assertionthatlittle hasbeendoneto try to savethisspeciesis incorrect.The Servicehasbeenandremainsactively involved in efforts to preservethe species.The text hasbeenfurtherexpandedto include moredetail andclarify the Service’sconcernandactivitieson behalfof this species.

In 1976, even beforethe specieswas listed,the Servicecontractedfor a statussurveyto tryto improveour understandingof thespecies,particularlyits habitatneeds,andpromotedbringingindividualsinto captivityfor breedingand study. Individuals taken during the 1976studywereheldandbredatthe University of

Appendix

San Marcos & Coma] Springs& AssociamejAqu.sti; Ec,svsmem,Reovery p~4,

TexasatAustin by Dr. Clark Hubbsin 1979,andfish from that captivepopulationwereusedto

establisha captivepopulationat the Service\DexterFish Harchervin 1980. In spiteofmaintainingpopulationsat two localities, bothcaptivepopulationslaterbecamecontaminatedwith anotherGambusiaspecies.the fish hybrid-ized, and the pure stocks were lost.

Mans,’ researchers have been involved andhavedevotedconsiderableeffort in attemptstolocate and conserve populations. Followingpublicationof the statusreport and listing ofthe speciesin 1980, the Servicecontractedforexaminationof known localities, and to collectfish to establishcaptivestocks.As noted in theplan, in 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984, Dr. Bob

Edwards searched, quarterly in 1983 and 1984,to try to relocate populations and reestablish a

culture of individuals for captive stocks, andthis work was partially funded by the Service.Not enough pure San Marcos gambusia (and

hybrids) were found to establish a culture,although Dr. Edwards attempted to do so with

the few fish available. In the mid 1980s person-nel from the Fish and Wildlife Service Fish

Hatchery in San Marcos also searched unsuc-cessfully for the species in attempts to locateindividuals to bring into captivity. In 1990 theService organized three intensive searchesconducted by Service biologists and volunteers,

but no San Marcos gambusia were found.Academic and other researchers, Texas

Parks and Wildlife Department scientists, andthe Service continue to search for the SanMarcos gambusia during all collection andresearch with fishes that is done on the San

Marcos River.Currently. as noted as a task in the plan,

funding is also being sought for a study that willattempt to restore what is believed to be opti-mumhabitat in a portion of the river the specieswas known to inhabit, in an effort to attract andpool or concentrate any nearby individuals that

may remain.

Comment: The late Kenneth Jurgensreportedon the SanMarcosfishesabout40yearsago, andhisworkmight supplementdiscussionson page33.

100

San Marcos & coma] Speings& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecover5-Plan

ServiceResponse:This surveyhasbeenincludedin ourbackgroundmaterialin theplan.

Salamanders

Comment: The statementthat Eu~yceanana requiresthermallyconstantenvironmentsseemsopento criticism given thatwatertem-peraturesvarywith seasonalconditions.

Service Response: It is true that therearewatertemperaturedifferenceswithin the river,particularly betweenthe headwatersanddown-streamareas.Thereare also local areasmoreisolatedfrom the main channelwheretempera-turesfluctuate, althoughwithin the upperriveras awhole, in anygiven positionthe tempera-rure is remarkablystable.The salamandersaredistributedin areasclose to springopenings,wherewatertemperaturesare very stable. Oneof the factorsmoststronglycorrelatedwiththeir microgeographicdistribution is watertemperature.and for the salamandersthisappearsto be essentiallyconstantin the wild.

Comment: I disagreewith andwoulddeletethe statementthat smallmatsof Lyngbyasp. occurin the immediatevicinity of someofthe largeranddeeperspringsin the lake andcould be the sourceof specimenscollectedthere.The algal matsoccur mostlyaroundthehotel area,not in deeperareas.

Service Response: The referenceto algalmatsneardeeperspringshasbeendeleted.

Comment: It should be madevery clear inthis document,ashasbeenclearlydemonstratedby Chippindaleet al., that the populationofsalamandersat ComalSpringsis not conspecificwith Ezuyceanana.The statementon p. 45 thatChippindaleet al. found the two populationstobe distinct despitemorphologicalsimilarities ismisleadingbecausethe reportshowsclearmorphometricdifferences.The contingencyplanin theappendixneedsto makethisdistinctionclearas well, andneedsto dealwith the implica-rions of thesedifferencesin providing for captiverefugiaof thetaxaaswell. Becausethesearedifferent species, they should not be kept to-gerherin thesamerefugiumto avoid anypossiblecontaminationbetweenthem.

-\pper~dix 101

Serviceresponse: The texthasbeenclarifiedto avoidmisunderstandingofthe differencesberweentheseraxa.The 1990ContingencyPlanthatwasincludedas anappendixin the draftrecoveryplanis currentlybeingrevisedandwillprovide for the establishment and maintenance of

separate,geneticallyrepresentativecaptivepopula-tionsofeachraxa.

Comment: Using the terms burrowing orburying as you haveon page50 maybe mislead-ing as the salamandersareundoubtedlyinca-pableof actuallymoving muchsubstratearound,and instead insinuatethemselvesintointerstitial spacesbetweenparticlesof thesubstrate,or into naturalchannels,grooves,crevices,fissures,etc. This could havegreatimplicationsin interpretationof their ability tosurvive actions like physical modificationstosprings and spring runs.

ServiceResponse:The Service agreesandhas modified the text to make this clear.

Comment: The Blanco River gravel quarrysite is the type locality for anotherspeciesofTyphiomolge,but nota collectionlocality forTyphiomolgeraz-hbuni,asfar as I havebeenabletofind.

Service Response: You are correct in thatthe“species”foundat theBlancoRiver quarrysire hasbeendescribedas Typhiomo/gerobusta.The descriptionis basedon verylimited data,andsomeresearchersfeel that thesalamanderlocatedtheremayactuallybe Typhiomolgerathbuni. Becausethe site is no longeraccessibleandno additional specimenshavebeencol-lectedfor examinationit hasnot beenpossibleto resolvethe taxonomicquestionsaboutsalamandersfrom this locality. Becauseof thistaxonomicuncertaintythe referenceto theBlanco River quarrysite as a location for Trathbunihasbeendeletedin the final plan.

Comment: Without quantification,thephrasein thediscussionofsettingup captiverefugia that preserve“...generic integrity of

.species...“in paragraph2 on page68 andonp.78 paragraph3 is not useful.

Serviceresponse:Thephrase about main-taining geneticintegrity is important to include

San Marcos & Coma] Speings& AssociatedAquatic Ecoss-stemsRecover Plac

becauseit makesit clearthat thepurposeofcaptivestocksis to protectandmaintaina repre-sentativepopulationof individualsfrom thewild,to serverestorationandpossiblereintroductionefforts if needed.This is averydifferentsituationthanmaintainingacaptivegroupof individualssimplyfor displayoreducation.It is qualitativebecausewelack informationneededto givenumbersof individualsfrom exactlocalities(orsimilar information)supportedby reportsof thelevelsof geneticvariability found in thewild.Nevertheless,thelanguageprovidesimportantguidanceaboutthe parametersunderwhichcaptivepropagationprogramswill needto besetup andmanaged.As moredetailedinformationbecomesavailableit is expectedthatthecontin-gencyplanwill berevisedto providemoreexactguidance.

Texas Wild-rice

Comment: In the speciesaccount forZizania texanait would begood to reiteratethevarious factors,suchas recreation,introducedspecies(like hydrilla andnutria), etc. that arelikely impactingthe populationsof this species.

ServiceResponse:The Servicemakesaneffort to avoid repetition in recoveryplans,tomakethemconciseandreadable.Noneof thespeciesaccountshavea generaldiscussionofknownandpotentialthreat,asthesearecoveredin B. Threatsto the Speciesandtheir Ecosystems.However, in the caseof hydrilla, it is germaneto discussknown changesin habitat,and thetext hasbeenmodified to reflect this.

Comment: In the habitatsectionon wild-rice the statementis madethat sometreespeciesshadethe river “possibly to theexclu-sion ofTexaswild-rice.” Do you meanto implythat native treesare a threat to wild-rice?

Serviceresponse:The passagerefers not tothe trees in particular but to thedenseshadeinsomeareas,which somethink mayinfluencetheability ofTexaswild-rice to growthere.Thetexthasbeenclarified.

Comment: Critics will be quick to pointourthatapomixis(selfing) is not generallyconsidereda“reproductiveanomalv~”

ServiceResponse:The referencewas nor inthecontextof theplantkingdomin general.butin thecontextofthe genusandits knownrepro-ducrivestrategyHowever,to avoid misunder-standing,theword “other” hasbeenchangedto“any.”

Comment: In examiningarealcoverageofTexaswild-rice thetable includesdataup to1993,but thetext includeddataonly up to 1989.1994dataareavailableandthetextandgraphicsshouldusethe mostcurrentinformationavailable.

Serviceresponse: Text and tables havebeenupdatedto reflectthemostrecentdataavailable.

Comment: ln considering the recoverycriteria outlined for Texaswild-rice, it seemsthatdocumentingflowering alonewill notensurethat the speciesis completingits naturallife cycle in termsof sexual reproduction.Thiswould also requireevidenceof fruiting, in situseedgermination,andestablishmentof newseedlings.This maytake morethan5 years.

Serviceresponse: Although it is unknownto what degreeandunderwhat conditionshealthypopulationsof wild-rice recruit newplantsfrom seeds,it is undoubtedlyan impor-rant part of thelife cycle atsomepoint in termsof maintainingthe speciesas a whole. The texthasbeenexpandedto includemorecompletereproductivecriteria, anda discussionof itsbasis.

Comment: The requirementthat floweringbe occurringin at leastthreeof the identifiedsegmentsin your delistingcriteria is not enough.This occurssometimesnow, andwe knowthatthe speciesis not reproducingsexuallyin anyviablemanner.I recommendthatyou considerrequiringthatat least5% of the standswithinthecritical habitatareashouldbesuccessfullysexually reproductiveeachyear for a 5 yearperiod (andthis maybe an underestimate).

Service response: The Service agrees, andthe recoverycriteria havebeenmodified toreflect theserecommendedchanges.

Appendix 102

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoverypj~

Comment: Section2.9 (habitatrestoration)of thestep-downoutline emphasizesthesegmentof the SanMarcosRiver belowRioVista dam.This maybe fine for otherspecies,but for Texaswild-rice, thesectionof theriver from SpringLaketo the Rio Vista Dam providesmorethanthreetimestheamountof potentialhabitatthandoesthe remainderofthe river.

Serviceresponse:The texthasbeenmodi-fied to clarify therelativedegreeof potentialhabitat.availableaboveandbelowRioVista Damandin thelower reachesofthe critical habitatarea.

Recovery Criteria

Comment: In your recoverycriteria sectionsfor eachspecieswhendiscussingtargetcriteriathestatement“all measuresidentified in thisplantoremoveor minimize‘local’ threatshavebeensuccessfullyimplemented.”Thisitem is toovague.You shouldgivealist of the “local” threatsthatneedto beremovedor minimized.This isneededto givethereaderaclearpictureof theitemsof concern.

ServiceResponse:Theselocal threats arediscussedin the RecoveryStrategysection.Toimproveclarity, languageincludingexampleactivitieshasbeenaddedto the criteria sectionsas well.

Comment: The target density estimates forthe SanMarcossalamandershouldprobablybeprovided in the form of ranges to be observedfor a minimum of two or three consecutive yearsratherthanas single numbersat a singlepoint intime, morelike the strategyfor wild-rice.

ServiceResponse: The guidance given forthe SanMarcossalamanderis not criteria forconsideringdownlisting,as theyarefor Texaswild-rice. The interim objective for the sala-

mander for the periodof this recoveryplan is thecontinued existence of healthy, self-sustainingpopulationsof thesesalamandersin their nativehabitat.To providemeasurablefactorsto deter-mine thesuccessof theeffortsoutlined in theplanto preventdecline,guidanceis givenforannualmonitoring,with figuresgiven represent-ingour bestknowledgeof healthypopulations.

Appendix

Thesefiguresareto beusedasa basereferencepoint againstwhich to evaluatethe relativehealthof the populations.Higher levelsaredesirableandnot precluded.For monitoringandevaluationpurposes,annual monitoringisconsideredessential,at a minimum.

Comment: The executive summary doesnor include recovery criteria for the San Marcosgambusia. San Marcos salamander, and TexasBlind salamander.Sincethe plandoesnor providecriteriafor downlistingor delisring, it shouldspecificallystateherethatthe potentialforrecoveryislimited.

Service Response: It is stared in the planthat the potential for full recoveryof thesespeciesis low. A sentencehas beenaddedto theexecutivesummaryto reflect this. However, itshould nor beconcludedthatsignificantprogresstoward increasing the chances of long-termrecoverycannotbe madefor thesespecies.Inthis final plan, downlistingcriteria havebeengiven for theTexasblind salamander.The SanMarcos salamander is listed as threatened, and

thereforeno downlisringcriteria areneeded.Theplanstatesthatthe SanMarcosgambusiahasnotbeenfound in over 10 yearsandmaybe extinct.Where specificdownlistinganddelistingcriteriacould nor be formulatedfor a species.criteria formeasuringprogressis given in the plan.Thesecriteria are too lengthyandcomplexto beincludedin theexecutivesummary.

Comment: Your plan suggeststhatdelisringis unattainablein the foreseeablefuture for all five species,becauseof potentialcatastrophicevents.This meansyou havenotmetyour statutoryrequirements.You mustfindaway to protectthe speciesand their criticalhabitatin anyandall events.It is your job todelist,andtheplanis supposedto describehowit

will be done.If noneof theactionsyou proposearesufficientto delisttheyshouldnot be requiredatall.

ServiceResponse:Actions outlined inrecoveryplans are intendedto provide guidanceandcoordinationfor recoveryefforts.While it isthe ultimate objective of the recovery process toprovidefor listedspeciescomprehensivelyenoughthattheycanbedelisred,this is not always

T

103

SanMarcos& Coma]Spvings& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsR,-c~verv FLat.

~05siblewithin the projectedlife of aparticular

pecovetyplan.Whenthisis thecase,Servicerecoveryplanguidancestates: “If theprospectofreclassification15 uncertain,ameasurableinterimobjectivemaybeused.”

Recoveryplans are evaluatedfor the need

to reviseevery 5 years,andplansthat don’tneedsignificant revisionmaybe usedfor longerthanfive years.For the SanMarcoslComalplanit is estimatedthatanotherrevisionwill beneededwithin 5-10 years.Becausedelisting isnot projectedto be feasiblewithin the reason-able life of this recoveryplan, interim measur-able objectivesfor increasingprotectionfor thespecies~increasingpopulation stability, andincreasingthe probability of survival, are givenin the plan. For threeof the species(Texaswild-rice, fountain darters,andTexasblind sala-manders)it is believedthat recoveryactionsshould be attainablethatwould allowdownlistingfrom endangeredstatusto threat-enedstatus.

In selectingcriteriafor judgingrecoveryprogress,several of the elementsincludedareessentialfor the preventionof extinction of thespecies,and the Servicefeels that theseareessentialcriteria for measuringprogressmadeinstabilizing the species.

Comment:Your recoveryguidancestatesthat “conciseand measurablerecoverycriteriaareessential,theyrepresentthe centralpillar ofrecovery.” Therefore,the plan muststatethespecific requirementsof a stateor regional planthatwould be adequateto justify issuinganincidental takepermit.

Service Response: Recovery criteria andcriteriafor issuingpermits arenot the samething. Recovery criteria deal with the species asawhole, over its entire range,andcite measur-ableconditionsthatarebelievedto benecessarytodemonstrateincreasedstability, or completerecoveryof aspecies,beforedownlistingordelisting can be considered. Incidental takepermitsareissuedin responseto requeststhatcomein from an applicant,not as part of adownlistingor delistingevaluation.Takepermitapplicationsmaybe submittedfor avarietyofspecificactivitiesandvaryinggeographicareas.Therefore,specificrequirementsvaryanddepend

Appendix

on theareato beincluded,theplannedactivitiesof theapplicants,andthealternativespresentedtoavoid impactsto the species.The Serviceworkswith permitapplicantsso thatconservationactionsin habitatconservationplansareconsistentwith recoveryobjectives.

While it is not feasible to include specificcriteria for an incidental take permit in therecoveryplan, the Servicerecognizesthe needto developbetterguidanceandsupport forincidental take permit applicants.Task 2. 12 has

beenaddedto the plan to addressthat need.

Contingency Plan andCaptive Populations

Comment: Many of the proposed contin-gencyplan activities, such as geneticstudies,shouldbegin immediatelyand not wait forwater levels to drop into the critical zone.

ServiceResponse:The contingencyplanattachedto the draft recoveryplan was devel-opedin 1990andis currentlybeing revised.TheServicerecognizesthe needfor many of thesestudiesto be donein order to provideinforma-tion neededto guide collectionand captivebreedingprograms.Geneticstudiesof thefountain darterare underway.proposalshavebeendevelopedfor otheridentified informationneeds,and several of them have beenrecentlyfunded.

Comment: When downlisting is felt to bepossible,the year2025 is given as the estimatedyear for downlisting.Thereshould be somediscussionof the basis for that date.

Service Response: This is simply theService’sestimateof a reasonabletime periodneededto achievethe necessaryrecoverytasksoutlined if continuousprogressis made.Languagehasbeenaddedto the planto clarify this.

Comment: Task 2.10 calling for bringingspeciesinto captiverefugiain anemergencyappearsto excludetheTexasblindsalamander.

ServiceResponse:It is true that the originalcontingencyplandid not includeprovisionsforthe Texas blind salamander. The contingency plan

is currentlybeingrevisedandwill haveprovisions

104

SanMarcos& coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecovers’Plar.

for theTexasblind salamander.However,becausetheTexasblind salamanderis subterranean,in theeventof verv low flows, it maybe verydifficultto get anyadditionalindividualsto bring intocaptivepopulations.Problemssuchasthis areonereasontheplanalso hastask2.7, whichcalls forsettingup geneticallyrepresentativecaptivestocksatappropriatefacilitiesfor all listedspeciesassoonaspossible.Thecontingencyplancoopera-torshaverecognizedthis andthe newplanwillrecommendcaptivepopulationsfor theTexasblind salamanderbe maintainedatall times,notjustduring low flows. Their recommendationsarevervsimilar to thesort of actionsintendedunderTask2.7. Becauseofthis potentialoverlapthe text for task2.11 (whichwastask 2.10in thedraft)hasbeenmodifiedto reflect thisbroaderscope,moreinclusive of both tasks2.7 and2.11.

Comment: If we facea majoraquiferemergency.shouldn’temergencyconservationmeasuresfor the candidatespeciesof the Comalbe consideredby the Service?

ServiceResponse: In revisingthe contin-gency plan, the Serviceand its cooperatorshavemadethe decisionto include the Comalsala-manderin captiverefugia as well as the listedspecies.Contingencyplan cooperatorsareexaminingthe potentialto take actionon behalfof the riffle beetle andother invertebratesto seeif it is feasible to establishsomesort of captivestocks.There is so little informationon the lifecycle of the invertebratespeciesandhow tomaintain them in captivity (much lesshow toreintroducethem later) that it maybe impos-sible to do so at the presenttime. Furtherstudiesare needed.

Comment:In theplanin discussingtakeandjeopardynumbersyoustatethat flows shouldbemaintainedabovejeopardylevelsor adversemodificationof the critical habitat,yet therecoveryplanitself fails to ensurethat therewillalwaysbe flows in thecritical habitat.

and

Comment: In thedraft plan,you statethatcaptivepopulationscannotfulfill recoveryobjec-

A ppc ni is 105

rives or fully meetthe intent for conservationofthespeciesunderthe ESA. But in fact therecov-ery planas awholefails to do thesethings,andwould dependon captivepopulationsto maintainthespeciesin adroughtof record.The recovervplanmustcomeup with a strategythat doesnotrequirecaptivepopulationsandcanprotectthespeciesin thewild in bothordinarydry timesandin droughtsof record.

and

Comment: Captive populations are aninappropriateconservationstrategy.

Service response: Recovery plans bythemselvesareguidancedocumentsandcannotassurethe survival of listedspeciesor protectionof habitat.To assuresurvival the plansmust beimplementedin a timely manner.The Servicebelievesthat the implementationof the tasksoutlinedin this planwill be sufficientnot onlyto assurenecessaryspringflowsfor the speciesandtheir habitat,but alsoto dealwith otherthreats,andthe restorationneededto stabilizelistedspeciesandpreventtheir extinction.

However, the Serviceacknowledgesthatthereis uncertaintyin implementationof recov-ery plans.Manyelementsof recoveryplanimplementationare not under the Service’scontrol.Thereare fiscal, logistical, and regula-tory limitations. Implementationof recoverytasksby partiesoutsidethe Serviceis not re-quired (with the exceptionof someFederalagency obligations).Implementationof tasksidentified asServiceresponsibilitiesaredepen-denton adequatefunding.Sometaskswillrequirechangesin publicattitudesandbehav-iors. For othertasksthe necessarytechnicalexpertisehasnot yet beendeveloped.

In addition,it is not realisticto proposethattheServicecanachieverecoveryalone.Progresstowardrecoverytakesthe cooperationof numer-ousotherparties,particularlyin complex,wide-rangingsituationssuchasthis one.TheRecoveryPlanincludesmanytasksthatclearlystatetheymustbecooperativeandwill requiremanypartners.

While the Servicecannotmandaterecoveryplanimplementation,it can anddoesconscien-tiouslyandenergeticallypromoteimplementationandundertakesasmanytasksas possible.Signifi- I

cantprogresshasbeenmadeforthesespecies,as

-outlinedunderconservationmeasuresthroughouttheplan.

TheServicedoeshavelegal powersit can usero helppreventtake,jeopardy,andadverse

modificationof critical habitat.Tasks directingthat regulatoryprotectionshouldbe providedwere includedin the draft in task2.11 (nowtask2.12). However, an additional task (2.3)hasbeenaddedto the plan to clarify Federaloptionsand the approachthatwould be takenifsufficient progresstoward recoveryis not made.

The Servicebelievesthat captivepopula-tions are a part of avalid conservationstrategy,when usedin the contextof planningfor resto-ration in the wild. Even if springflowswereassuredthe Servicewould still recommendthatgenetically representativecaptivepopulationsbe establishedandmaintained.Captivepopula-tions are neededfor somespeciesto providematerialfor restorationwork called for in theRecoveryPlan. In addition, if someunavoidablecatastrophicevent loweredwild populationstothe point theyarewere longerviable in the wildor theywere totally eliminated, captivestockswould allow us to preventthe total loss of thespeciesand attempt restoration.

Habitat Protectionand Management

Comment: Task 2.5 encouragesmanage-mentof springand river habitat,but doesnotinclude cavehabitat.

Service Response: Language has beenaddedto the planto clarify the needto workwith landownersto protectcavehabitatandrechargefeatures.

Nonnative Species

Comment: The recoveryplanshouldexplainwhatwould constitute“significantcontrol of certainnonnativespecies”thatwouldallow springflow determinationsto be modified.

ServiceResponse:The Servicehas added asentenceto this footnoteto furtherclarify what ismeantby “significantcontrol.”

Appendix

5~ ls4aecos& Coma] Spvings& Assoc~tedAquaticEcosyttein,R~cosx.’yPlan

Comment: Th~ planhypoth~5~~ that

decreasedflows may exacerbatethe Problemimposedby nonnativespeciesincludingthegiantramshornsnail,without anydatato supportthishypothesis.

Service Response: The Recovery Plantext detailsseveral independentobservationsovertime (by Homeet al. 1992,Arsuffi pets.comm.,andLinam et al. 1993) that supporttheconcernthat the ramshornsnail maybe asignificant threat,especiallyduring low flows.This information is basedon observationsofthe snails, their relativeabundance,andtheirimpactson vegetationduring low flows. Addi-rional researchis neededto better understandthe snails andtheir relationshipto essentialhabitatfor the listed species.Conductingthisresearchis includedas a task in the recoveryplan. Dr. Arsuffi of SouthwestTexasStateUniversity hasundertakensomequantitativestudies.The text languagehasbeenclarified andadditional citationshavebeenaddedto thissection.

Comment: Appendix 1, the contingencyplan, discussesactivities to occur whenspringflowscease.Thiswould providean oppor-tunity to work in the dry channelto removeexoticspeciesthatstressor threatenthe nativespecies.Somechemicaltreatmentsmaybepossibleto eradicatenonnatives,andstill haverime to breakdown or washaway beforenativesarereturnedto the system.Somediscussionoferadicationtreatmentfor nonnativesshouldbeincludedin the plan.

ServiceResponse:The Contingency Planincludedin theoriginal recoveryplanis beingrevised, and cooperatorshavediscussedthepotentialfor exoticspeciescontrol.Therewasconcernthat low flows, while theymight call forinterventionon the part of speciesof concern,mightnot actuallypresentthe besttime forcontrol of nnonnativespecies.The persistenceofindividualsof listedspeciesduring low flows willdependon the extentanddurationof drying. Asspringflowsfall the river systemsare nor ex-pectedto dry out uniformly. Most remainingorganismswould be extremelystressed,andactionstakenwith chemicalor other meanstotreatnonnativespecieswould likely alsobe

106

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecovec-.P1~Ti

destructiveofsurvivingnativeorganisms~listedandotherwise.This would nor be a goodapproachif the crisis was short durationandsurvivable,evenby low numbersof nativeindividuals.Survivorswould be pivotal in theability of the natural systemto restoreitselfquickly.

Further,we do not yet knowhow besttocontrol many of thesespecies,especiallyunderlow flow conditions,andit is difficult to de-velop guidancein advance.Including specificnonnatis’especiescontrol projectsin theCon-tingencyPlan could be detrimental if evaluationandplanningare not adequate.

Water Quantity

Comment:The plan shouldemphasizetheimportanceof humanactivity, especiallyoverpumping,asthe causeof the principal threatto the ComalandSanMarcos,andthehistori-cally increasingnatureof that threat.It shouldstatespecificallythat the Comalwould not havegonedry in thedroughtof recordexceptforhumanwithdrawals,andthe San Marcoswouldnor reachjeopardylevelsexceptfor humanpumping.

and

Comment:Theplanshouldnotethatprojectionsshowthatthe ComalSpringswill godry on their own in adroughtof record,evenwithout anypumping.Pumpingrestrictionswillnot preventthe springsfrom going dry in adroughtof record.

and

Comment:You areincorrectin assumingthat pumpinglimits will providea recoveryplan.You haveignoredcomputersimulationsthatshowthat the aquiferwill go below100 cfsatSanMarcosin manydroughts~evenin theabsenceofanypumpingin theregion.

ServiceResponse:The backgroundtextsectionon water quantitystatedthat loss ofspringflow is tied inseparablyto waterusagefromtheEdwardsAquifer, notedthe increaseinwithdrawalfrom the SanAntonio areafrom

1 934to thepresent.anddiscussedprojectionsforincreasingpumpagein thefuture, with apermanentloss of flow at Comal andSanMarcosSpringsasa result.

Projectionsaboutwhenthe Comal wouldgodry in a droughtof record,with or withoutpumping,varv from sourceto source,dependingon assumptionsandmodelsused.

In today’s situation, however,pumpingisundoubtedlya factor in whetherandwhenthespringsgo dry andfor how long. Groundwaterwithdrawalsarea primaryconcern.Pumpinglevelsthreatenspringflowsduringmildly dryyears,at leastintermittently,andall futureprojectionsshowthatwithout interventionthespringseventuallyarelikely to go dry. Bothintermittent andpermanentloss of springfloware unacceptablefor the preservationof theendangeredspecies’ecosystemand their survivalandrecovery.

Comment:The planshouldnotethatduringyearsof at leastmild drought,springflowsdropvery rapidly.This is why an enforceableemergencywithdrawalreductionplan is neededthattriggerswell beforespringsreacha “take”level.

ServiceResponse:The Servicehas addeda commentaboutthe potentialfor rapid de-dinesin flows from ComalSpringsin thebackgroundsection.Becauseof the logistics ofimplementingreductionmeasures,in situationswhereflows aredroppingrapidly it is possiblethat emergencyreductionmeasureswill needtohave implementationtriggersat levels before“take” is reached,in order to preventjeopardy.The needto developtheseoperationalscenariosandprepareto implementthem is discussedinthe final planunder tasks2.11 and2.34.

The purposeof a recoveryplan, however,isnot to prescribemeasuresthat will preventanypossible“take” of a listedspecies.The recoveryplansetsforth thelong-termmeasuresthataremostlikely to enablethe Serviceto downlistordelista species.Somedegreeof “take” undersection9 of the ESA maybe permissiblethroughissuanceofan incidentaltakestatementunderasection7 consultationor asection10 incidentaltakepermit, in conjunctionwith Serviceapprovalof ahabitatconservationplan.

Appendix 107

Comment:Lossofspringflows is nor a‘C’CpflIfl~iY threat,” it is the “most serious” threatto thesespecies.

ServiceResponse: The Service prefersto

usethe term primary. Lossof springflowsis notthe only threatthat couldcausethe extinctionofthesespecies.The declineof theSan Marcosgambusiais thoughtmostlikely to havebeen

causedby habitatalterationandlossand/ortheimpactsof exoticspecies.A catastrophiceventsuchas an accidentalspill of a toxic chemicalfrom a railway bridge or roadwaycrossingcouldalsobe serious.The recoveryplan is responsiblefor identifying andattemptingto addressall suchpotentially seriousthreats.

Comment:Theplanshouldprovide atleastthreeprojectionsof SanAntonio’s increaseddemands,by the SanAntonio WaterSystem,bytheTexasWaterDevelopmentBoard,andbyResearchandPlanningConsultants,Inc.

and

Comment:TheTexasWaterDevelopmentBoard’s modelis not the only. or evenmostreliable,predictorof the impactsof pumping onComalspringflows.Othermodelsandprojec-tions include: Thornhill (1992), TBEE Educa-tional Consultants(1994),andCenterfor Re-searchin WaterResources(1993). All showmoredrasticimpactsthanTWDB, with ComalSpringsdrying up or falling below“take” and“jeopardy” levels in milder droughtsand forlongerperiods.

ServiceResponse: More citationsfor theinterestedreaderto explorebackgroundinfor-mationhavebeenincludedin the plan,includ-ing referenceto mostof thesereports.However,it is not the purposeof the backgroundsectionto providea detailedandvoluminousliteraturereview,datadisplay.andevaluationof all previouswork. Thiswould result in a burdensomeandunwieldyplan.Guidancedirectsthatplansbrieflyandconciselystatetheproblems,issues,andtasksneededto beresolved.

Thatthe city of SanAntonio’swaterdemandwill increasesignificantlyasit growsis notdebated.SanAntonio is not the only userofaquiferwatersin thearea,andincreasesin demand

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic Ecoss-stenisRec~,s’ers’Pici.

canbe projectedfor otherareasas well. Thatbothspringsare in dangerof dryingup intermirtentl~’,andprogressivelyuntil theyceaseflowing alto-getherisalso not debated.Betterrechargeanddischargedatasetsareneeded,andmorework is

neededto gatheradditionalinformationandrefinemodelsbeforeaccurateandmoreconsistentinterpretationscan beexpected.Theessentialpoint ourof all of theseinvestigationsandprojectionsis discussedin the“threats” sectionunderwaterquantity.The planstatesthatevenwith a low (and unlikely) rateof growth for thisregion overal,demandson theEdwardsBalconesFaultZoneaquiferwill farexceedthe rechargeover the long-term. Clearly a new approachtomeetingwaterdemandsin the areawill beneededto avoid overuseof the aquifer and lossof its biological resourcesand integrity, let alonethe economiesthat are presentlydependentupon it.

Comment: Theplan should state,asJudgeBunronhasfound, thatto providefor flow at theComalSprings,pumpingmustbe reducedin arepeatof thedroughtof recordto a level of only200,000acre-feet/year.

and

Comment:Somepeoplefeelthat underS.B.1477the newEdwardsAquifer Authoritycannotreducepumpingbelow400,000acre-feet/year.Thereforethe planneedsto statethatJudgeBunronfoundthatpumpingeven350,000acre-feet/yearin adroughtof recordwill dry up theComal Springs for years.

and

Comment: It is obviousthatpumpingwillhaveto bereducedin averageyearsto lessthan400,000acre-feet/yearand roughly 200,000acre-feet/yearin seriousdroughtyears.

ServiceResponse:Fortherecoveryofthespeciesthe first priority hasbeento identify thelevelsof springflowneededforthe continuedsubsistenceand recoveryof the listed speciesintheir ecosystems.The Servicehas usedthe bestavailable information to evaluateand providean estimateofwhatthesespringflowsare,andhas

Appendix 108

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecove~,pj~

beencandidthatthesenumberscouldchangeasmoredetailedinformationbecomesavailable.Theplanincludestheseestimatedspringflowlevelsneeded,andtheServiceis conductingadditionalstudiesto refinetheseestimates.

It is beyondthe scopeof thisplanto defini-tively determinethe limits of groundwateruseorpumpingneededto protectspringflowsandsubterraneanhabitat.Therehasbeenconsider-ablediversityof opinion on levelsof groundwa-rer usethatwould preserveneededspringflowsunder various conditions. The Service recognizesthe needto improveguidanceon thelikely levelsof reductionin groundwateruseneededtoprovide necessaryspringflows. Additionalanalysisand assistanceare needed.Task 2.11hasbeenaddedto the plan and is designedtoprovide additionaltechnicalguidanceby con-veningan interagencyteamof biologists,geologists,hydrologists,economists,andwaterresourceplanners.This groupwill examinebaselineinformationandcurrent models,andbuild upon othereffortsto date (suchas pro-posedemergencyreductionplans) to developbetter guidanceon aquifer levels needed(undervarying conditions) to supportthe survival andrecoveryof the species.

Relatingspringflow levelsto exactlevelsofgroundwateruselimits neededto protectagainstlow aquifer levels is dependenton a numberoffactors.Different modelingeffortshaveshowndifferent resultsdependingon the assumptionsandmathematicalrelationshipsusedto developthem.Determinationsof neededlimits ongroundwaterusemustbe basedon an evaluationof factorsincludingproposedamountsand timesof use,projectedfuturewithdrawal needs,availabilityof alternativewatersupplies,andotherconcernsofconservationagenciesandofthecommunity.Undoubtedly.modelsmayberefined,andadequateplansregulatingground-water usemay evolve in responseto our experi-enceandcontinuedmonitoringof the aquifer.Overtime we expectto gain a better under-standingof the responseof thespringsto re-charge,pumpinglevels,localweatherpatterns,andchangesin wateruseprofiles.Statingaparticulartargetlevel for pumpingin theplancould be misleading,andwould not provide for

Apj~endix 109

theflexibility neededto addressthenumerousvariablesinvolved.

It is clear, however, that an enforceablestate/regional/localplan or plans to reducepumpingwould be neededto preventunacceprably low springflows.Reductionin currentuselevelswould be neededto ensurethat aquiferlevels do not approachunacceptableminimumlevelsin dry periodsor periodsof intensedemand.In arepeatof a droughtof recordthereductionin pumpingthatwould be neededtosustainspringflowwould be evenmore severe,andwordinghasbeenaddedto the text to besurethat this is clearlyunderstood.Task 2.1

statesthat to assureadequatespringflows andaquifer levelsa mechanismfor controllinggroundwaterwithdrawal is needed,as well asthe developmentand implementationof anAquifer ManagementPlanthatwould achievenecessary groundwater use reductions.

Task2.1 hastwo tasks(2.11 and2.12)whichhavebeenaddedto the plan.Task2.11 calls for arepresentativeworkinggroupincludingusers,regulatoryagenciesandbiologistsandtechnicaladvisorsto developmentandimplementthiscomprehensive Aquifer Management Plan. It isexpectedthattheinteragencyteamexaminingneededaquiferlevelsandprovidingtechnicalguidance(task2.12)will beworkingcloselywiththeworkinggroupdevelopingthe comprehensiveAquifer ManagementPlan.

Comment: It is obviousthat to protectthespeciesandspringflowsa regulatoryauthoritywith jurisdiction over all pumpingwill berequired.

ServiceResponse:TheServiceagreesthatthereneedsto bea Statemechanismfor regulat-inggroundwaterwithdrawals,aswas statedin thedraftplanin therecoverystrategysectionandunder task 2. 1. The State legislature passedlegislation in 1993 creating the Edwards Aquifer

Authority, with regulatorypowers.However, thelegislationwas unimplementabledueto legalchallengesbasedon Voting RightsAct concernsaboutadequaterepresentationfor theregulatedarea.TheServiceishopefultheEdwardsAquiferAuthority will soonbeoperating.In 1995 thelegislatureaddressedtheseproblemswith an

amendmentto thelegislation,but implementa-

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic Ecoss-srenisRecoservPici.

1nonhasagainbeenchallengedin thecourts,this

time by the MedinaandUvaldeCounrvUnder-groundWaterDistricts. Recentlya Statecourtjudgeruledthatthelegislationwas unconstitu-tional underTexaslaw, an appealis expected,andlitigation maycontinue.If no Stateplancan beimplementedunderthe 1993legislation,thentheServicewill haveto examineothermeansofprotectingthe species.Informationupdatinglegislativeandcourtactionin 1995 hasbeenaddedto thetext.

Comment: An emergencyreductionplanmustbe in place,enforceable,and readytoreducepumpingquickly in crisis situations.TheServicecanandshouldprovidean emergencywithdrawalreductionplanthatdefinesspecifictrigger levelsfor emergencypumpingreductions.The plan shouldincludecutting our all outdoorwatering(agriculturalandmunicipal)andthisshouldhappenat triggerlevelswell abovejeop-ardy.

and

Comment: Theplan should describespecific institutionalarrangementsby whichSanAntonio military basescanbeassuredof waterthat is not dependenton the Edwards.

and

Comment: Alternativewatersuppliesmustbe developedto enableusersof Edwardswatertoreducetheirdependanceon theaquifer.Theonlysourcesofwaterthatarelargeenough,cost-effective,andenvironmentallyacceptableareinterbasintransfers.

and

Comment:Theplanshouldspecificallyaddresstheprojectedpotentialandlimits ofagricultural, municipal, and industrial conserva-

tion and wastewater re-use. This should bediscussed in detail relating studies, projections,and potential achievements and limits. They have

the potential to contribute significantly to reduc-ing waterdemandin a costeffectiveway. How-ever,theycannotprovidein “savings”theamountofwaterprojectedto beneededin thearea

without theneedfor pumpingcontrolsoralternativewatersupplies.”

and

Comment:The draftplan focusessolelyoncontrolling groundwater pumping without anyconsiderationfor the existenceof other alterna-tive techniquesthatmightcontributeto conser-vanionof the species,with moreminimal socialandeconomicimpacts.

ServiceResponse:The importantpointregardingthe developmentof an Aquifer Man-agementPlan is that it shouldusea multifacetedapproach.The Aquifer ManagementPlan wouldderivegreaterreliability andminimizepotentialadverseimpactsthroughsignificantdiversifica-tion. The recoveryplanstatesthat the planmayinclude conservation,water reusesuch aswastewateruse,constantmonitoringandregulationof aquiferwithdrawals,groundwateruseemergencyreductionplans, limited useorretirementofwater rights througha marketingsystem,rechargeenhancement,anddevelop-mentof alternativewater sources.The textundertask2.1 hasbeenmodified to emphasizeour recommendationof a multifacetedap-proach.

However,the Servicedoesnot believeit isappropriateor within insstatutorydutiestodictateexactlyhow this objectiveis met. TheappropriateServicerole is to providetechnicalsupportandbiological evaluationsto helpevaluatethesuitability andfeasibility of locallyandregionallydevelopedplansin termsofwhethertheyarelikely no be ableno protectthespeciesof concern.

CurrentServicepolicy providesfor theinvolvementof stakeholdersin planningtheimplementationdetailsof specific recoveryactionsin orderto minimize socialandeconomicburdensto local communitieswheneverpos-sible. Emergencygroundwaterusereductionplans should be developedby thosewho havethe authorityto imposeandenforceemergencyreductionsin groundwaterwithdrawal,andbythosefrom thecommunityno be regulated.Asnoted previously. considerableprogresshasbeenmadein local and regional planningsincethe draft recoveryplanwas prepared.

Appendix 110

Sari Marcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsEccoveryPlar

The DepartmentofDefensehasindicatedaninterestin makingarrangementsto obtainwaterfrom sourcesthat do non dependon theaquifer.In is appropriateforspecificdetailsofsucharrangementsto bedevelopedby theappropriateDepartmentof Defenseauthorities,nottheRecoveryPlan.

The plan acknowledgesunder task 2.1 thatdevelopmentof alternativesourcesof wateris anappropriateandpotentiallypromisingpart of anapproachto aquifermanagement.The taskalsononesthe appropriatenessof strategiesfor waterconservationandwasnewanerreuse.Conservationstrategiesandwasnewarerreuseshouldbe pur-suedaggressivelyno derive the maximumsavingspossible.Theseapproachescan contrib-ute significantly to reducingdemandon theaquifer.The Serviceacknowledges,however,thanconservationaloneis non likely to besufficient no meetprojectedwaterdemandsforthe areathroughsavings,hencethe recommen-dationthat the planinclude otherstrategiesaswell.

Currentassessmentsregardingthe potentialcontributionsand limits of variousapproachesmight be modified following additionalreview,evaluation,and fine-tuning.Ratherthan includethem in the presentRecoveryPlan,a reviewoftheseissuesis includedas partofthe deliberationsof the workinggroupcalled for in newtask2.11,andthe evaluationsof thetechnicalsupportteamincludedin newtask2.12. Decisionsregardingthe appropriatecontributionto groundwaterusereductionto berealizedfrom thesetechniquesisalsobestleft to thesegroupsduringthedevelop-mentofthe comprehensiveAquifer ManagementPlan.

Artificial Augmentation

Comment: In discussionsof supplement-ing the region’swater supply, rechargeenhance-ment/damsis a majoroptionwhich is unmen-nionedexceptfor cautionsthatpossibleimpactson sensitivecavespeciesmustbeconsidered.Rechargeenhancementshouldbeincludedin theoptionsdiscussed.

and

Appendix

Comment:TheplanshoulddiscusstheService’s position on recentproposalsforstreamfiowaugmentation.In is non addressed.Someinterestsbelievethataugmentationcanallow pumpingno continueunregulated.

and

Comment: Your river managementplansshouldinclude provisionsfor local rechargeandaugmentation.

and

Comment:Your plan shouldcall for thedevelopmentof injection,local recharge.aug-mennationdirectly into streambeds,andrecircu-lation of springflow.The recoveryplan needstoincludea wholechapteron thesevariousstrate-giesandtheir relativecostvs. shuttingdowntheaquiferandgoing to othersourcesofwater.

and

Comment: Studiesfor theEdwardsUnder-groundWaterBoardhaveshownthat augmenta-tion techniquesin atleastfive differentconfigura-rionsarefeasiblefor keepingwaterin thecriticalhabitat,evenduringadroughtofrecord.Yourplan, to befair, mustincludethesetechniques.

Serviceresponse:TheServicewroteto theTexasWaterDevelopmentBoard(Sept. 1, 1994andJanuary23,1995),commentingon theMcKinney andSharpdraft report “Springflowaugmentationof the ComalSpringsandSanMarcosSprings,Texas: PhaseI--FeasibilityStudy (Draft).” We statedthataugmentationalternativesdescribedinvolving injectionwells,infiltration galleries,aquiferbaffles,anddirectadditionto spring fed lakesarenot feasibleintermsof providingadequateprotectionfor listedspeciesdependentupon the EdwardsAquifer,with additionalcommentson our reasonsforconcern.Theseaugmentationapproachesareunlikely to preserve the biological integrity of theecosystemsof concern,anddo nonaddresstheunderlyingproblemof excessivedemandon theaquifer.Othermorefeasibleapproachesinvolveactions directly addressing this problem, thereforeprovidingalong-termsolutionto theseproblems.

ill

SanMaicos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecos-eryEI.’1

As statedabove,theServicebelievesthatthemosteffectiveregionalAquiferManagementPlanxvi!! beoneusinga multifacetedapproachnoreducegroundwaterdemandson theaquifer.While regionalandlocal rechargeenhancementopportunitiesmayhavesomepotentialbenefit,theymustbecarefullyevaluated.The Servicedoesnon believethatrechargealternativescanbeadequatelyevaluateduntil dataaredevelopedandanalyzedthataddresspotentialimpactsto theTexas blind salamander and water quality issues(suchasthe potentialforcontamination,andlikelihoodthatrechargeenhancementwaterswillequilibrateto normalaquiferconditionswithoutharmno the species).A carefulevaluationisneededof therealisticpotentialfor rechargeenhancement to provide any significant water totheaquiferduringdroughtperiods.Impactstofish andwildlife atthepointof recharge,fromdecreasedflows in riversandstreamsdownstreamof recharge,andotherimpactsno drainagesthatwill be deprivedof watersnormally accruingtothem(dueno diversionto recharge)mustbecarefullyevaluatedaswell.

The textundertask2.1 hasbeenexpandednoclarify the Service’spositionon theseaugmenta-tion approaches.

MiscellaneousTechnicalComments

Comment: As a tool no aid therecoveryofthesespecies,preliminarypopulationviabilityanalyses(PVAs) for the Texaswild-rice, foun-tam darter,andsalamandersshouldbe done.Byusingestimatesof biological parametersandenvironmentalvariability onecan explorebycomputersimulationtheconsequencesofunexpectedeventson theprobabilitiesofextinc-tion.Theseestimatescanbeveryhelpful inguidingmanagementdecisions.

ServiceResponse:TheServiceagreesthatPVA canbea valuableanalyticaltool andhasexploredtheuseof PVA techniquesfor severalspecies.In is mostusefulwith comprehensiveandreliablebaselinedatato supportin, anda modelconfigurationthatis a good fin no theactualbiologyof thespeciesandinshabitat.Wehavefoundsomemodelslimited in their ability tohandlelargebroodsizesorotherlife history

parametersfor thespeciesinvolved.Task 1. 15(determining survivorship patterns), wouldlogically includethesesorts of investigations.

Comment:Although theRecoveryPlanwill specificallyaddressonly currentlylistedspecies,candidatespeciesfrom the ComalSpringsneedprotectiontoo--andsomeof themmayendup beinglisted in the future. By pro-nectingthehabitatof the fountaindarterwill webe protectingthe site specifichabitatsof theComalSpringssalamanderandthe riffle beetle?

ServiceResponse: Generally in appearsthanthis would be the case.If the decisionismadeto proceedwith listing thesespecies.nomajorchangesin the recoveryplanwould beneededto provide protectionfor them as well,as the threatsfaced are similar. However,springflow levelswhere take and jeopardywould occurfor thesespeciesmaydiffer fromthosegiven for the fountaindarterat Comal,particularly becausethesespeciesare locatedprimarily in the springrunsof the Comal.

INFORMATION ANDPUBLIC EDUCATION

Comment:While in shouldnot betheprimaryemphasisof the recoveryplan,theconnectionbetweenspeciesprotectionandpeopleprotectionshouldbe emphasized.Keep-ing the aquifercleanandspringsflowing forthesespeciesis alsogood for peopledrinking thewaterandfor local economiesdependenton theriver systems.Manypeoplewho do notappreci-atea particularorganism’sworth or intrinsicright to protectioncanappreciatethis moreimmediateconnectionno the needfor protectionof naturalresources.

ServiceResponse:Task4.0coveringpublicinformationandeducationefforts includedtheneedto showthehumanbenefitsofprotectingtheecosystemsuponwhichthesespeciesdepend.This texthasbeenexpandedno clarify the impor-nanceof thisaspect.

Appendix 112

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoversPian

POLICY ANDIMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

Comment:TheDraft Plan fails no minimizethesocial andeconomicimpactsof implementa-nion asdirectedin the FWS policy statementofJuly 1, 1994.

ServiceResponse:TheServiceconsiderstheminimizationof potentialsocialandeconomicimpactsofrecoveryto beimportantto thesuccessof recoveryeffortson behalfof listedspeciesandtheir ecosystems.TheServicerecognizesthatinplanningfor recoveryfor thesespecies,thegreatestpotentialimpactsare in the areaofcontrollinggroundwaterwithdrawalsfrom theEdwardsAquifer.andin addressingotherhumanimpactsin theecosystemsthatmaycausehabitatalterationor destruction.

Recoveryplantasksno achievetheseobjectiveshavebeendesignedno becooperativelydevelopedandimplementedin orderno takeadvantageofthe input ofconcernedpartiesfor bothdesignandimplementation.The recoveryplanmakesin veryclear thatpublic involvementin thedetailsofrecoveryplanningandimplementationarenecessaryandwelcomeundertask2 andinsvarioustasks.The draft planalsoincludedaspecificobjective(4.2) for encouragingpublicparticipationin conservationefforts.This is donein partno facilitateconsiderationof socialandeconomicimpactsandhelpminimize them.

Implementationof all recoveryplantasksmay non involve significanteconomicor socialimpactsor requirepublic participationandplanning.However,in manycasestheremaybeseveral avenues that could be pursued no achieve aparticular task, and several involved parties orcooperators.Whenappropriatefor the imple-mentationof aparticulartask,the Servicemayconveneaffectedpartiesno examineoptionsavailable,evaluateconcernsand ideasoffered,andbe certainthat implementationsupportstimely achievementof the taskwhile minimizingsocialandeconomiccostsas muchaspossible.

In order to clarify our intentionno minimizesocial and economiccosts while still achievingthe timely implementationof recoverytasks,wehaveaddedlanguageexplicitly statingthesegoalsno tasks2.0and4.0 andappropriatetasks.

Comment:Thekey no efficient aquifermanagement,includingspring-fedecosystemmaintenance,is transferable,prioritizedpumpingrights.

and

Comment: Theplan must specificallyaddressthe potentialandlimits of waterrightsmarketing,anddiscussthe impedimentfacedtodaybecausepropertyrights no Edwardswaterare non currentlydefined. You should educateaboutthe concepts,facts,andthe law. There isremarkableconsensusamongsnakeholdersaboutthepotentialusefulnessofa marketingapproach.

ServiceResponse:TheServicefeels thattherearemanywaysto achievelimitations on theamountofwaterpumpedfrom theEdwardsaquifer in order no protect the species thatdependupon in. Transferablepumpingrights isonewatermarketingsystemthatcould beemployed,andsuchwaterrights marketingsystemsareincludedas an option in the plan.

Comment:You needno hold a publichearingas soonas possibleno collect the ideasandcommentsof the peopleon your proposedrecoveryplan.

ServiceResponse:Thedraftrecoveryplanandnoticesof its availability for publiccommentwerewidelycirculated,with a 90-daypubliccommentperiod.A noticeof availability ap-pearedin theFederalRegister.andin additionover 850lettersweresentnotifying potentiallyinterestedpartiesof the availability of the planfor public comment.Over160 copiesof theplanweremailedout. Issuessurroundingtheneedsfor the conservationand recoveryof thelistedspeciesin theComalandSanMarcossystemshavehadwide mediaexposurein theareaandstatewide,andhavehada greatdeal ofscrutiny by agencies,organizations,local andstategovernmenns~andinterestedindividuals.TheServicefeelsthatnotificationsanddraftplanssentout for reviewandcommenthavebeensufficientno allow considerationandcommentof thepeople.Only 13 lettersof commentwerere-ceived.A costly publichearingwouldnon belikely no result in anywider considerationof thedraft planthanhasalreadybeenachieved,noris apublichearingbelievedto bemoreeffectivean

Appei~dix 113

soliciting commentsthanmethodsalreadyused.TheServiceprefersno direct ins limited fundstowardsupportof on-the-groundrecoveryactions.

Comment: RecoveryPlans are subjecttorequirementsof the NationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act. You havefailed to considertheenvironmentalimpact of alternativesunderNEPA. A full environmentalimpactstatementwill be requiredbeforeanyRecoveryPlanis puninto place.

ServiceResponse:TheServicedeterminedin 1986than, consistentwith theCouncilofEnvironmentalQualityregulationsimplementingNEPA, recoveryplansarecategoricallyexcludedfromNEPArequirementsforEnvironmentalAssessmentsor EnvironmentalImpactStatementsduringthedevelopmentandapprovalprocess.Thisexclusionis basedon the fact thatrecoveryplansarebroadplanningdocumentsthatlist alltasksthe Servicebelievesmaycontributenotherecoveryof speciesandsetgeneralpoliciesandprioritiesfor managementandtreatmentofspecies.Recoveryplanscovertasksthatmayinvolve actionsby theService,otherFederalagencies,Stateandlocalgovernments,theprivatesector,or a combinationof these.However,recoveryplansdo not imposeanyobligationonanyagency,entity or personto implementthetaskslistedin the plan.

While arecoveryplandoesnonrequireNEPAanalysisfor developmentandapproval,actualimplementationof actionsoutlinedin theplanmay.NEPA analysis(andthepreparationofanyneededEnvironmentalAssessmentor Environ-mentalImpactStatementsthatmaybe required)is expectedto bedoneby anyFederalagencyastheyprepareno actuallyimplementparticularrecoveryactions,if appropriate.

Comment:Underordinarycircumstancesrecoveryplansmaynot besubjectto NEPAanalysisrequirements,becauserecoveryplansarebroad planningdocumentswithout specificimplementationobligationsor proposals.How-ever, in this case,as JudgeBunnon hasorderedthe preparationandimplementationof theplan,in appearsthat recoveryplandevelopmentandimplementationarenowanondiscretionaryduty.

SanMarcos& coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecoversPiax

Under these circumstances in seems FWSmustcomply with NEPA.

Serviceresponse: NEPA requirementsonly apply to discretionaryactionsof Federalagencies.not no nondiscretionaryactions,suchas specific court-orderedrecoverytasks.Thecourt’s orderwas directed specifically an (1) theneedfor the Serviceno announcethe threshold“take” and “jeopardy” springflow and aquiferwaterlevels, and (2) the needno updatetheplanno considerComal Springsandaquifer-dependentspecies,which the revisedplan nowdoes.The plan itself remainsa broadplanningdocument,without specific legally enforceabledutiesupon otheragenciesor persons.Discre-tionaryimplementationof specific recoveryactionscalled for in the planwould still beexpectedno go through compliancewith theNEPA process.

Comment: You haveoutlined a vastnumberof studiesthat the peoplewill payforthathaveno obviousconnectionno protectingspeciesin droughts.Someexplanationof therelevancyof eachproposedstudyshould beincludedin the plan.

ServiceResponse:Droughtis nonthe onlyissuethatmustbe addressedno assuretheconser-vation andrecoveryof thespecies.Part1,B. Threatsto theSpeciesandTheirEcosystems,devotesseveralpagesno a detaileddiscussionofotherproblemsthatmustbeexaminedandaddressed.Part1, E. RecoveryStrategy,discussestheneedto investigateregionalandlocal threatsandadditionalresearchneededregardingthebiologyof the individualspecies.Lastly, PartII,C. NarrativeOutline for RecoveryActions,includesin thetext for eachtaskadiscussionoftherole of eachtaskin furtheringconservationandrecovery.

Comment:You mentionstatelegislativeactionon S.B. 1477 in thedraftplanbut fail tonotethat thebill was declaredvoid by theJusticeDepartment,andthataccordingno somemodelsdoesnon comecloseno protectingthe speciesfrom jeopardyanyway.

Serviceresponse:Sincethe draft planwascirculatedfor reviewandcommentthe StateLegislaturehasconvenedandpassedlegislationin

Appendix 114

SanMaxcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecove~-p~

1995 (H.B. 3189)amendingS.B. 1477 (passedin1993 to createthe EdwardsAquifer Authority)thanresolvedtheJusticeDepartmentsconcernspreviouslypreventingimplementationduenoconcernsaboutrepresentationundertheVotingRightsAct. Implementationof thelegislationhasbeenpreventedby newlegalchallengesbroughtby theMedinaCountyUndergroundWaterDistrict andothers.Recentlya Statecourtjudgeruled thatthelegislationwasunconstitutional.However,in is expectedthatthe statewill appeal,andthe caselikely will be decidedby theTexasSupreme Court.

The Servicebelievesthatthislegislationis asignificant actiontoward implementationofregulatedgroundwaterwithdrawal from theEdwardsAquifer andsharethestate’sview thatthis law shouldbe implemented.The Serviceishopefulthat concernswill be resolvedquickly sothanin may be implemented.Regulatingground-waterusein turn is an importantpart of acomprehensiveplanno maintainadequatewatersuppliesin the ecosystemsof the Comaland SanMarcosSpringsfor the survival and recoveryofthe listedspecies.

COMPLIANCE WITHJUDGE BUNTON’S ORDER

Comment:JudgeBunton orderedthatthedraftplan“ shall includesuchcombinationsofpumping restriction,FederalagencyESASection7 cutoff of permitsor fundsor otheractions,and other affirmative measuresasappearnecessaryandappropriateno protecttheaquiferandthe speciesdependenton theaquifer,evenif a repeatofthe droughtof recordbeginsnow, andassumingthecontinuedindefiniteabsenceof an adequatestateor regionalplan.” Yenthedraft plandoesnonstatethe specificpumpingrestrictionsneededno avoidcausingtakeorjeopardyno the species.doesnonexaminespecificwatersupplyalternatives,or identify specificFederalagencysection7 cutoffs.

ServiceResponse:JudgeBunnon’sorderdidnonrequirethattheServicedictatespecificdetailedcontrolsfor waterconservation,devel-opment,andapportionmentfor the SanAntoniosegmentof the EdwardsAquifer in this Recovery

Appendix

Plan.He recognizedthantheServiceshouldincludethosemeasuresthat in deemedno be“necessaryandappropriate”for inclusion in arecoveryplan.The Serviceprovidedwhatwasrequesned~andclearlystatesin task2. 1 thananenforceableplan shouldbe developedto managethewater in theEdwardsAquifer (usingavarietyof biologically supportableapproaches)nopreservewatersuppliesfor the springs(evenin adroughtof record).This taskalso clearlyex-pressesand includesthe obligationsmandatedby the Act for Federalagencies.

In is undesirablefor the RecoveryPlannoattemptno determineanddictatethe specificcomponentsor requirementsfor anyStateorregionalregulatoryplanto meetthis objective.Doing so would not provide for the kind ofconsidered,comprehensiveplanning,continuousevolution,and fine-tuningthat will be involved.CurrentServicepolicy statesthat the Serviceintendsto minimizesocial andeconomicimpactsasmuchaspossiblewhile providingforthetimely recoveryof listedspecies,by usingtheinformationandinput from affectedinterestsnodevelopalternativesfor recoveryimplementa-tion, as well as by seekingtheir participationinrecoveryimplementation.This recoveryplanisconsistentwith that policy.

Regulationandmanagementof the waterinthe EdwardsAquifer involvesmanyState,re-gional, and local agencies with responsibilities and

authoritiesregardingwateruse,bothruralandurban.As notedin theRecoveryPlan,Stateandlocalentitiesshouldbetheprimarypartiesdevelopingthe Aquifer ManagementPlan. Anyplan settingrestrictionsshould be flexible, usecontinuouslyupdatedor adjustedprojectionsofwatersuppliesanduse,and be able to stimulateand implementprogramsandprojectsthat aresuccessfulin reducingwater consumptionordevelopingalternativesupplies.In is clearthatthedesignandimplementationof aneffectiveplanshouldinvolvetheparticipationoflocal, State,Federalandprivateentitiesin acooperative,regionalapproach~consistentlymonitoredandenforceable.

Since the draft was made available for public

commentthe Servicehassoughtthe participationofotherentitiesandhasbeenworkingcoopera-nively no advancetheplanningandimplemenna-

115

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquatic Ecosvs,enisRecos-ervP~sr

nionprocess.The Serviceis working in coopera-nonwith the city of New Braunfelsandothersnodevelopalocal springandriver managementplan.JudgeBuntonappointedacourtmonitorwhohasbeenexaminingemergencyusereductionplansandaregionalconservationstrategythatmayresult in a regionalHCPandincidentaltakepermit(s). An Judge Bunnon’s order a committeeoflawyershasalsodraftedanalternativeemer-gencyreductionplanfor municipalandindustrialwaterusethat is beingconsideredby thecity ofSanAntonio andothermunicipalities.The Statelegislaturepassedlegislationin 1995 (H.B.3189) amendingS.B. 1477 (passedin 1993 nocreatethe EdwardsAquifer Authority) thatnowhas resolvedproblemspreviously preventingimplementationandenforcementof water useregulationdueto concernsregardingthe VotingRightsAct. Hopefully new legal challengesfromtheMedinaandUvaldeCountyUndergroundWaterDistrictscanalso beresolved.Thetextofthe revisedplan hasbeenmodifiedno reflecttheseefforts.

The Serviceshould continueno haveanactive role in planningfor aquifermanagement,andthe RecoveryPlan doesprovideguidanceforthe planningprocess.In includesthe Service’sdetermination,basedon bestavailableinforma-non, of the spningflowsneededno preventtakeandjeopardy.Task2.1 alsogives guidanceonwhatkind of restrictiveandaffirmativemeasuresare felt no be useful (andbiologically support-able) to protectthe aquifer and ins sensitivespecies.The list includesconservation,reuse,limits on withdrawal, implementationofgroundwaterusereductionplans in triggersituationssuch as drought,changesin deliverysystemsor managementpractices,developmentof alternativesources,and creationof a waterrights marketingsystem.Newtaskshavebeenaddedunder task2.1 no clarify the Serviceapproach and objectives. The Service has recog-nizeda needfor additional technicalguidanceandprovidesin task 2.11 for an interagencyteamno be convenedto assistin determiningaquifer levelsandpumpingreductionlevelsneededno maintainspringflowsundervariousscenarios.

Tasks 2.1 and 2.12 also make it clearthatFederalagenciesshouldtakeactionswithin their

authoritiesno conservethespeciesandtheirecosystems,and remindsthem of their section —

obligationsto consultundertheAct. A new task(2.2) encouragesproactiveprogramsto assistspeciessurvival. Another new task (2.3) out-lines the Federalagencyapproachif no ad-equateandenforceableAquifer Xl anagementPlan is developedand nonesthat agenciesmax’decideno withhold permits or funds for actionsthanare likely no jeopardizethe species.Thepoint anwhich permitsor fundsmay haveno bewithheld hasno be determinedby theseFederalagencies through the interagency Section 7

process.The Servicedoesnon havethe author-ity no initiate or compela consultation.EachFederalactionagencyis responsiblefor review-ing their activities and initiating formal section7 consultationif appropriate.

Again, the focusof the recoveryplan is noron particularprojectsor programs,bun on aprescriptionfor long-termimprovementin thestatusof the speciesandthe prospectsfor even-tual downlisningand delisning.

The Servicehasnotified all Federalagenciesknownno impactwateruseof the EdwardsAquifer abouttheirFederalconsultationresponsi-bilinies andthepotentialimplicationsfortheiractivitiesin the area.Thereare continuingdiscussionsregardingthe bestmethodoffulfilling their obligations and protecting thespecies of concern.

FEDERAL AGENCYOBLIGATIONS

Comment: The 1984 SanMarcosRecoveryPlancalled for vigorouspursuitof a systematicprocedureof consultation,eventhough acommenner on that plan complained that thisappearedno constituteindirectFederalcontrol onpumping.The currentdraftappearsno abandonthis commitment.

and

Comment:If the Serviceis conveninganinteragencytaskforceno preparean overallSection7 RecoveryAction Plan,this shouldbedescribedandtheidentificationoftheagencies

Appendix 116

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsEccoveryPlan

askedno participane~responsibleofficials andcontactsaneachagency.andschedulefor meet-ings shouldbe included.

ServiceResponse: The Servicehas nonabandoned ins commitment no vigorously en-couraging Federal agencies no consult with theService regarding their impacts to the EdwardsAquifer and ins listed species. See the response no

thecommentabovefor a discussionof Serviceeffortsand responsibilitiesregardingsection7consultations.The Servicecontinuesno workwith cooperativeFederalagenciesin theconsul-tation process.

The Servicebelieveshowever, that therapid completionof areview of section7obligationswith eveyknownagencywhoseactions may affect groundwaterwithdrawalsmayonly be critically importantin the absenceof the developmentand implementationof anadequateStateandlocal plan for aquiferman-agement. The need for rapid completion ofsection7 consultationswith all suchagencieswould becomeparamountonly if the ongoingefforts no developa comprehensiveplan an thestate,regional, and local levels were abandonedor inadequate.

Comment: You do non explain why Fed-eral agenciesshould non be consideringanymeansattheir disposalno maintainwaterin thecritical habitat.

ServiceResponse:The plan nonesin thediscussionundertask2.2 thanundersection7(a)(1) of.nhe ESAall Federalagenciesare no“utilize their authoritiesin furtheranceof thepurposesof this Act by carryingout programsfor the conservationof endangeredand threat-enedspecies...,”andpoints out otheragencieswhose missionsand/oradministrationofexistinglegislationmaycomplementtheeffortsno preservelisted species.The Servicewillcontinueno encourageother Federalagenciesnotake proactivemeasures.The Servicewelcomesother Federalagency’sefforts no assistin assur-ing water in theseecosystemsandhasencour-agedthem no examinetheir abilities andobliga-tions no do so.

in addition,theplanmakesin clearthatFederalagencieshaveobligationsno consultforactionsthatmay affect thelisted speciesof the

EdwardsAquifer andinsmajorspringsystems,undersection7(a)(2)of theAct, which is dis-cussedabove.

In the absenceof the developmentandimplementationof an adequateAquifer Manage-ment Plan,Federalagenciesshoulddo whattheycanno assurethatspringflowsareprotected.Anewtaskin the plan(task2.3) makesin clearthatthe Serviceshouldcontinueno encourageagen-ciesno undertakevoluntarymeasuresno assistspeciessurvival andno complywith their non-discretionaryobligationsfor consultationundersection7(a)(2) of the ESA, and that the Serviceitself shouldcontinueno do everything in cannobesurethat springflowsareprotected.

Comment: Thedraftdoesnon addresstheobligationsor activitiesof the EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA) no takeactionstoprotectthehumanwatersupply, underthe ESA,CERCLA, CleanWaterAct, andSafeDrinkingWater Act. The plan should also describe EPA’s

currentprogress,if any, no assessandpreventthethreatofthe potentialmovementof the bad-waterline. If nothingis beingdoneby EPAtheplan shouldgive their explanationfor failing nodo so.

and

Comment:TheDraft planstatesthatEPAmayhavestatutoryauthorityunderCleanWaterAct, SafeDrinking WaterAct, andCERCLAthanshouldbeusedno assistin the protectionofthe listedspeciesandtheir ecosystems.No legalor factualbasisis given for this contention.

ServiceResponse:The draft plan dis-cussesunder task 2.2 thanaccordingno Section7(a)(1) of the Act Federalagenciesshould usetheir “authorities” no further the purposes of theEndangeredSpeciesActby carryingoutprogramsfor theconservationof listedspecies.andshoulddo so in consultationwith or with the assistanceof theSecretary(in thiscase,Interior).Therearealsoobligationsundersection7 no enterintoconsultationwith the Servicefor actionstheyfund,permit,or carryout thatmayaffect listedspecies.

Task2.2 includesa referenceno authoritiesgiven no other Federal agencies under other

environmentallegislationincluding the Clean

Appendix 117

WaterAct, SafeDrinking WaterAct, andCERCLA. The Servicefeelsthat therearecomplementaryfunctionsin conservinghabitatfor listedspeciesandin protectinghumanhealth. Situations such as this, where there are

obviousauthoritiesgrantedno an agencythatmayalsobenefit endangeredspecies,shouldbeconsideredby thoseagenciesin settingup theirprogramsno further the conservationof listedspecies,andshould betakeninto accountindecisionsregardingsuch areasas discretionaryactions,grantingvariancesor exclusions,settingpermitrequirements~making requestsforconsultationwith theServiceundersection7,etc.The idea is that by working cooperativelyagenciescan minimizeharmandmaximizepotentialbenefitsin the courseof dischargingtheir ordinary duties under both their enablinglegislation and the ESA. Wording has beenaddedno section2.2 no clarify this.

Comment: The draft plan doesnon addressthe Service’sown obligationsno list subterra-neanEdwardsAquifer dwellingspecies,to desig-nateCritical Habitatandno proposeandseekfundingforhabitatacquisitions.

ServiceResponse:Therecoveryplanningprocessis intendedto provide guidancefor theconservationandeventualrecoveryof Federallylistedspecies.Evaluationsof the needno listspeciesanddesignateCritical Habitat areseparateactivities conductedunder section4 ofthe ESA.

Habitat acquisitionis non mandatoryorbeneficial for all listed species.Recoveryplansmayrecommendhabitatacquisitionas a recov-ery tool, bun manyrecoveryplansdo non in-clude habitatacquisitionas a strategyif in is nonneededno recoverthe species.An this timetheServicedoesnon believehabitatacquisitionisnecessaryin achievingthe tasksneedednoprotectthe speciesof concernin this plan.

In is Servicepolicy no take a functionalecosystemapproachno speciesandhabitatprotection.Thereforein recoveryplanning,whereverpossible,correlatedneedsof (andbenefitsno) candidatespeciesin thesameecosys-temare pointedout andincluded.

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquatic EcosystemsRecovers’Plan

Comment:TheServiceshouldaddressthefactthat themeasuresin this plan may beadequateto protectCotnalandSanMarcosSpringsand~ species,bun arenon likely no be adequateto Protectthe entireEdwardsAquifer itselfandtheundergroundEdwardsdependentcandidateSpeciessome ofwhich areknownfrom only distinctportions ofthe aquifer.

ServiceResponse: This recove,~plan has

as ins primary objective to providefor the listedspeciesofthe SanAntonio regionof theEdwardsAquifer,whichincludestheTexasblindsala-mander.Conservationmeasuresalreadyunder-way aredescribedin the backgroundmaterial forthis species.Specific needsfor theTexasblindsalamander are included under many tasks.Many of the tasksoutlined no protectwaterquality for the listed species(including theTexas blind salamander) will benefit other aqui-

fer-dependentspeciesaswell.

Comment:TheESA authorizesand re-quirestheSecretaryno conservelisted speciesbyutilizing his authorityno acquire.includingby’purchase,“lands,waters,or intereststherein.”Any adequateplanmustaddressthe potential foruseof thistool, for examplein the purchaseofirrigation rights.

ServiceResponse:The ESAdoesnonrequire the Secretary no acquire property orwater rights no protectendangeredspecies,althoughSection 5 of the ESA authorizestheServiceno do so, as appropriate.NeithertheServicenor the RecoveryTeam identified landacquisitionor water rights acquisitionas afeasibleor high priority recoverystrategyfor theconservationof theselisted species.If waterusersandproperty ownerswork cooperativelyno find a solutionno watersupplyproblemsandotherthreats,acquisitionof propertyshouldnonbe necessary.Currently.water rights in theEdwardsAquifer region operateunderprinciplesof the “right of capture,”nonundera systemoftransferable,salablewater rights. If this systemchangesno a market-basedsystemwith salablewater rights, the effectiveness and desirability ofpurchasingwaterrights for thepurposesofprotectinglistedspeciesor their habitatwould bereevaluated.

Appendix 118

SanMarcos& Coma] Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPlan

Comment: In the recoveryplan sectionwherespningflowandaquiferlevel determina-nionsmadeby the FWSundercourt orderarementionedas beinggiven to provideguidanceno Federalagenciesandpumpersto assistthemin takingappropriateactionsno avoid take orjeopardy.in should alsobe notedthatthe U.S.Court of Appealsfor the Fifth Circuit hasheldthan thesedeterminationshaveno legal conse-quenceand in no wayare a prerequisitenoESA-enforcementlitigation. The plan shouldrestatethe caution that thesedeterminationswere madein a very narrowcontextwithlimited data andshould non be consideredasthe definitive flow requirementsfor thespe-cies/ecosystems.

ServiceResponse: Languagehas beenaddedno this sectionno clarify thepreliminarynatureoftheseestimates.TheServiceis currentlyconductingadditionaldetailedstudiesno collectadditional dataneededon flow conditionsin theComalandSanMarcos.Thesestudiesshouldhelp refinethesenumbers.As moredefinitiveinformationbecomesavailable,theServicehasadurvto notify thecourtandState,regional,andlocal waterauthoritiesandotherpumpersofanychangesno thespringflownumbers.

Comment:In discussingrecoverycriteriaandinterimgoalswherecriteriacannotbe deter-mined, thedraft plannotedthat flows thatwould“jeopardize”anyofthelistedspeciesor “adverselymodify” critical habitatshouldnonbeconsideredadequate.In seemsinappropriateno usethesetermsastrue “jeopardy” arisesonly in thecontextof a formal section7 consultationin a biologicalopinionwith detailedconsiderationof reasonableandprudentalternativesfor aparticularsituation.

ServiceResponse:In is truethatthetermsjeopardyandadversemodificationhavespecificmeaningsin termsof a formal section7 consul-nation. However, the discussionhereis a generaloneaboutgoals for maintenanceand recoveryof the species.In is useful to discussadequateflows during the recoveryprocess,andtheconceptof a lower limit wherelow flows aresevereenoughthantheextinctionof thespeciesinthewild seemsimminent,or thathabitatneces-saryfor thesurvival andrecoveryof thespecies

Appendix

would beadverselymodified. In this contextthesetermswould referno suchdeclineswithoutanyconsultationbeingdoneor alternativesthatwould preventthethreatofextinction in place.

Comment: The RecoveryTeam is com-posedsolely ofbiologists.To complywith thepolicies on recoveryplanningandimplementa-nion publishedin July, theServiceshouldwidentherepresentationon the team. In shouldincludeasurfacewaterandgroundwaterhydrologistandan economist.

ServiceResponse: This is a recoveryteamthanhasbeenin existencefor manyyears.Anumberof agencyrepresentativesalso serveasconsultantsno the team.The Serviceis reviewingthe needno reviseor expandthe teamin light ofnewguidancepublishedin July 1994,andwill doso if in appearsappropriateandnecessary.

ln shouldalsobenoted,asdiscussedaboveundera commentconcerningthe minimizationof socialandeconomicimpacts.that the imple-mennanionof severaltasksin the recoveryplancall for a teamapproachno implementation,which will also provide for the involvementofall affectedinterestsas outlinedin theJuly 1,1994,policies.

IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULE, PRIORITIES,AND COST ESTIMATES

Comment:Theplan~houldgive theoriginof all the cost estimatesyou give for eachandeverytask. Supportfor each cost estimatemustbe includedin the plan.

Serviceresponse:Costestimatesgiveninrecovery plan implementation schedules are givenfor thefirst threeyearsonly, andaremerelyroughestimates,givenfor generalguidancein long-termplanning.Becausethe detailsof howspecificrecoverytaskswill be achieved,andby whom,areunknown,a detailedandaccurateassessmentofcostsarenot possible.Whereagenciesandmu-nicipalitieshaveestimatedthe coststheyexpecttoincurin theirplannedactivitiesfor preservationofendangeredspeciesthatexceedtheir usualrespon-sibiliniesandactivities,theyhavebeenincluded.

119

Comment:The implementationscheduleshould includea specifictime scheduleforsection7 (Federalagency)consultations.

ServiceResponse:As noted above, theServicedoesnonhavethe authorityno initiatesection7 consultationsandis non in a positionnopredict schedules of when various agency consul-nations may occur. The need for a section 7consultationmayariseat anytime, for anynumberof specificprojectsor activitieswhichcannonbe comprehensivelypredictedin advance.

Comment:The implementationscheduleappearsno usetheterm“ongoing” no avoidsettingtimetables/deadlinesfor actionsthatrequirethemandarelong overdue,suchasdevelopinganaquifermanagementplan.This isanevasionno representthesetasksashavinganindefiniteduration,insteadof imposingdead-lines for completionafterwhich enforcementactionsmaybe used.

ServiceResponse: Recoveryplan tasks,includingestimatesoftaskdurations,arenonmandatoryenforceableactions,asdiscussedearlier in previouscomments.Informationarrangementsandterminologyin RecoveryPlanimplementationschedulesarenearlystandardizedfrom planno plan.Taskdurationin recoveryplanimplementationschedulesrepresentsa simpleestimateofhow long in might reasonablytakenocompletea task.In is non intendedno imply anysortof deadlineorpoint ofimpositionofregula-tory enforcement.In also doesnonspecifyexactlywhenthetaskwill beinitiated.

The term “continuous” is usedno denotetasksthat in is expectedwill requireconstantattentionthroughouttherecoveryprocess,andthereforehavean indefiniteduration.Theterm“ongoing” is usedin therecoveryplanno identifytasks thathavealreadybeenstarted,bun arenonyen complete.This meanstasksidentified asongoing,far from beingneglected,aretasksthanhavebeeninitiated.While in our standardusetheterm“ongoing” doesnon includean estimateoftime remainingno completion,this doesnotmeanthattheyareconsideredno be ofan indefi-ninedurationor thattheServiceis avoidingtimely action. Wehaveaddedlanguageno thefirst few pagesof the implementationschedule,

SanMarcos& Coma]Springs& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoservII.c

wherepriority numbersandabbreviationsaredefined,to clan the meaningof the useof theterms “continuous” and “ongoing.”

Comment:Thecity of SanAntonio esti-manesins costsfor implementationof alternativewatersuppliesno vary between45 million and127 million dollars a year, depending on thescenariousedfor alternatives.In additionanestimatedcostof 15-20 million dollars per yearwill be incurredfor reductionsin usethroughthe developmentof conservation,reuse,watermarketanddemandmanagementinitiatives. Wefeel the implementationscheduleshould reflectthesecostsaswell as total costsfor all otherFederal,State,and local governmentsandprivateparties.

ServiceResponse:TheServicehasdoneinsbestno estimatethe potentialrecoverycosts.However,costsfluctuatewidely whenoneconsidersdifferencesin approachesselected,andeventhe widely variablealternativesavailablewithin a scenariosuchas interbasintransfersofwater.

Further,given theobviouslimits ofEdwardsAquiferwaterin dryyears,manycommunitiesareundertakingthe developmentof alternativewatersuppliesno meetfutureneedsbasedon projectedgrowth andneedsfor economicdevelopment,inadditionno concernsaboutviolationsof the ESA.ESAconcernsin manycasesaremerelyaccelerat-ing thedevelopmentofalternativewatersourcesandare non thetonal basisfor projectionsofadditionalwatersuppliesneeded.In addition,implementationcostsofsometasksor taskelementsmayactuallybe largelyoffset(or evencost-saving)for theentitiesimplementingthem.Forexample,waterconservationprogramshaveexpensesassociatedwith them,bun thereductionin demandfor additionalwatersavesmoneybyreducingthecostsofdevelopingnewwatersupplies,watertreatmentcapacityandoperations,andwasnewanertreatmentcapacityandoperationsthanwould beincurredin theabsenceofa conser-vation program.Thereforethetruecostofaconservationprogramwould bethedifferencebetweenwaterrelatedcostswithouta conserva-tion programandwith theprogram,non thefullcostoftheprogram.Apportionmentof suchcostsbetweenCity planninganddevelopment

Appendix 120

SanMarcos& comalSprings& AssociatedAquaticEcosystemsRecoveryPlan

functionsandESAcomplianceis extremelydifficult.

Sincethe comprehensiveAquiferManage-mentPlanis not completed,andthe mix andapportionmentof waterusefor approachesto beusedhasnot beensolidified, costestimatesareasketchyestimateatbestandshouldnot beregardedasdefinitive.Until theplanis completedandanalyzedfor areasonablerepresentationof thecostsattributableto recoveryneedsforthe listedspecies,suchunquantifiablecostshavebeendesignatedas“nor yetdeterminable.”Theyhavealsonot beenincludedin thetotalcostof recov-ery. However,asmoredefiniteplansemergeandbettercostestimatesbecomeavailable,theycanbeusedto reviseandupdatetheplan,if necessary.

Appendix121 I