United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758

512 490-0057 FAX 490-0974

MAR 1 6 2017 In Reply Refer To: Consultation No. 02ETAU00-2017-F-0187 Project No. SWF-2015-00466

Stephen L. Brooks Chief, Regulatory Division Department of the Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 17300 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issuance of Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404 authorizations for the 142-mile long Vista Ridge Regional Water Supply Project (Vista Ridge pipeline). The proposed Vista Ridge pipeline is a raw water pipeline that will convey water from Burleson County to Bexar County, Texas (Figure 1). The applicant is the Central Texas Regional Water Supply Corporation (CTRWSC; applicant). Your November 15, 2016, letter requesting initiation of formal consultation was received on November 18, 2016. We concur with your determination that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Cicurina madla, and may affect, and is likely to adversely affect for Rhadine exilis. However, we do not concur with your determination that proposed action may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect the Houston toad (Anaxyrus [ = Bufo] houstonensis), Rhadine infernalis, and the golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga [ =Dendroica] chrysoparia, GCW A). Therefore, this biological opinion addresses impacts to both R. infernalis and R. exilis, which we collectively refer to as the Bexar County karst invertebrates (BCKI), the Houston toad, and the GCW A. This consultation considers the effects of the Vista Ridge pipeline in Burleson, Lee, and Bastrop counties on the Houston toad. It also considers Vista Ridge pipeline's effects in Comal and Bexar counties on the GCW A and in Bexar County to BCKI, including BCKI designated critical habitat.

Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.; Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended) through the Corps and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, including wetlands. The Corps has notified the Service that the applicant has submitted a Preconstruction Notification to the Corps for the use of Nationwide Permit 12 for Utility Line Activities for the proposed water pipeline project. This biological opinion has been prepared in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.)(Act). It is based on the biological assessment (BA), other information provided by the Corps and the applicant, and

2

other sources of information available to us. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the Austin Ecological Services Field Office. Document Outline Consultation History I. Proposed Action and Action Area II. Status of the Species and Critical Habitat

1. Houston Toad 2. Golden-cheeked warbler 3. Rhadine exilis and Rhadine infernalis

III. Environmental Baseline 1. Houston Toad 2. Golden-cheeked Warbler 3. Rhadine exilis and Rhadine infernalis

IV. Effects of the Action 1. Houston Toad 2. Golden-cheeked Warbler 3. Rhadine exilis and Rhadine infernalis

V. Cumulative Effects VI. Conclusions Incidental Take Statement

Biological Opinion This transmits our draft biological opinion for the USACE authorization under section 404 of the Clean Water Act to the CTRWSC for the Vista Ridge Regional Water Supply Project. Consultation History May 21, 2015 Meeting between representatives of the applicant and Service September 1, 2016 Multiple conference calls and emails regarding Houston toad, through golden-cheeked warbler, and karst invertebrates and the Vista October 19, 2017 Ridge Regional Water Supply Project November 16, 2016 The Service received the “Vista Ridge Regional Supply Project Biological Assessment SWF-2015-00466” from the applicant November 18, 2016 The Service received the initiation letter from the USACE December 6, 2016 The Service acknowledged receipt of complete initiation package

and request to initiate formal consultation January 19, 2017 The Service received updated information on the waters of the

United States crossings and jurisdictional delineation January 24, 2017 Meeting between the Service and consultants for the applicant

3

January 27, 2017 The Service received an amendment to the biological assessment I. Proposed Action and Action Area The proposed action is the construction, testing, operation, and maintenance of the Vista Ridge Regional Water Supply Project (Figure 1). The applicant has applied for authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for activities requiring a Clean Water Act section 404 permit where the water pipeline will cross rivers and creeks in Burleson, Lee, Bastrop, Caldwell, Guadalupe, Comal, and Bexar counties in Texas. The applicant will use open-cut trenching to install the pipeline below ground. The BA indicates that most creeks to be crossed are intermittent or ephemeral; therefore, the pipeline will be installed using open cut trenching at these crossings. In perennial waterways the applicant will use horizontal directional drilling in lieu of open trenching to install the pipe. This type of construction will occur under the following perennial waterways: Colorado River, San Marcos River, Guadalupe River, and a canal connected to the Guadalupe River. Figure 1. Vista Ridge Pipeline Location

The BA provides details on the proposed Vista Ridge pipeline including: engineering surveys, staking, clearing-grading, avoidance of other utility infrastructure, trenching , installation of pipe, backfilling, hydrostatic testing, construction of pump stations, pipeline commissioning, and rights-of-way maintenance. Three new pump stations with pipeline inspection gauges, both launchers and receivers, would be built in upland areas distant from jurisdictional waters of the United States (WOUS). A remote system for monitoring and controlling the pipeline will be used to constantly monitor for leaks and pressure anomalies. The applicant will develop and implement emergency response procedures. The impacts of the construction and maintenance of the well site are not covered under this biological opinion, but the applicant has indicated it intends to utilize the same avoidance measures and best management practices in the well site that it will use throughout the project.

4

The Vista Ridge pipeline will provide water to the urban and suburban region of north San Antonio and Bexar County for an estimated 60 years. The source of the water will be a well field in Burleson County that will pump water from the Simsboro and Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifers. A system of pipes will transport water from the wells to the Vista Ridge pipeline. The proposed action includes conservation measures to be taken by the applicant including: (a) participation in the Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (RHCP) for take of the GCWA in Comal County, (b) participation in the Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan (SEP HCP) for take of GCWA and BCKI in Bexar County, and (c) avoidance and minimization of adverse effects to the four species addressed in this biological opinion by the use of best management practices. In the event that a conservation measure is not viable (e.g., participation in HCP is not available), alternative conservation efforts have been proposed by the applicant as described in the amendment to the biological assessment, and are incorporated by reference. All conservation measures will be implemented prior to the potential to incidentally take of any federally listed species. The proposed conservation measures for the Vista Ridge pipeline include best management practices (BMP) throughout the extent of the pipeline project. Chapter 7 of the BA provides the species-specific efforts where the project overlaps the range of the Houston toad, golden-cheeked warbler, R. exilis, and R. infernalis and are incorporated by reference to this biological opinion. The applicant routed the pipeline alignment to use existing ROW, minimize new areas of disturbance, and to avoid sensitive habitats. Houston Toad Conservation Measures Chapter 7.3 of the BA provides BMPs that avoid or minimize adverse effects to the Houston toad. These include: (a) use of physical barriers to help prevent movement of toads into work areas, (b) surveys for Houston toads in advance of vegetation clearing, (c) monitoring for anuran calling activity with automated audio recorders (to be reviewed nightly), (d) temporarily stopping work if the Houston toad is detected in the area (e) preservation of as many trees as possible, and (f) re-vegetating disturbed areas with native seed mix suitable for Houston toad sheltering and dispersal. Additional conservation measures that avoid or minimize impacts to the Houston toad are detailed in the BA and are incorporated by reference to this biological opinion. These involve searching the ROW during the 2017 Houston toad breeding season as well as prior to disturbance. Monitoring and handling of any toads found would be conducted by an endangered species recovery permit holder (pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act). In addition, the applicant has committed to contributing $200,000 to the Houston toad Head Start Program at the Houston Zoo to offset any possible impacts that may occur. To the extent possible, the applicant will time the actions to occur when Houston toads are least active in the summer months. Golden-cheeked Warbler Conservation Measures The applicant will minimize impacts to golden-cheeked warblers in Bexar and Comal counties by siting the pipeline parallel to an existing City Public Service (CPS) easement that has been previously cleared. The applicant will use the CPS easement as a temporary work area during the construction of the Vista Ridge pipeline reducing the overall amount of vegetation clearing needed for pipeline installation. The minor amount of additional vegetation clearing would

5

occur in the non-breeding season (March 1 – August 31) when this migratory species is not present in Texas. The applicant has committed to participate in the Comal County RHCP and the SEP HCP for golden-cheeked warbler habitat impacts (Chapter 7.1 of BA). Participation will be according to the terms of participation in each Habitat Conservation Plan and will be fully executed prior to potential incidental take of golden-cheeked warblers. In the event that HCP participation is not available, the applicant will purchase conservation credits from a Service-approved golden-cheeked warbler habitat conservation bank before potential incidental take of golden-cheeked warblers or clearing of habitat occurs. The applicant will purchase 2 acres of conservation credits for each acre of GCWA habitat impacted as a measures to offset impacts of take exempted by this biological opinion. Rhadine exilis and R. infernalis Conservation Measures The applicant has surveyed the area for surface indications of BCKI habitat throughout the area. These surveys did not detect any surface expressions of potential habitat. Surface detection is useful, but not conclusive, when attempting to predict if endangered karst invertebrates may be present; therefore, the applicant will participate in the SEP HCP. One of the benefits of this HCP will be the establishment of high quality preserves for karst invertebrates (Karst Fauna Areas or KFA)(Chapter 7.2 of the BA). If participation in the SEP HCP is not available, the following measures will be taken prior to construction of the pipeline in Bexar County to offset the impacts of take exempted in this biological opinion:

• Additional biological surveys would be performed by a Service permitted biologist in Boulder Cave at the City of San Antonio’s Parks and Recreation Department’s Panther Springs Park. Currently, a cave at the park is known to contain R. exilis and an unidentified blind Cicurina species; however, additional specimens are needed for taxonomic verification that the spider is one of the nine listed invertebrates in Bexar County.

• During surveys to find additional blind Cicurina species, geologists would produce a map of the cave interior and establish the surface and subsurface drainage areas of the cave.

• A KFA biological evaluation report would be prepared to establish the preserve design and management requirements. The KFA biological report would require Service approval prior to construction in Bexar County,

• A karst management and maintenance plan would be written in accordance with the Service’s 2012 Karst Preserve Management and Monitoring Recommendations. The management and maintenance plan would require Service approval prior to construction.

• The applicant would pay an endowment fee of $100,000 to provide for the long-term costs associated with additional management requirements above and beyond the current Parks and Recreation Department management.

Action Area The term “action area” as defined in the Act’s section 7 implementing regulations means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). In determining the action areas for this biological

6

opinion we have considered the geographic extent of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on federally listed endangered species. The term “indirect effects” is defined as those effects that are caused by the proposed action but occur later in time (50 CFR 402.02). Different species are affected by the action differently and have different action areas based on their life history requirements and habitat characteristics. The action area for the Houston toad includes the Vista Ridge pipeline rights-of-way (ROW), pump stations, and all areas with 1,500 meters of the ROW in Burleson, Lee, and Bastrop counties where suitable Houston toad habitat occurs. Vandewege et al. (2013) studied Houston toad movement for juveniles and adults on the Griffith League Ranch in Bastrop County. They documented adult movement, based on percentage of recaptures near breeding ponds, of distances less than 100 meters. However, occasional long distance movements were noted; one juvenile moved 458 meters and two juveniles moved 1,384 meters in one month away from the nearest successful breeding pond. A 12-year study of Bastrop State Park by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (reviewed in Vandewege et al. 2013) also documented occasional long distance movements between breeding ponds. Therefore, the Houston toad action area includes the suitable habitat within 1,500 meters of the ROW to encompass virtually all Houston toads that may move into the project ROW. Figure 2. Action Area for the Houston toad in Burleson, Lee, and Bastrop Counties, TX.

The action area for the golden-cheeked warbler is habitat in the ROW and an additional 300-foot buffer in Bexar and Comal Counties (Figure 3). This action area is expected to encompass all golden-cheeked warbler habitat that may be affected directly in the ROW and any indirect effects from the project that occur up to 300 feet from the ROW, such as increasing access by predators to golden-cheeked warbler’s eggs and nestlings, if they are present.

7

The action area for the BCKI includes karst zones 1 and 2 in northeastern Bexar County within the Vista Ridge pipeline ROW (Figure 4). The ROW intersects the southern parts of two critical habitat units, 12 and 13, which both have documented occurrences of R. exilis. While there are no documented occurrences of R. infernalis in or adjacent to the Vista Ridge ROW, a known R. infernalis site is located less than a mile from the pipeline ROW. Therefore, the potential exists for R. infernalis to be in the action area and to be impacted by the proposed action. We have used the same action area for both of the BCKI species, because their habitat characteristics are the same. Figure 3. Action Area for Golden-cheeked Warbler in Bexar and Comal Counties.

Figure 4. Action Area for Rhadine exilis in Bexar County, TX.

8

II. Status of the Species and Critical Habitat 1. HOUSTON TOAD Species Description and Life History Life History Members of the Bufo genus are among the most terrestrial anurans. Like most members of this genus, Houston toads live on land following metamorphosis and return to water only briefly during the breeding season (Christein and Taylor 1978). As adults, Houston toads may range widely through upland habitats (Price 1990, 1992; Dixon et al. 1990; Yantis 1994). Breeding is often followed by aestivation, a state of dormancy, but toads are known to emerge and be active during the non-breeding season (Dodd and Cade 1998, Dixon et al. 1990, Forstner 2002a). However, because of the toad’s secretive nature, little is known about its distribution and activities during this period. This species tends to concentrate their reproductive efforts into producing large numbers of eggs, but it is estimated that each egg has a low probability (0.03 percent) of survival to one year (Greuter 2004). Eggs are laid in strings in the water and hatch into tadpoles that metamorphose into juvenile toadlets approximately 60 days after egg deposition (Hillis et al. 1984). After metamorphosis, juvenile Houston toads move into the surrounding terrestrial habitats where they grow and develop into adults (Forstner 2003). Habitat

9

Houston toad habitat consists of rolling uplands characterized by pine and/or oak woodlands underlain by deep, sandy soils (Kennedy 1962, Brown 1971, Seal 1994). Tree species vary, but typically include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), post oak (Quercus stellata), blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), and/or sandjack oak (Q. incana) (Forstner 2003). Subsequently, areas consisting of the following are not considered suitable habitat for the Houston toad: (1) open pastures absent of canopy cover (Forstner 2002a, Forstner 2003); (2) pastures of coastal Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) or other heavy, rhizomatous sod-forming grasses (Yanits 1989, Swannack 2007); or (3) forested areas with a dense, woody understory and low light availability (Yantis 1989). Water is an important component of the Houston toad’s habitat. Houston toads are known to breed in small pools of water and ephemeral ponds (Kennedy 1962, Brown 1971, Forstner 2003). They also have been heard calling or have been captured in ditches, lakes, puddles in roads, moist areas in yards, flooded pastures, potholes, streams, stock tanks, and permanent ponds (Forstner 2001, Forster 2003). Survival of eggs, tadpoles, and emerging juveniles may be low in permanent water bodies (Forstner 2003) because they are more likely to harbor predators such as birds, mammals, snakes, turtles, fish, aquatic invertebrates, and bullfrogs (Quinn and Ferguson 1983, Dixon et al. 1990) as well as potential competitors, such as Woodhouse’s toads (Anaxryus [= Bufo] woodhousii) and Gulf Coast toads (Incilius [=Bufo] valliceps or Bufo nebulifer ) (Hillis et al. 1984). Permanent water bodies also have an increased probability of livestock usage (Forstner 2003), which can negatively impact the quality of habitat along the shoreline of breeding ponds (Forstner 2001, Forstner 2003). Reproduction The life expectancy of the Houston toad is at least three years, but may be longer (Price 1993). Males reach sexual maturity at about one year of age, but females require one to two years to achieve reproductive maturity (Quinn 1981, Quinn and Mengden 1984). In mark-recapture surveys of Houston toads in Bastrop County, observed sex ratios of males to females have been highly skewed in favor of males ranging from 3:1 to 10:1 (Dixon et al. 1990, Forstner 2002a, 2002b, 2003). The Houston toad is an “explosive” breeder, appearing in large numbers at breeding ponds where the males call to attract females over a period of a few nights throughout the breeding season, beginning as early as January 18 (Hillis et al. 1984, Dixon et al. 1990). Houston toads typically breed from late January to June (Kennedy 1962, Hillis et al. 1984). Reported egg-laying dates in the field range from February 18 to June 26 (Kennedy 1962, Dixon 1982, Hillis et al. 1984). Breeding is believed to be triggered in part by rainfall and warm night time temperatures (Kennedy 1962). Other factors may also play a role in initiating chorusing activity. For example, Price (1992) found that Houston toads do not generally call during 7 to 10 days prior to a full moon. However, all cues that may stimulate Houston toad breeding activity are not known. Food Habits Houston toads feed on a variety of insects and other invertebrates. Bragg (1960) reported that captive Houston toads favored many small to medium-sized carabids (ground beetles), several small beetles of unknown families, flies, green lacewings, and many types of small moths. Houston toad tadpoles are known to ingest algae and pollen (Hillis et al. 1984). Once they leave

10

the pond after metamorphosis, juvenile Houston toads presumably feed on small invertebrates found on the forest floor. Population Dynamics The Houston toad’s population structure appears to fit the definition of a metapopulation (Soulé 1987, Marsh and Trenham 2001) because it consists of subpopulations in somewhat geographically isolated patches, interconnected through patterns of gene flow, extinction, and re-colonization (Soulé 1987, Marsh and Trenham 2001). In some areas, what were once subpopulations of larger metapopulations are now apparently isolated from each other by urbanization, heavily used roads, and agricultural pastures. Some of these changes may be reversible, allowing currently isolated populations to become part of greater metapopulations. In other cases, the changes have been so extensive that reconnection may no longer be an option. Other populations appear to be naturally isolated by riverine basins and geologic formations, and may historically be part of separate metapopulations. Historic and Current Distribution Houston toad populations occur only in Texas and typically only along two parallel bands of geologic formations. According to the Bureau of Economic Geology, one band runs through Bastrop, Lee, Burleson, Milam, Robertson, Leon, and Freestone Counties and includes the Carrizo, Queen City, Reklaw, Sparta, and Weches formations. The other band runs through Austin, Colorado, and Lavaca Counties and includes the Willis and Goliad formations. These geologic formations form various sandy soils, including loamy fine sands and fine sandy loams. Surveys conducted by Yantis from 1989 to 1992 found Houston toads occurring in Bastrop, Burleson, Lee, Milam, Robertson, Leon, Lavaca, Colorado, and Austin Counties. There are also historical records from Fort Bend, Harris, and Liberty Counties, but extensive surveys and documentation of the extent of habitat loss and degradation have confirmed the Houston toad's extirpation from these three counties (Hillis et al. 1984; Yantis 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992; Forstner and Dixon 2011). Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival Threats to the Houston toad include habitat loss, alteration, and fragmentation due to expanding urbanization, conversion of woodlands to agriculture, logging, mineral production, alteration of watershed drainages, wetland degradation or destruction, and other stressors that contribute to loss of suitable breeding, feeding, or sheltering habitat. Habitat Destruction and Landscape Fragmentation Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation are the most significant threats facing the Houston toad. Paved roads and other forms of urban development can prevent or hinder amphibian dispersal and increase mortality (Van Gelder 1973, Reh and Seitz 1990, Soulé et al. 1992, Fahrig et al. 1995, Yanes et al. 1995, Findlay and Houlahan 1997, Gibbs 1998, Vos and Chardon 1998, Knutson et al. 1999). Other forms of habitat loss or degradation include conversion of woodlands to agricultural use, fire suppression, logging, mineral production, alteration of watershed drainages, wetland degradation or destruction, and other processes that contribute to

11

loss of suitable breeding, feeding, or sheltering habitat (Brown 1971, Seal 1994, Forstner and Dixon 2011). Excavation and impoundment of seasonal or ephemeral drainages creates permanent open water as opposed to ephemeral ponds and pools. Permanent water is more likely to harbor predators such as birds, mammals, snakes, turtles, fish, aquatic invertebrates, and bullfrogs (Quinn and Ferguson 1983, Dixon et al. 1990) and potential competitors such as Woodhouse’s and Gulf Coast toads (Hillis et al. 1984). Red-Imported Fire Ants Habitat disturbance also encourages the establishment and proliferation of red-imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta). These fire ants are known to prey on newly-metamorphosed toadlets (Freed and Neitman 1988, Dixon et al. 1990, Forstner 2002a) as well as on the invertebrate community that is an important part of the toad's food base (Bragg 1960). Red-imported fire ants are associated with open habitats disturbed as a result of human activity (such as old fields, lawns, roadsides, ponds, and other open, sunny habitats) but are absent or rare in late succession or climax communities such as mature forest (Tschinkel 1988). Thus, maintaining large, undisturbed areas of woodlands may help control the spread of fire ants (Porter et al. 1991) and protect native ant populations (Porter et al. 1988, 1991; Suarez et al. 1998). Competition and Hybridization Habitat conversion and fragmentation make the Houston toad more vulnerable to predation, competition, and hybridization. Competitors of the Houston toad include Woodhouse’s toad and the Gulf Coast toad. Hybridization with these species also has been documented (Hillis et al. 1984). All three species are found in areas of deep, sandy soils. Hybridization has been found where the habitat of the Houston toad has been altered from woodlands to pasture or suburban development, allowing invasion by the other species (Hillis et al. 1984; Yantis 1991; Forstner 2002a, 2003). Drought Direct effects of drought on this species include desiccation, loss of breeding sites, and loss of eggs or tadpoles resulting from pond evaporation or complete water loss (Seal 1994; Forstner and Dixon 2011). Removal of trees exacerbates the effect of drought on a local scale by increasing heat at ground level and consequent moisture loss from the soil, which makes the deforested area unsuitable for Houston toads that need to burrow to escape desiccation (Forstner 2003). Drought is considered a significant threat to the Houston toad, one that is exacerbated by highly fragmented and degraded habitats and low population numbers from which the species cannot rebound after the drought stress ends. Wildfire and Fire Suppression More than 60 years of fire suppression has also considerably altered the forested habitat within the Houston toad’s range (Lost Pines Recovery Team 2011; Forstner and Dixon 2011). Although periodic controlled burns help to reduce fuel loads, prevent catastrophic fires, and improve habitat conditions beneath the forest canopy (Yantis 1989, Price 1993), severe wildfires

12

can be detrimental to the Houston toad particularly for small, isolated populations. The most considerable effects to the Houston toad from catastrophic wildfire are the adverse changes to its habitat. The loss of understory vegetation, surface debris (leaf litter and logs), and canopy cover can lead to increased exposure to temperature extremes and predation, loss of habitat availability, and reduced dispersal and foraging capabilities. Soil erosion, which is a typical occurrence following wildfires (Kocher et al. 2009), can affect Houston toad breeding habitat by decreasing water quality in ponds. Direct mortality to the Houston toad resulting from wildfires is thought to be low, as amphibians have been shown to survive fire by moving under the soil or seeking refuge within the burrows of other animals (Russell et al. 1999). Short term juvenile amphibian body condition changes post-fire have been recently examined (Brown et al. 2011), and results indicate that fire does not appear to negatively impact short term terrestrial juvenile amphibian survivorship or health. Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Contaminants Because of their semipermeable skin, development of their eggs and larvae in water, and their position in the food web, amphibians are vulnerable to waterborne and airborne pollutants, such as, heavy metals, certain insecticides (particularly cyclodienes, such as endosulfan, endrin, toxaphene, and dieldrin), nitrites, salts, certain organophosphates (such as parathion and malathion), and petroleum hydrocarbons (Harfenist et al. 1989, Little et al. 2002). Pesticides can also change the quality and quantity of amphibian food and habitat (Bishop and Pettit 1992). Livestock and Feral Hogs Livestock wading and feral hog use of potential Houston toad breeding sites can prevent vegetation from establishing around a pond’s perimeter and result in high levels of nitrates (from nitrogenous wastes, such as urine and manure), increased turbidity, decreased water quality, and an overall adverse environment for amphibian egg and tadpole development (Forstner 2001, Knutson et al. 1999, Schmutzer et al. 2008, Bull 2009). Rangewide Survival and Recovery Needs A Houston toad population viability analysis estimated that a population size (carrying capacity of the habitat) of 5,000 breeding females, a minimum of two subpopulations, and a juvenile survival rate of at least 1 percent would be necessary to reduce the likelihood of extinction in 100 years (Hatfield et al. 2004). However, it also estimated that if two or three separate subpopulations of Houston toads are protected (with interconnectivity among them), then a carrying capacity of as few as 1,000 female toads (at least 1 year old) would have a low probability of extinction in 100 years. Survey data show considerable declines in the number of chorusing males in Bastrop County in recent decades (Forstner and Dixon 2011). Population collapses have also been documented in Lee County (Forstner and Dixon 2011). Furthermore, the juvenile survival rate of this species in the wild has been shown to be between 0.0075 and 0.0105 (Swannack et al. 2009). Applying these values to the Hatfield et al. (2004) population viability analysis, which used estimates for juvenile survivorship of 1 percent or less, would result in a high probability of extinction by 2014. Population viability analyses for the Houston toad indicate that risk of extinction increases

13

with reduced migration, dispersal, and reproductive success, as well as sustained reduction of available habitat. Maintaining several relatively large populations of equal sizes that are interconnected so as to allow dispersal and re-colonization can enhance population survival (Seal 1994; Hatfield et al. 2004). Supplementing existing or establishing new Houston toad populations in designated priority areas can help prevent the extinction of this species, as it increases survivorship from the egg stage to the juvenile stage and bolsters the number of Houston toads on the landscape. Concurrent with releases of captive bred eggs and tadpoles, active land stewardship practices must be ongoing to ensure their survival. Rangewide efforts are needed to protect, enhance, and restore the Houston toad’s breeding and dispersal habitat. Status of the Species A 5-year status review of the Houston toad was completed in 2011 (Forstner and Dixon 2011; Service 2011c) that assessed the status of the species throughout its range. It found that despite ongoing recovery efforts and attempts to encourage landowner participation in Houston toad recovery, consistent, incremental habitat loss, including forest clearing to allow for pasture conversion and development, is ongoing throughout the Houston toad’s range (Forstner and Dixon 2011). A population viability analysis conducted by Hatfield et al. (2004) concluded that a minimum of three connected, self-sustaining populations were required to prevent imminent extinction of the Houston toad. However, remaining Houston toad populations have become more geographically isolated (Buzo 2008; McHenry and Forstner 2009; Forstner and Dixon 2011). Most of the chorusing populations detected outside of Bastrop or Milam counties typically consist of 10 or fewer individuals (McHenry and Forstner 2009). Dwindling population sizes have been largely attributed to habitat loss through destruction and fragmentation resulting from agriculture conversion of woodlands, urbanization, and fire suppression (Forstner and Dixon 2011). Unnaturally heavy fuel loads combined with historic drought conditions supported uncommonly intense and expansive wildfires in Bastrop County, Texas in September 2011 (Lost Pines Recovery Team 2011). The results of burn severity analyses indicate that 49 percent of the burned area experienced a stand-replacing fire (a fire in which most or all of the overstory trees were killed) (Lost Pines Recovery Team 2011). Other threats such as predation, disease, competition, and hybridization are exacerbated as habitat loss continues throughout the range. In combination with other threats, such as land use changes and urbanization, drought conditions in central Texas has likely played a role in reducing already small Houston populations to such low numbers of individuals that they are less able to recover (Forstner 2003). Low numbers of chorusing males recorded since 2000 compared to the numbers encountered in 1989-1990 may be the result of the mid-1990s drought (Price 2003, Forstner 2000). Drought conditions may have also affected Houston toad populations in Bastrop County in 2005 and 2006, as indicated by low numbers of Houston toads observed during survey efforts in 2006 (Forstner 2006). Beginning in September 2009, severe to exceptional drought conditions occurred in the central Texas region within the Houston toad’s range. In March 2011, during what is typically the peak of the Houston toad’s breeding season, central Texas received less than 0.10 inch (0.25 centimeters) of rainfall, making it the fourth driest March in the region since 1856 (LCRA 2011).

14

Species experts have provided a wide range of estimates for Houston toad subpopulation and census sizes throughout the years. Only Bastrop County has been surveyed somewhat consistently since the 1970s; therefore, most of these estimates refer to Houston toad numbers in this county. In the 1980s, surveyors reported observing 30 to 1,000 Houston toads per breeding pond (Hillis et al. 1984). Thereafter, estimates of 2,000 Houston toads in all of Bastrop County were reported (Seal 1994). By 2003, Forstner (2003) estimated the number of Houston toads in Bastrop County to be between 100 and 200 individuals (Forstner and Dixon 2011). Beginning in 2009, county-wide survey efforts were conducted every year in Bastrop County, which allowed for the evaluation of chorusing activity patterns, locations, and the number of male Houston toads detected over time. In 2011, a total of 12 Houston toads were detected from extensive surveys in Austin, Bastrop, Burleson, Colorado, Lavaca, Lee, and Milam Counties, as well as limited survey attempts in Leon and Robertson Counties (Dr. Michael Forstner, Texas State University, pers. comm. 2011, p. 1). The wildfires in 2011 resulted in Houston toad detections several miles outside of historic chorusing boundaries in Bastrop County, as Houston toads were likely moving away from the disturbed areas (Forstner et al. 2012, 2013). By spring 2012, reproduction was detected at several ponds within Bastrop County. One reproduction event was confirmed at a pond in Bastrop County in 2013. Houston toads have continued to chorus, reproduce, and recruit juveniles within the fire zone (Forstner et al. 2013), and the Houston toad is believed to still exist in small but detectable chorusing populations in Austin, Bastrop, Colorado, Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Milam, and Robertson Counties, Texas (Forstner and Stout 2012). However, given the small population sizes and degree of habitat disturbance, researchers believe the species to be on the brink of extirpation at least within Bastrop County (Forstner et al. 2013). Critical Habitat Critical habitat for the Houston toad was designated in portions of Bastrop and Burleson, Counties, Texas on January 31, 1978 (43 FR 4022 – 4026). Critical habitat includes areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species that may require special management considerations or protection. Although not described when critical habitat was designated, essential habitat requirements for the Houston toad include seasonally flooded breeding ponds, deep sandy soils, and forested or woodland areas. The Service designated approximately 98,000 acres critical habitat for the Houston toad in the central portion of Bastrop County and approximately 2,000 acres surrounding Lake Woodrow in Burleson County where Houston toads were known to occur at that time. Little was known about the habitat requirement of the Houston toad at the time of designation. Since that time, occupied Houston toad habitat has been documented in seven additional counties, and the area designated as critical habitat in Burleson County is no longer believed to be occupied (Forster and Dixon 2011). 2. GOLDEN-CHEEKED WARBLER Species Description and Life History

15

The golden-cheeked warbler was emergency listed as endangered on May 4, 1990 (55 FR 18844). The final rule listing the species was published on December 27, 1990 (55 FR 53160). No critical habitat is designated for this species. The golden-cheeked warbler is a small, insectivorous songbird, 4.5 to 5 inches long with a wingspan of about 8 inches (Pulich 1965 and 1976, Oberholser 1974). Golden-cheeked warblers breed exclusively in the mixed Ashe juniper/deciduous woodlands in central Texas west and north of the Balcones Fault (Pulich 1976). Golden-cheeked warblers require the shredding bark produced by mature Ashe junipers for nest material. Typical deciduous woody species include Texas oak (Quercus buckleyi), Lacey oak (Q. glaucoides), live oak (Q. fusiformis), Texas ash (Frazinus texensis), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), bigtooth maple (Acer grandidentatum), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Arizona walnut (Juglans major), and pecan (Carya illinoinensis) (Pulich 1976, Ladd 1985, Wahl et al. 1990). Breeding and nesting GCWA feed primarily on insects, spiders, and other arthropods found in Ashe junipers and associated deciduous tree species (Pulich 1976). Male GCWA arrive in central Texas around March 1st and begin to establish breeding territories, which they defend against other males by singing from visible perches within their territories. Females arrive a few days later, but are more difficult to detect in the dense woodland habitat (Pulich 1976). Three to five eggs are generally incubated in April, and unless there is a second nesting attempt, nestlings fledge in May to early June (Pulich 1976). If there is a second nesting attempt, it is typically in mid-May with nestlings fledging in late June to early July (Pulich 1976). By late July, GCWA begin their migration south (Chapman 1907, Simmons 1924). Golden-cheeked warblers winter in the highland pine-oak woodlands of southern Mexico and northern Central America (Kroll 1980). Historic and Current Distribution The GCWA’s entire breeding range occurs on the Edwards Plateau and Lampasas Cut Plain of central Texas. Golden-cheeked warblers have been confirmed breeding in 27 counties: Bandera, Bell, Bexar, Blanco, Bosque, Burnet, Comal, Coryell, Edwards, Gillespie, Hays, Johnson, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, Lampasas, Llano, Medina, Palo Pinto, Real, San Saba, Somervell, Travis, Uvalde, Williamson, and Young (Pulich 1976, Oberholser 1974). Golden-cheeked warblers have been sighted in the following 9 counties: Dallas, Eastland, Erath, Hamilton, Hill, Hood, Jack, McLennan, and Stephens (Pulich 1976, Edwards and Lewis 2008). Diamond (2007) estimated that the amount of suitable GCWA habitat across the species’ range was about 4.2 million acres. The most recent estimate available is Duarte et al. (2013), who estimated that golden-cheeked warbler range-wide breeding habitat was about 3.9 million acres for the period of 2010-2011 and that breeding habitat for the period of 1999-2001 was about 5.48 million acres, indicating a decrease in about 1.58 million acres over 10 years. In addition to this reduction, they found the GCWA breeding habitat became more fragmented. Much of this habitat occurs on private lands and the population status for the golden-cheeked warbler on private lands remains undocumented throughout major portions of the breeding range. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival

16

Before 1990, the primary reason for golden-cheeked warbler habitat loss was juniper clearing to improve conditions for livestock grazing. Since then, habitat loss has occurred as suburban developments spread into golden-cheeked warbler habitat. Groce et al. (2010) summarized the rates of expected human population growth within the range of the golden-cheeked warbler and found by 2030 the growth rate ranges from 17 percent around the Dallas-Fort Worth area to over 164 percent around San Antonio. As the human population continues to increase, so do associated roads, single and multi-family residences, and infrastructure, resulting in continued habitat destruction, fragmentation, and increased edge effects (Groce et al. 2010). Fragmentation is the reduction of large blocks of habitat into several smaller patches. While golden-cheeked warblers have been found to be reproductively successful in small patches of habitat (less than 50 acres), there is an increased likelihood of occupancy and abundance as patch size increases (Coldren 1998, Butcher et al. 2010, DeBoer and Diamond 2006). Increases in pairing and territory success are also correlated with increasing patch size (Arnold et al. 1996, Coldren 1998, Butcher et al. 2010). In addition, while some studies have suggested that small patches that occur close to larger patches are likely to be occupied by golden-cheeked warblers, the long-term survival and recovery of the GCWA is dependent on maintaining the larger patches (Coldren 1998, Peterson 2001, The Nature Conservancy 2002). As golden-cheeked warbler habitat fragmentation increases the amount of GCWA habitat edge, where two or more different vegetation types meet, also increases. For the GCWA edge is where woodland becomes shrubland, grassland, a subdivision, etc., and depending on the type of edge, it can act as a barrier for dispersal; act as a territory boundary; favor certain predators; increase nest predation; and/or reduce reproductive output (Johnston 2006, Arnold et al. 1996). Canopy breaks (the distance from the top of one tree to another) as little as 36 feet have been shown to be barriers to GCWA movement (Coldren 1998). Territory boundaries have not only been shown to stop at edges, but GCWA are more often farther from habitat edges (Beardmore 1994, DeBoer and Diamond 2006, Sperry 2007). Other threats to GCWAs include the clearing of deciduous oaks upon which the GCWA forage, oak wilt infection in trees, nest parasitism by brown headed cowbirds (Engels and Sexton 1994), drought, fire, stress associated with migration, competition with other avian species, and particularly, loss of habitat from urbanization (Ladd and Gass 1999). Human activities have contributed to GCWA habitat loss throughout their range, particularly areas associated with the Interstate 35 corridor between the Austin and San Antonio metropolitan areas. Rangewide Survival and Recovery Needs The recovery strategy outlined in the Golden-cheeked Warbler Recovery Plan (Service 1992) divides the breeding range of the GCWA into eight regions, or units, and calls for the protection of sufficient habitat to support at least one self-sustaining population in each unit. Based on the Golden-cheeked Warbler Recovery Plan (Service 1992), protection and management of occupied habitat and minimization of degradation, development, or environmental modification of unoccupied habitat necessary for buffering nesting habitat are necessary to provide for the survival of the species. Habitat protection must include elements of both breeding and non-breeding habitat (i.e., associated uplands and migration corridors). Current and future efforts to create new and protect existing habitat will enhance the GCWA’s ability to expand in distribution and numbers. Efforts, such as land acquisition and conservation easements, to

17

protect existing viable populations are critical to the survival and recovery of this species, particularly when rapidly expanding urbanization continues to result in the loss of prime breeding habitat. According to the Golden-cheeked Warbler Population and Habitat Viability Assessment Report (Service 1996) a viable population needs to consist of at least 3,000 breeding pairs. This and other population viability assessments on GCWA have indicated the most sensitive factors affecting their continued existence are population size per patch, fecundity (productivity or number of young per adult), and fledgling survival (Service 1996, Alldredge et al. 2002). These assessments estimated one viable population will need a minimum of 32,500 acres of prime unfragmented habitat to reduce the possibility of extinction of that population to less than five percent over 100 years (Service 1996). Further, this estimate of the minimum number of breeding pairs increases in poorer quality habitat (e.g., patchy habitat resulting from fragmentation). Several state and federally owned lands occur within the breeding range of the GCWA, but the majority of the species’ breeding range occurs on private lands that have been either occasionally or never surveyed. Currently there are five large GCWA populations receiving some degree of protection: those at the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve in Travis County; the nearby Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge in Travis, Burnet, and Williamson counties; Camp Bullis and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s Government Canyon State Natural Area in Bexar County; and the Fort Hood Military Reservation in Coryell and Bell counties. There are also several conservation banks (CB) whose goal is to protect GCWA habitat (acreages represent the total if all bank credits are sold): Hickory Pass CB (3,003 acres) in Burnet County, Bandera Corridor CB (6,946 acres) in Bandera and Real counties, Clearwater CB (21,305 acres) in Burnet County, and Festina Lente CB (1,147 acres) in Bandera County. 3. RHADINE EXILIS AND R. INFERNALIS Species Description and Life History Rhadine exilis and R. infernalis were listed as endangered on December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81419). Designated critical habitat became effective March 15, 2012 (77 FR 8450). Rhadine exilis and R. infernalis are small cave adapted insects (ground beetles). Taxonomic verification of these species is usually not possible in the field and usually requires examination of adult specimens under a microscope. Identification often requires dissection of the genitalia by a taxonomic expert. These species range in size from 1 mm (0.039 in) to 1 cm (0.39 in). Both of these invertebrates are troglobites, spending their entire lives underground. They are characterized by small or absent eyes and pale coloration. Their habitat includes caves and mesocavernous voids in karst limestone (landforms and subsurface features, for example, sinkholes and caves, produced by dissolution of bedrock). Within this habitat these animals depend on high humidity, stable temperatures, suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and underneath rocks), and surface-derived nutrients. Examples of nutrient sources include leaf litter fallen or washed in, animal droppings, and animal carcasses. It is imperative to consider that while these species spend their entire lives underground; their ecosystem is dependent on the overlying surface habitat.

18

In some cases, the most important source of nutrients for a troglobite may be the fungus or microbes that grow on the leaves or troglophile (life cycle occurs both within and outside of the cave) feces rather than the original material itself (Elliott 1994). Tree roots can penetrate into caves and may also provide direct nutrient input to shallow caves. In deeper cave reaches, nutrients enter through water containing dissolved organic matter percolating vertically through karst fissures and solution features (Howarth 1983, Holsinger 1988, Elliott and Reddell 1989, Gounot 1994). For predatory troglobites, accidental species of invertebrates (those that wander in or are trapped in a cave) may be an important nutrient source in addition to other troglobites and troglophiles found in the cave (Service 2011a). The cave cricket (Ceuthophilus sp.) is a particularly important nutrient component (Barr 1968) and is found in most caves in Texas (Reddell 1966). As a troglophile, cave crickets forage on the surface at night, and are generally known to return to the cave during the day, where they lay eggs and roost. Cave cricket foraging area is considered to be an area within 105 meters of the cave footprint (Taylor et al. 2005). A variety of troglobites are known to feed on cave cricket eggs (Mitchell 1971), feces (Barr 1968, Poulson et al. 1995), and/or on the adults and nymphs directly (Elliott 1994). Historic and Current Distribution Little information on these species is available prior to the 1960s when the study of cave organisms began in earnest in Bexar County. Their historic ranges are unknown, but were likely similar to their present day ranges with the exception of caves that have been destroyed or severely impacted (Service 2011a, Veni 2002). Currently R. exilis is known from 53 caves and R. infernalis is known from 53 caves. Caves have been grouped according to six Karst Fauna Regions (KFR) delineated for Bexar County: Stone Oak, University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA), Helotes, Government Canyon, Culebra Anticline, and Alamo Heights (Veni 1994). Karst Fauna Regions are geographic areas delineated based on discontinuities of karst habitat that may reduce or limit interaction between troglobite populations. Both of these species occur in the same 5 KFRs (all but Alamo Heights), sometimes within the same cave. Additionally, the geologic context of the distribution of the listed karst invertebrates was examined by Veni (1994, 2002), who delineated five karst zones within the KFRs to facilitate assessment of the probability of the presence of rare or endangered species. These zones are: Zone 1. Areas known to contain listed karst invertebrate species. Zone 2. Areas having a high probability of containing habitat suitable for listed karst

invertebrate species. Zone 3. Areas that probably do not contain listed karst invertebrate species. Zone 4. Areas that require further research but are generally equivalent to Zone 3,

although they may include sections that could be classified as Zone 2 or Zone 5 as more information becomes available.

Zone 5. Areas that do not contain listed karst invertebrate species. Under contract with the Service, Veni (2002) re-evaluated and, where applicable, revised the boundaries of each karst zone originally delineated in Veni (1994). Revisions were based on

19

current geologic mapping, further studies of cave and karst development, and current information available on the distribution of listed and non-listed karst species. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival The primary threat to these species is habitat destruction. Caves and karst habitat are destroyed or impacted in several ways, including but not limited to: (1) completely filling the cave with cement during development, (2) quarrying activities, and (3) capping or sealing cave entrances. Other causes of habitat degradation include altering drainage patterns, altering native surface plant and animal communities, reducing or increasing nutrient flow, contamination, excessive human visitation, and threats from red-imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta)(RIFA). Red-imported fire ants impact karst invertebrates by competing with cave crickets, feeding on karst invertebrates, and competing with karst invertebrates of habitat resources (Service 2011a, Service 2011b). Range-wide Survival and Recovery Needs The recovery strategy is to reduce threats to the species by protecting an adequate number of karst areas to ensure a high probability of the species’ long-term survival. This includes protecting caves or cave clusters and the associated mesocaverns necessary to support populations that represent the range of the species’ potential genetic diversity. Maintenance of these karst preserves involves keeping them free from contamination, excessive human visitation, and nonnative fire ants by maintaining an ecologically appropriate surface plant and animal community. Preserve managers monitor regularly in order to adaptively manage to control existing and new threats. For the purposes of recovery, a Karst Fauna Area (KFA) is an area known to support one or more locations of a listed species. A KFA is distinct in that it acts as a system that is separated from other KFAs by geologic and hydrologic features or processes that create barriers to the movement of water, contaminants, and troglobitic fauna. Karst fauna areas should be far enough apart so that if a catastrophic event (for example, contamination of the water supply, flooding, disease) were to destroy one of the areas, that event would not likely destroy any other area occupied by that species. There are three categories of KFAs, high, medium, and low. All preserved KFAs should be either medium or high quality as defined in the Service’s karst preserve recommendations (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/). Based on the distribution of the Rhadine species within five KFRs, each of these species needs three KFAs in each KFR composed of at least one high quality and two medium quality KFAs. Because these species can be collocated, the total number of KFAs across all KFRs could vary. Based on a desktop review of known locations, the following table displays the current potential for both species to meet the necessary KFAs. Note that this includes caves both in and not in designated critical habitat units. Table 1. Number of potential high and medium quality caves for R. infernalis and R. exilis Rhadine infernalis

KFR Potential High Potential Medium UTSA 4 1 Government Canyon 8 0

20

Helotes 2 1 Stone Oak 1 0 Culebra 6 2 Rhadine exilis UTSA 3 3 Government Canyon 4 0 Helotes 1 2 Stone Oak 2 0 Culebra 0 2 Based on this analysis, additional locations of R. infernalis would need to be discovered and preserved to meet the downlisting requirements in the Stone Oak KFR. For R. exilis, additional locations would need to be discovered and preserved in the Helotes, Stone Oak, and Culebra KFRs. To meet the downlisting criterion for both Rhadine species, the location, quality, and configuration of at least the minimum number of KFAs in each KFR for each species must be preserved. Furthermore, legally binding commitments must be in place for perpetual protection and management of these KFAs. To delist these species, the downlisting requirements must be achieved, and the data from monitoring and research of the KFAs must support the conclusion that the KFAs will provide a high probability of species survival (greater than 90 percent over 100 years). Critical Habitat for Rhadine exilis and Rhadine infernalis In the Service’s 2012 final rule that designated critical habitat for R. exilis and R. infernalis (and 7 other Bexar County karst invertebrates), we discussed the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of endangered Rhadine species as:

1) Karst-forming rock containing subterranean spaces (caves and connected mesocaverns) with stable temperatures, high humidity (near saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and underneath rocks for foraging and sheltering) that are free from contaminants; and

2) Surface and subsurface sources (such as plants and their roots, fruits, and leaves, and animal (e.g., cave cricket) eggs, feces, and carcasses) that provide nutrient input into the karst ecosystem (77 FR 8450).

The Service designated a total 4,216 acres of critical habitat in 30 units for all 9 endangered species of karst invertebrates in Bexar County. Of these 30 critical habitat units, R. exilis has been documented to occur in 15 units covering 2,363 acres, and R. infernalis has been documented to occur in 20 units covering 2,955 acres. The quality of the habitat varies widely among the critical habitat units, but the Service determined that each critical habitat unit has both of the essential physical and biological features. A description of each unit is provided in the final rule (77 FR 8450).

21

Table 2. Based on a desktop review, the following table lists the current potential preserve quality of the designated critical habitat units for the Rhadine species. Rhadine infernalis

KFR Potential High Potential Medium UTSA 4 1 Government Canyon 5 0 Helotes 2 1 Stone Oak 0 0 Culebra 2 1 Rhadine exilis UTSA 3 2 Government Canyon 3 0 Helotes 1 2 Stone Oak 1 0 Culebra No designated critical habitat No designated critical habitat Based on this review, 16 of the 30 designated critical habitat units for R. infernalis could meet preserve quality standards, and 12 of the 15 designated critical habitat units for R. exilis could meet preserve quality standards. III. Environmental Baseline The Environmental Baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone early or formal consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). 1. HOUSTON TOAD About 90 acres of habitat are estimated to occur within the action area with approximately 65 miles of pipeline to be constructed through Bastrop, Lee, and Burleson Counties, Texas. Houston toads are known to occur within all three of these counties, although little is known about the Houston toad within the action area. A model was created using ArcMap 10.2.2 to predict suitable Houston toad habitat along the Vista Ridge pipeline ROW in Bastrop, Lee, and Burleson Counties. This model was created based on a predictive habitat suitability GIS model (Buzo 2008). After analyzing the predicted habitat model, 42 parcels were identified as having potential Houston toad habitat. If right-of-entry was granted by the property owner, these sites identified by the GIS model to have potential habitat were assessed to verify potential toad habitat. Assessments were conducted by digging pits to measure depth of sandy soils and visually estimating canopy and ground cover. Houston toad audio surveys were also conducted in April of 2016 on properties identified as potential Houston toad habitat. To determine presence or absence, 25 survey stations were established and recorded Houston toad vocalizations were played at each station in an attempt to elicit chorusing from Houston toads in the wild. The nearest location with documented Houston toad occurrence, as reported in Buzo (2008), is approximately 4 miles from the southwestern end

22

of the survey area. The survey performed documented no observations of Houston toads in or immediately adjacent to the survey area. Factors Affecting the Species In addition to the threats to the Houston toad, which are described in the Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival section above and affect the species throughout its range, the Service has previously authorized incidental take for Houston toad through a variety of projects. Federal projects (at least 18) within the Houston toad’s range in the past have included cell tower installations, Federal highway construction and repair projects, petroleum pipeline installations, and wildfire restoration and recovery efforts. Most recently, the Service finalized a formal section 7 consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers for the construction of a petroleum pipeline through a portion of the Houston toad’s habitat in Bastrop County. Mitigation for this project will serve to fund ongoing Houston toad captive propagation efforts. The Service also reinitiated a formal consultation with the Federal Highways Administration on the rehabilitation of U.S. Highway 290 within Bastrop County. This consultation was concluded in 2013 and authorized incidental take of 12 individuals and 84.6 acres of habitat. Additionally, the Service has issued three section 10(a)(1)(A) permits for Houston toad safe harbor agreements and 200 section 10(a)(1)(B) permits for the Houston toad for habitat conservation plans (HCP) in the Agreement Area (197 of these were part of the 46-subdivision HCP). These include, but are not limited to, the following projects:

• Long Family Safe Harbor Agreement – A 10-year agreement (and 12-year incidental take permit) for implementing conservation activities to improve Houston toad habitat within five management areas on a 540-acre property in Bastrop County, Texas. The Service estimated a “minor amount of incidental take of individual toads” that “could occur as a result of implementation of some of the conservation measures, such as understory thinning and prescribed fire.”

• Jim Small Safe Harbor Agreement – A 10-year agreement (and 12-year incidental take

permit) for the creation, restoration, and enhancement of Houston toad habitat on a 836 acre ranch in Bastrop County, Texas. The Service estimated “the level of take of Houston toads anticipated will be no more than 50 individuals and 785.5 acres…”

• Boy Scouts of America/Capital Area Council Safe Harbor Agreement – A 15-year

incidental take permit on 541 acres for conservation activities conducted on a boy scout camp in Bastrop County, Texas to improve the quality of Houston toad habitat. The Service estimated that there would be a minor amount of incidental take during understory thinning and prescribed burning and an increased risk of death to toads as a result of normal camp activities.

• Boy Scouts of America/Capital Area Council Griffith League Ranch HCP – A 50-year

permit for the development and operation of a high adventure Boy Scout camp on the 4,848-acre property in Bastrop County, Texas. This HCP authorized the take of 3,934 acres of habitat that will experience negligible effects to soil from activities, such as hiking, “no-trace” camping, and orienteering; 416 acres of habitat that experience moderate effects to soil from activities, such as construction and maintenance of foot

23

trails and fence lines; and 498 acres of habitat that will experience a high degree of disturbance, such as construction of small buildings and service roads.

• Bastrop Utilities HCP – A 30-year permit covering the construction and maintenance on

up to 142,526 acres within central, eastern, and northern Bastrop County (106,953 acres) and western Lee County (35,573 acres), Texas. Activities covered by this HCP were estimated to occur on 6,792 acres with many of the activities to be contained within existing managed and maintained utility rights-of-way. New facilities were constructed on 2,550 acres of this area.

• Lost Pines HCP– A 30-year permit for new residential, commercial, and multi-family

development; ongoing uses of previously developed lands; County infrastructure maintenance and improvement; emergency services; conservation subdivision development; wildlife management activities, forest management activities; and agricultural activities in an approximately 124,000-acre plan area in Bastrop County, Texas. The Service estimated approximately 5,736 acres of this area to experience permanent habitat loss.

A programmatic Houston Toad Safe Harbor Agreement is currently under development and is expected to be finalized in 2017. It will cover the nine-county range of the Houston toad and will cover the incidental take of Houston toads resulting from a variety of conservation activities, such as tree planning, prescribed burning, brush thinning, red-imported fire ant control, and Houston toad population restoration through reintroductions. The action area is a small subset of the Houston toad’s range. According to our consultations tracking database, there have been no formal section 7 consultations on the Houston toad in the action area. The Lost Pines HCP service area comes close to the Vista Ridge pipeline action area but does not overlap with it. Critical habitat has been designated for the Houston toad but the project does not affect any designated critical habitat unit because there is no critical habitat in the action area. 2. GOLDEN-CHEEKED WARBLER Two habitat models estimate a total of between 3.6 and 4.4 million acres of habitat in the breeding range (Morrison et al. 2010, Diamond et al. 2010). However, both models include some areas of potential habitat that are not likely to be used by the species. According to the Golden-cheeked Warbler Recovery Plan (Service 1992), Bexar and Comal counties are located in Recovery Region 6. According to one habitat model estimate, there is over 59,000 acres of potential GCWA habitat in Bexar County (Diamond et al. 2010). Comal County, as part of their RHCP, completed an analysis of potential GCWA habitat within the county and estimated 65,581 acres. The result is over 124,000 acres of potential GCWA habitat within the two counties. As part of the biological assessment for the Vista Ridge pipeline, it was determined that 18.9 acres of golden-cheeked warbler habitat will be directly impacted and 222 habitat acres will be indirectly impacted by the project. The habitat to be impacted is 0.19 percent of the total habitat within both counties.

24

While there has never been a comprehensive survey of golden-cheeked warblers in Comal and Bexar counties, Groce et. al (2010) summarized surveys completed between 2005 and 2009 that documented at least 925 golden-cheeked warbler males within these two counties. Using an average density of 2.0 to 4.1 singing males per 100 acres of habitat (Pulich 1976 and the long-term average density reported for Camp Bullis, respectively), approximately 2,480 to 5,084 singing males could be present within the two counties. Surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016 documented golden-cheeked warblers along and within portions of the ROW. Applying the same average densities to potential golden-cheeked warbler habitat in and within 300 feet of the ROW, an estimated range of 4.8 to 9.84 golden-cheeked warblers could be present and potentially impacted by the project. However, surveys conducted according to Service protocol along the pipeline route in 2015 and 2016 showed detections in and along only a small portion of the ROW. According to our consultations tracking database, there have been a total of 15 formal section 7 consultations on the GCWA that included Bexar and Comal counties. Approximately 51,000 acres of golden-cheeked warbler habitat were authorized to be impacted by these consultations. However, two consultations make up the majority of this acreage: 1) 47,120 acres were covered under one brush management consultation that covered 35 counties, and 2) a programmatic consultation on Camp Bullis resulted in over 2,500 acres of GCWA habitat being impacted. The conservation resulting from these consultations is over 12,500 acres of GCWA habitat maintained on Department of Defense land and private land preserved and maintained for the benefit of the GCWA. Additionally, we have issued a total of five individual 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits, each with a formal intra-Service section 7 consultation, for incidental take within Bexar and Comal counties. Over 15,600 acres of golden-cheeked warbler habitat were authorized to be impacted. Of this total over 5,200 were authorized as part of the Comal County RHCP, and over 9,300 were authorized as part of the SEP HCP. The conservation result of all HCPs, if fully implemented, would be over 30,800 acres of land protected for the benefit of the GCWAs. Of the 20 formal section 7 consultations on the GCWA within Bexar and Comal counties, only five actually occur in or near to the action area. Four of these cover one entire county as part of their action area: Comal RHCP, SEP HCP, and two programmatic brush control consultations. The fifth consultation is the Cibolo Canyon HCP that is within two miles to the north of the action area. Additionally, the action area bisects a large (several thousand acres) patch of GCWA habitat, a large portion of which is preserved by Bat Conservation International (Braken Bat Cave Preserve) and The Nature Conservancy (Cibolo Canyon Preserve). 3. RHADINE EXILIS AND R. INFERNALIS The applicant surveyed the ROW for potential karst features to determine if any additional occupied caves could be identified (see the BA for full description of survey effort). Those surveys, which included baiting of features, did not find any Rhadine species. Additionally, R. infernalis has not been found in any of the caves or karst features in the action area. However, a cave known to contain R. infernalis is about 1.4 miles southwest of the pipeline terminus. Within Bexar County the entire pipeline crosses karst zones 1 and 2. Therefore, there is a possibility that BCKI could be encountered during construction of the proposed project. Of the

25

ROW acreage, 41.73 acres is in karst zone 1 and 49.53 acres is in karst zone 2. Of these acres 17.77 of karst zone 1 and 26.38 acres of karst zone 2 are in areas affected by the USACE permit authorizations. According to our consultations database, there have been three formal consultations on R. infernalis and one on R. exilis. One R. infernalis consultation covered the potential for take; however, it was not known to occur in the action area. The other two consultations for R. infernalis and the R. exilis consultation covered impacts that were occurring within the surface area near already heavily impacted cave entrances, but did not directly affect the caves. Additionally, we have completed two formal consultations on 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits we issued covering both Rhadine species (La Cantera HCP and SEP HCP). Both cover direct impacts to caves with R. exilis; however, only the SEP HCP covered direct effects on R. infernalis. The La Cantera consultation covered the potential for R. infernalis to be indirectly impacted due to its location with the KFR. Conservation measures that resulted from all five consultations include Rhadine biota studies, four R. exilis preserves, six R. infernalis preserves, and the potential for several more medium and high quality KFAs for both species as implementation of the SEP HCP proceeds. Critical Habitat The alignment of the proposed pipeline crosses critical habitat units 12 and 13. Rhadine exilis has been documented in both of these critical habitat units. Rhadine infernalis is not known to occur in either of these critical habitat units. A total of 3.36 acres of the ROW is in critical habitat unit 12 and 1.88 acres of ROW are in critical habitat unit 13. The essential physical and biological features of BCKI critical habitat may be present in the ROW. In particular, the area is known to be in a karst formation, and therefore, it likely contains the subsurface spaces where the required high humidity and stable temperatures could occur. However, neither of these critical habitat units has sufficient undisturbed surface area remaining to meet even the medium quality requirements for a KFA preserve. While the caves of unit 12 are within small (less than an acre) undeveloped lots, the majority of the remaining critical unit is developed with half-acre or less residential lots. The cave in unit 13 has had a road placed over the top of it with a culvert placed at the cave entrance to allow for access to the cave. Despite multiple survey efforts over many years, a Rhadine specimen has not been collected from this feature. Additionally, there is some debate as to whether the species believed to once occur at this site was actually R. exilis or a new species. IV. Effects of the Action The “effects of the action” refers to the direct and indirect effects of an action on a species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated and interdependent with that action (50 CFR 402.02). The impacts discussed below are the Service’s evaluation of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those caused by the proposed action that occur later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR 402.02). 1. HOUSTON TOAD

26

The factors that we considered in analyzing the effects of the action of Houston toads include the distance of the action area from known Houston toad populations and locations, the estimate of habitat permanently or temporarily lost, the timing of the project, and the likelihood that any Houston toads may be in the action area during construction after all conservation measures have been implemented. The proposed action will result in the disturbance of 61.3 acres of Houston toad habitat in the action area across three counties known to have Houston toad populations. Although usage by Houston toads in the action area is unknown, direct effects to the Houston toad within an area out to a distance of roughly 500 feet from construction activities could potentially occur as a result of disruptions from vibration traveling through the substrate, dust, noise, and light. If Houston toads remain within the work area, undetected, they could be harmed or killed by construction equipment within or immediately adjacent to the jurisdictional water body. In addition, vegetation removal within the area of jurisdiction would reduce canopy cover required by the toad for up to 30 years as the regrowth matures and replaces the habitat loss over time. The habitat loss (canopy cover and native groundcover) may affect individuals if Houston toads attempt to disperse across impacted areas or if there are any breeding sites in the action area. Any Houston toad breeding sites located within the Vista Ridge pipeline action area will likely be permanently lost. The post-construction action area may act as a barrier to dispersing toads during the Houston toad’s breeding season, potentially interfering with population dynamics, impeding gene flow, and reducing recruitment at the population level for the species. At the individual level, encountering inhospitable habitat may impede their ability to find adequate prey and shelter and could result in increased mortality among dispersing Houston toads. After permanent erosion control devices are installed and final grading complete, all disturbed work areas except annually cultivated fields will be seeded as soon as possible. Seeding is intended to stabilize the soil and re-establish vegetation areas disturbed by construction. Timing of the reseeding efforts will depend on weather and soil conditions and would be subject to the prescribed rates and seed mixes, land management agency, or Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) recommendations. Once some of the native vegetation is restored, and if the dispersing Houston toads are able to move into suitable habitat within a 24-hour period, the effects may not be as severe. The applicant included conservation measures to avoid and minimize the potential for any individual Houston toad to be directly and indirectly impacted by pipeline construction activities. We believe these conservation activities considerably reduce the likelihood that Houston toads could be killed, injured, or harassed during the proposed project and minimize indirect effects occurring later in time. Some of these conservation measures are included below (see Chapter 7 of the Biological Assessment for a complete list of best management practices which are conservation measures):

• Timing construction does to avoid those times of the year when Houston toads are most active to minimize the likelihood that individuals may be present or move into the construction areas. Thus, less toads are likely to be affected if less toads are in the action area at the time of construction.

27

• Fencing to exclude Houston toads from entering the construction areas to avoid any impacts on individuals. Exclusion of toads from the construction area minimizes the likelihood that toads will be affected during construction.

• Analysis of nightly recorded amphibian calls for Houston toad detections prior to construction activities during the breeding season will be used to inform the applicant about the presence of toads in the action area and therefore focus efforts to locate toads for avoidance or relocation out of the action area by permitted biologists.

• Employing Houston toad monitors (permitted biologists) to survey the work area and barrier fencing prior to daily activities to ensure Houston toads are not within the work area and cannot move into the work area to increase the efficacy of these measures for the duration of construction in areas of Houston toad habitat.

Indirect effects include any effects to the Houston toad’s habitat that will result from implementing the proposed action and are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur. The activities resulting from the proposed action that would interfere with the species’ breeding, feeding, and sheltering activities at a later point in time would likely be those associated with clearing of vegetation, which generally causes edge effects. Edge effects are considered changes to a habitat patch, often caused by a disturbance, to the local floral and faunal communities within dispersal habitat areas. Hybridization between the Houston toad and the Woodhouse’s and Gulf Coast toads occur primarily along habitat edges where forests have been cleared and permanent ponds have replaced ephemeral pools (Hills et al. 1984, Seal 1994). Increases in predation (Bowers et al. 1996, Suarez et al. 1998) and competition for food sources (Hanski 1995) also occur in the edge of habitat fragments. Given their overlapping ranges and similar life history requirements, both the Woodhouse’s and Gulf Coast toads compete with Houston toads for resources (Thomas 1977). Where forested habitat has been modified to more open habitats, such changes can lead to the displacement of the Houston toads from an area entirely (Hillis et al. 1984, Brown 1971). Edges also favor the proliferation of red-imported fire ants (Porter and Savignano 1990). This could cause a disturbance in the native invertebrate community that constitutes the Houston toad’s prey base. Vegetation removal could also result in increased fragmentation of habitat as well as decreased connectivity and gene flow among Houston toad populations. At the individual level, this loss of habitat could affect Houston toad survival, as dispersal and mobility are necessary for access to food and breeding sites, protection from predators, and protection from extreme weather conditions. The survival and recovery of the species in the wild is not appreciably reduced by the project because no know breeding sites will be impacted. Furthermore, the post-construction restoration of native grasses in disturbed areas should allow Houston toads to move across the areas so access to potential breeding sites, and dispersal from breeding sites, will not be significantly impeded. 2. GOLDEN-CHEEKED WARBLER

The proposed action will result in the direct disturbance of 18.9 acres and indirectly impact 222 acres of GCWA habitat. Of this amount, 5.3 acres of direct impacts and 22 acres of indirect impacts are associated with the water crossings that USACE is authorizing. Indirect impacts associated with the loss of habitat are the same as those described above, including habitat fragmentation potentially leading to increased risk of exposure to predation and nest parasitism. Due to the linear nature of the project, it is expected that individuals impacted by the loss of

28

breeding, fledging, and foraging habitat will likely utilize other adjacent or nearby areas of suitable habitat. The species ability to survive and eventually recover are not appreciably reduced by the proposed action because of the preservation of habitat associated with the applicant’s participation in the SEP HCP. The effects of the SEP HCP on the golden-cheeked warbler are described in the Service’s biological opinion associated with the issuance of the section 10 permit for the SEP HCP (21450-2011-F-0281). To obtain incidental take coverage under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, the applicant will participate in the Comal County RHCP and the SEP HCP for the affected GCWA habitat. The applicant’s participation reduces the effect of the take associated with the Corps’ action and the take exempted in this biological opinion of that action. The applicant is obtaining incidental take coverage for the incidental take of the golden-cheeked warbler for those areas of the project beyond the Corps’ action area through participation in regional HCPs. Both the Comal RHCP and the SEP HCP determine impacts to GCWAs through acreage calculations, both direct and indirect. By participating in the associated HCPs, the applicant must follow all requirements of participation in the HCPs (for example, constructing outside of the breeding season and following oak wilt prevention measures). The effects of these two HCPs have been considered through biological opinions on issuing the section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits (21450-2011-F-0210 and 21450-2011-F-0281). 3. RHADINE EXILIS AND R. INFERNALIS

The proposed activities are distant from known occupied habitat and it is our biological opinion that the proposed action is unlikely to adversely impact any known caves supporting BCKI. If BCKI are within the mesocavernous spaces within the project area, the loss and degradation of habitat caused by trenching and construction activities necessary to install the Vista Ridge pipeline will directly affect BCKI. The effects to individual BCKIs, if present, will be severe because trenching through karst formations is a permanent loss of the habitat. There is no way to reverse the effects of lost karst habitat. If any occupied karst features are encountered during trenching, individuals will likely be killed and those features will be considered destroyed. The indirect effect caused by excavation for the pipeline will be the degradation of habitat, if any is present. BCKIs require subterranean spaces with high humidity and stable temperatures. Trenching could open those underground spaces exposing them to surface temperatures and eventually causing them to dry out. In addition, the surface disturbance can increase the prevalence of red-imported fire ants over time. Red-imported fire ants effect endangered karst invertebrates by direct predation. The construction activity required to install the pipeline will permanently disturb 41.73 acres of karst zone 1 and 49.53 acres of karst zone 2. Of this amount, 17.77 acres of karst zone 1 and 26.38 acres of karst zone 2 are associated with the water crossings that the USACE is proposing to authorize under the CWA. Survival and recovery of the species is not significantly impacted because of the protection of occupied sites by the SEP HCP that are necessary for recovery of these species. The applicant will participate in the SEP HCP for the entire impact area to obtain incidental take coverage under 10 of the Act. HCP participation in those areas within in the Corps’ jurisdiction are for offsetting the impacts of the take associated with the Corps’ action which is exempted under this biological opinion. The Service evaluated the effect of take associated with participation in the SEP HCP in its biological opinion associated with the

29

issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the SEP HCP (21450-2011-F-0210). The survival and recovery of these species depends on the protection of occupied karst preserves that include the protection of surface and subsurface habitat characteristics. The SEP HCP, if fully implemented is expected to meet these needs through the protection karst preserves in perpetuity that are capable of supporting these species. Effects on Critical Habitat Critical habitat for BCKI is affected in the same manner as habitat for these species is affected and is described above. Unit 12 is 166 acres in total of which 3.36 acres will be impacted by the project. This is only 2 percent of the entire unit. Unit 13 is 100 acres of which 1.88 acres will be impacted, which is less than 2 percent of the entire unit. Due to small amount of area affected by the project, the impacts of constructing the Vista Ridge pipeline on the physical and biological features are minor. Within the two affected critical habitat units, surveys by the applicant did not detect any surface indications of voids or caves below the surface. The presence of spaces with stable temperatures, high humidity, and suitable substrates free of contaminants (physical and biological feature 1) were not detected during surface surveys. If present, then excavation into such spaces will affect the physical and biological features. Similarly, there is no indication from surface surveys conducted by the applicant that surface and subsurface sources (such as plants and their roots, fruits, and leaves, and animal (e.g., cave cricket) eggs, feces, and carcasses) that provide nutrient input into the karst ecosystem are present (physical and biological feature 2). If they are present then the excavation of the pipeline will impact this physical and biological feature in the action area. If these physical and biological features are impacted, the remainder of unit 12 and 13 will be unaffected and will continue to provide these physical and biological features. V. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of future, State, tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. The action areas for the species considered in this biological opinion are primarily privately owned properties. Because the action areas are relatively narrow, linear, project corridors, it is unlikely that future project will occur on or adjacent to the project ROW. However, more broadly, we expect population growth to continue, in particular in Bexar, Comal, and Bastrop counties. Expanding residential, commercial, municipal and industrial development will likely continue to impact the availability of habitat for all the species considered in this biological opinion over time. VI. Conclusion After reviewing the current status of the Houston toad, golden-cheeked warbler, R. exilis, and R. infernalis; the environmental baseline for the action areas, the effects of the proposed action; and, the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Houston toad, GCWA, R. exilis, or R. infernalis. Critical habitat has been designated for R. exilis and R. infernalis in Bexar County, however, no destruction or adverse modification of that critical habitat is expected.

30

The proposed action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the Houston Toad because the applicant has committed to avoidance and minimization measures that significantly reduce the likelihood that incidental take will occur. A relatively small part of the all suitable Houston toad habitat will be adversely affected. Critical habitat for this species has been designated, however, this action does not affect that area and no destruction or adverse modification of that critical habitat is anticipated. The proposed action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the golden-cheeked warbler because construction will not occur when individuals could be present, and the conservation measures provided in the proposed action will ensure that habitat is permanently protected in excess of the habitat that is lost. No critical habitat has been designated for this species; therefore, none will be affected. The proposed action will not jeopardize the continued existence of two unnamed ground beetles, R. exilis and R. infernalis, because their presence in the action area cannot be confirmed based on available evidence. Critical habitat has been designated for these species in Bexar County, Texas, and a small percentage of that critical habitat will be affected at locations distant from occupied caves. Due to both the small amount of acreage impacted and the location within critical habitat where effects will occur, these affects will not diminish the value of critical habitat for the conservation of BCKI; therefore, the proposed action will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service means an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement. The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a continuing duty to regulate the activities covered by this incidental take statement. If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the applicant to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement. [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)]

31

Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated Houston Toad The Service anticipated incidental take of Houston toad in the form of harm by the direct and indirect disturbance and degradation of up to 90 acres of habitat all of which is within the action area. Golden-cheeked Warbler The Service anticipates incidental take of golden-cheeked warblers in the form of harm through the direct removal of 18.9 acres and indirect effects on an additional 222 acres of breeding habitat (5.3 and 22 acres, respectively, are part of the Corps NWP stream crossings). Rhadine exilis and Rhadine infernalis The Service anticipates incidental take of R. exilis and R. infernalis in the form of harm due to the degradation of the 91.26 acres of R. exilis and R. infernalis habitat in the Stone Oak Karst Fauna Region. Of this amount, 17.77 acres of karst zone 1 and 26.38 acres of karst zone 2 are associated with the water crossings that the USACE is proposing to authorize under the CWA. The number of individuals cannot be determined, therefore, we are using habitat as a surrogate to estimate the amount of take. Effect of the take In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service has determined that this level of anticipated take for the proposed action, including the those portions of the proposed action that will have incidental permitted under an existing section 10 permit, is not likely to result in jeopardy to the Houston toad, golden-cheeked warbler, R. exilis, or R. infernalis. Incidental take associated with the Corps’ action is exempted in this biological opinion. The applicant intends to participate in regional HCPs for incidental take in Comal and Bexar County for the entire project, where applicable. Participation in HCPs in areas within the Corps’ action area are for the purpose of offsetting the effects of the take associated with the Corps’s action. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure is necessary and appropriate to minimize incidental take of the species in this consultation: 1. Minimize harm and harassment of Houston toads, golden-cheeked warbler, R. exilis, and

R. infernalis during all construction and operational activities associated with the VRRSP project described in the biological assessment.

Terms and Conditions In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measure described above and outline the required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

1. Conservation measures and BMPs associated with the proposed action as described in the biological assessment for each species will occur prior to potential take of that species. The Corps will notify the Service when conservation measures have been

32

completed in the action areas associated with the Corps’ action. The applicant will notify the Service when conservation measures have been completed in other locations, including participation in HCPs and its contribution to the Houston Zoo.

2. The Corps will ensure adherence to best management practices associated with construction and excavation in locations where endangered species or their habitat is present in the action areas associated with the Corps’ action. The applicant will ensure adherence to best management practices throughout the entire project.

3. Measures described in the biological assessment to avoid and minimize incidental take will be fully utilized by the applicant and the Corps will ensure that these measures are fully utilized.

4. Any caves accidentally discovered and potentially occupied by R. exilis or R. infernalis will be closed in a manner that will minimize indirect effects of the karst environment. The Corps will ensure the implementation of this condition within its action area. The applicant will be responsible for the implementation of this condition.

5. The applicant will be responsible for successful restoration of Houston toad habitat as described in the BA. Such restoration activities will occur immediately after construction in Houston toad habitat. In addition, the applicant will monitor the restored areas to ensure successful re-vegetation. Any sites that do not successfully revegetate with native grasses and plants will be reseeded or replanted.

6. Reporting: The Austin Ecological Services Field is to be notified within three working days of the finding of any dead listed species or any unanticipated harm to the species addressed in this biological opinion.

Conservation Recommendations Section 7(a)(l) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.

1. Support the Programmatic Houston Toad Safe Harbor Agreement by informing applicants of the opportunity to participate in the Agreement which will further recovery efforts for this species.

2. Support the development of preserves for the golden-cheeked warblers in Bexar and Comal counties by informing applicants of the opportunity to participate in these conservation plans. Participation in these habitat conservation plans leads directly to the preservation of habitat and furthers efforts to recover the species.

3. Inform applicants with projects in karst zones to participate in regional habitat conservation plans. Participation in these plans helps fund the protection of habitat for endangered karst invertebrates and enhances recovery efforts.

33

In order for the Service to be kept informed of the actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any conservation measures.

Reinitiation Notice As provided in 50 CPR § 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or ( 4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.

The Service appreciates the coordination and cooperation of the USA CE staff during this consultation. If further assistance or information is required, please contact Tanya Sommer at (512) 490-0057, extension 222.

Sincerely,

~~~ ~ / Adam Zerrenner WI"-' Field Supervisor

34

Literature Cited Alldredge, M.W., J.S. Hatfield, D.D. Diamond, and C.D. True. 2002. Population viability

analysis of the Golden-cheeked warbler. Final report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Arnold, K.A., C.L. Coldren, and M.L. Fink. 1996. The interactions between avian predators and

golden-cheeked warblers in Travis County, Texas. Research report 1983-2 for Texas Department of Transportation.

Barr, T.C., Jr. 1968. Cave ecology and the evolution of troglobites. Evolutionary Biology 2:35-

102. Beardmore, C.J. 1994. Habitat use of the golden-cheeked warbler in Travis County, Texas.

Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA. Bishop, C. and K. Pettit (editors). 1992. Declines in Canadian amphibian populations:

designing a national monitoring strategy. Occasional paper number 76. Canadian Wildlife Service. Ottawa, Ontario.

Bowers, M.A., K. Greario, C.J. Brame, S.F. Matter, and J.L. Dooley, Jr. 1996. Use of space and habitats by meadow voles at the home range, patch and landscape scales. Oecologica 105: 107-115. Bragg, A.N. 1960. Feeding in the Houston toad. Southwestern Naturalist 5:106. Brown D.J., Baccus J.T., Means D.B., Forstner M.R.J. 2011. Potential positive effects of fire

on juvenile amphibians in a southern USA pine forest. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Service 2(2):135-145.

Brown, L.E. 1971. Natural hybridization and trend toward extinction in some relict Texas toad

populations. Southwestern Naturalist 16:185-199. Bull, E.L. 2009. Dispersal of newly metamorphosed and juvenile Western toads (Anaxyrus boreas) in Northeastern Oregon, USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 42: 236-247. Butcher, J.A., M.L. Morrison, D. Ransom, Jr., R.D. Slack, and R.N. Wilkins. 2010. Evidence of

a minimum patch size threshold of reproductive success in an endangered songbird. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:133–139.

Buzo, D. 2008. A GIS model for identifying potential breeding habitat for the Houston toad.

M.S. Thesis Texas State University. Chapman, F.M. 1907. The warblers of North America. D. Appleton and Co., New York. Christein, D. and D. Taylor. 1978. Population dynamics in breeding aggregations of the

American toad (Bufo americanus). Journal of Herpetology 12:17-24.

35

Coldren, C.L., 1998. The effect of habitat fragmentation on the golden-cheeked warbler. Ph.D.

Dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. DeBoer, T.S., and D.D. Diamond. 2006. Predicting presence-absence of the endangered golden-

cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia). Southwestern Naturalist 51:181–190. Diamond, D.D. 2007. Range-wide modeling of golden-cheeked warbler habitat. Project Final

Report to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership, University of Missouri. 22pp + figures.

Diamond, D.D., L.F. Elliott, C. Blodgett, C.D. True, D. German, and A. Treuer-Kuehn.

2010. Texas Ecological Systems Classification Project. Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership (MoRAP). University of Missouri, Columbia, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas, USA.

Dixon, J.R. 1982. Final report: Houston toad survey. Texas A&M Univ. College Station, TX. Dixon, J.R., N.O. Dronen, J.C. Godwin, and M.A. Simmons. 1990. The amphibians reptiles,

and mammals of Bastrop and Buescher State Parks: with emphasis on the Houston toad Bufo houstonensis and the short-tailed shrew (Blarina sp.). Prepared for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, TX.

Dodd, C. and B. Cade. 1998. Movement patterns and the conservation of amphibians breeding

in small, temporary wetlands. Conservation Biology 12:331-339. Duarte, A., J.L.R. Jensen, J.S. Hatfield, and F.W. Weckerly. 2013. Spatiotemporal variation in

range-wide golden-cheeked warbler breeding habitat. Ecosphere Volume 4(12), Article 152. Edwards, S.P. and J.M. Lewis. 2008. Surveys of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lands at

Whitney Lake for the endangered golden-cheeked warbler. 2008 final report. Arlington Ecological Services Field Office, Arlington, Texas, USA.

Elliott, W.R. 1994. Community ecology of three caves in Williamson County, Texas: a three-

year summary. 1993 Annual Report for Simon Development Co., Inc., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Texas Parks and Wildlife.

Elliott, W.R. and J.R. Reddell. 1989. The status and range of five endangered arthropods from

caves in the Austin, Texas, Region. A report on a study supported by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Nature Conservancy for the Austin Regional Habitat Conservation Plan.

Engels, T.M. and C.W. Sexton. 1994. Negative correlation of blue jays and golden-cheeked

warblers near an urbanizing area. Conservation Biology 8:286-290. Fahrig, L. and J. Pedlar, S. Pope, P. Taylor, and J. Wegner. 1995. Effect of road traffic on

amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73:174-182.

36

Findlay, C. and J. Houlahan. 1997. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology 11:1000-1009.

Forstner, M.R.J. 2000. Final Report, Griffith League Ranch Houston Toad Survey 2000, Bastrop County, Texas. Prepared for the Capitol Area Council, Boy Scouts of America. Austin, Texas.

Forstner, M.R.J. 2001. Houston toad survey results and summary report for the Griffith League

Ranch, Bastrop County, TX. 3 pages.

Forstner, M.R.J. 2002a. Houston toad research and surveys 2002 data and final report. Prepared for BSA/CAC-Lost Pines & Griffith League Ranch, Bastrop County, Texas. August 16, 2002. Austin, Texas.

Forstner, M.R.J. 2002b. Final report of the 2002 Houston toad surveys in Bastrop County. Submitted to The Bastrop County Citizen’s Workgroup, County Houston Toad Project. Bastrop, Texas. Forstner, M.R.J. 2003. Final: Biology/Ecology of the Houston Toad (Bufo houstonenesis).

Report submitted to Bastrop County, Texas. Forstner, M.R.J. 2006. Current status of the Houston toad: a summary of recent research and

field determinations with solutions for recovery of the species by programs of active stewardship. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Forstner, M.R.J. 2011. “Ending the year with 12 not 11.” E-mail to Paige Najvar. May 25, 2011. Forstner, M.R.J., and J. Dixon. 2011. Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis) 5-year review:

summary and evaluation. Final Report for Section 6 project E-101. Submitted to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Forstner, M.R.J. and D.J. Stout. 2012. Houston toad habitat assessment with an investigation of

potential occurrence for the Copano-Houston Central Gas Plan Expansion Project, Colorado County, Texas. Submitted to Whitenton Group, Inc.

Forstner, M.R.J., D. Wallace, S. McCracken, and D.J. Stout. 2012. Final Report. The 2012

Houston toad chorusing survey for Bastrop County and the Lost Pines Habitat Conservation Plan. Final Technical Report. Submitted to Bastrop County and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Forstner, M.R.J., D. Wallace, S. McCracken, and D.J. Stout. 2013. Final Report. The 2012

Houston toad chorusing survey for Bastrop County and the Lost Pines Habitat Conservation Plan. Final Technical Report. Submitted to Bastrop County and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Freed, P.S. and K. Neitman. 1988. Notes on predation on the endangered Houston toad, Bufo

houstonensis. Texas Journal of Science 40:454-455.

37

Gibbs, J. 1998. Amphibian movements in response to forest edges, roads, and streambeds in southern New England. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:584-589.

Gounot, A.M. 1994. Microbial ecology of groundwaters. Pages 189-215 in J. Gilbert, D.L.

Danielopol, and J.A. Stanford, editors. Groundwater Ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Greuter, K. 2004. Early juvenile ecology of the endangered Houston toad, Bufo houstonensis

(Anura: Bufonidae). Master of Science. Texas State University, Department of Biology. Groce, J.E., H.A. Mathewson, M.L. Morrison, and N. Wilkins. 2010. Scientific evaluation for

the 5-year status review of the golden-cheeked warbler. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 194 pp. Hanski, I. 1995. Effects of landscape pattern on competitive interactions. Pages 203-224 in L.

Hansson, L. Fahrig, and G. Merriam, editors. Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. Chapman and Hall, London.

Harfenist, A., T. Power, K. Clark, and D. Peakall. 1989. A review and evaluation of the

amphibian toxicological literature. Technical Report No. 61. Canadian Wildlife Service. Ottawa, Canada.

Hatfield J.S., A. H. Price D.D. Diamond, and C. D. True. 2004. Houston toad Bufo

houstonensis in Bastrop County Texas: need for protecting multiple populations. Ak9akaya H. R., M.A. Bmgrnan Kindvall 0 ., C.C. Wood, P. Sjogren-Gulve J. . Hatfield and M.A. McCa1thy, editors. Species conservation and management. Oxford University Press. New York, NY.

Hillis, D.M., A.M. Hillis, and R.F. Martin. 1984. Reproductive ecology and hybridization of the

endangered Houston toad Bufo houstonensis. Journal of Herpetology 18:56-71. Holsinger, J.R. 1988. Troglobites: the evolution of cave-dwelling organisms. American

Scientist 76:147-153. Howarth, F.G. 1983. Ecology of cave arthropods. Annual Review of Entomology 28:365-389.

http://morap.missouri.edu/index.php/texas-ecological-systems-classification/ Johnston, M.M. 2006. A survey for potential predators of the golden-cheeked warbler

(Dendroica chrysoparia) in relation to different edges at the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve. Thesis, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA.

Kennedy, J.P. 1962. Spawning season and hybridization of the Houston toad, Bufo

houstonensis. Herpetologica 17:239-245. Knutson M., J. Sauer, D. Olsen M. Mossman L. Hemesath, and M. Lanoo. 1999. Effects of

landscape composition and wetland fragmentation on frog and toad abundance and species richness in Iowa and Wisconsin, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 13:1437-1446.

38

Kocher, S., R. Harris, and G. Nakamura. 2009. Recovering from wildfire: a guide for California's forest landowners. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Oakland, California. 12 pages.

Kroll, J.C. 1980. Habitat requirements of the Golden cheeked Warbler: management

implications. J.·Range Manage. 33:60-65. Ladd, C., and L. Gass. 1999. Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia). The Birds of

North America, No. 420, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology and the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Ladd, C.G. 1985. Nesting habitat requirements of the golden-cheeked warbler. M.S. thesis.

Southwest Texas St. Univ., San Marcos, Texas. 65 pp. Little, E.E., R.D. Calfee and K. Dickerson. 2002. Determination of impacts on the endangered

Wyoming toad (Bufo baxteri) at Mo1ienson National Wildlife Refuge from ammonium nitrate concentrations. ContaminantRepo11 Number: R6/719C/02. U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia, Missouri, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, WY.

Lost Pines Recovery Team. 2011. Bastrop County Complex Fire Lost Pines Region Resources

Assessment and Response Report. Available at: http://www.co.bastrop.tx.us/bcdisaster/LPRT_Recovery_Report_FINAL_11-10-11_reduced.pdf. Date Accessed: November 29, 2011.

Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA). 2011. Central Texas drought: drought strengthens in

lower Colorado River basin. Available at: http://www.lcra.org/water/drought/index.html. Date Accessed May 9, 2011.

Marsh, D. and P. Trenham. 2001. Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation.

Conservation Biology 15:40-49. McHenry, D.J and M.R.J. Forstner. 2009. Houston toad metapopulation assessment and

genetics: data necessary for effective recovery strategies in a significantly fragmented landscape. Submitted to Texas Parks & Wildlife Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mitchell, R.W. 1971. Food and feeding habits of troglobitic carabid beetle Rhadine subterranea. Speleology 3:249-270.

Morrison, M.L., R.N. Wilkins, B.A. Collier, J.E. Groce, H.A. Mathewson, T.M. McFarland,

A.G. Snelgrove, R.T. Snelgrove, and K.L. Skow. 2010. Golden-cheeked warbler population distribution and abundance. Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, College Station, Texas, USA. Submitted to Texas Department of Transportation. 194 pp.

Oberholser, H.C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1069pp. Peterson, C.E. 2001. Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia: Parulidae) territory and

non-territory habitat choice in fragmented ashe-juniper patches on the Kerr Wildlife Management Area. Thesis, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA.

39

Pope, T.L., M.L. Morrison, and R.N. Wilkins. Woodlands as quality breeding habitat for black-

capped vireos. Journal Wildlife Management 77(5):994-1001. Porter, S.D., A. Bhatkar, R. Mulder, S.B. Vinson, and D.J. Clair. 1991. Distribution and density of polygyne fire ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Texas. Journal of Economic Entomology 84:866-874. Porter, S.D. and D.A. Savignano. 1990. Invasion of polygyne fire ants decimates native ants and disrupts arthropod community. Ecology 71: 2,095-2,106. Porter, S.D., B. Van Eimeren, and L.E. Gilbert. 1988. Invasion of red imported fire ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): Microgeography of competitive replacement. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 81: 913-918. Poulson, T.L., K.H. Lavoie, and K. Helf. 1995. Long-term effects of weather on the cricket

(Hadenoecus subterraneus, Orthoptera, Rhaphidophoridae), guano community in Mammoth Cave National Park. American Midland Naturalist 134:44 226-236.

Price, A.H. 1990. Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis) status survey. Performance report. Project E-1-2, Job No. 8.0. Funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department under section 6 of the Endangered Species Act. Austin, Texas. Price, A.H. 1992. Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis) status survey. Performance report: Project

No. E-1-4, Job No. 8. Funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department under section 6 of the Endangered Species Act. Austin, Texas.

Price, A.H. 1993. Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis) status survey. Final report: Project No. E-1-

4, Job No. 8. Funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department under section 6 of the Endangered Species Act. Austin, Texas.

Price, A.H. 2003. The Houston toad in Bastrop State Park 1990–2002: a narrative. Open-file report 03-0401. Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, Wildlife Division, Austin, Texas. Pulich, W.M. 1976. The Golden-cheeked Warbler. A Bioecological Study. Texas Parks and

Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas. Pulich, W.M. 1965. The Golden-cheeked Warbler of Texas. Audubon Field-Notes 19:545-548. Quinn, H. 1981. Captive propagation/release program of the Houston toad, Bufo houstonensis. Contract 20181-0498, Control Number 20181-0498. Final report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Quinn, H. and G. Ferguson. 1983. Release program for captive-raised and wild-caught Houston

toads (Bufo houstonensis). Progress report for work completed from February through June 1983. Presented to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species.

Quinn, H.R., G. Mengden. 1984. Reproduction and growth of Bufo houstonensis (Bufonidae). Southwestern Naturalist 29: 189-195.

40

Reh, W. and A. Seitz. 1990. The influence of land use on the genetic structure or populations of the common frog Rana temporia. Biological Conservation 54: 239-249. Reddell, J.R. 1966. A checklist of the cave fauna of Texas. II. Insecta. The Texas Journal of

Science 18: 25-56. Russell, K.R., D.H. Van Lear, and D.C. Guynn, Jr. 1999. Prescribed fire effects on herpetofauna: review and management implications. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27: 374-384. Schmutzer, A.C., M.J. Gray, E.C. Burton, and D.L. Miller. 2008. Impacts of cattle on amphibian larvae and the aquatic environment. Freshwater Biology 53: 2,613-2,625. Seal, U.S., editor. 1994. Population and habitat viability assessment: Houston toad (Bufo

houstonensis). Workshop conducted by IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group in partial fulfillment of USFWS contract #94-172. Apple Valley, Minnesota.

Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica

chrysoparia) recovery plan. Austin, Texas. Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. Golden-cheeked warbler population and habitat

viability assessment report. Austin, Texas. Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011a. Bexar County karst invertebrates recovery

plan. August 2011. Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. pp 84. Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011b. Rhadine exilis (no common name), Rhadine

infernalis (no common name), Madla Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla), Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (C. venii), Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver (C. vespera), Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (C. baronia), Cokendolpher cave harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri), Government Canyon Bat Cave spider (Neoleptoneta microps), and Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Austin Ecological Services Field Office.

Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011c. Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis), 5-year

review: summary and evaluation. Austin Ecological Services Field Office. pp 22. Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Karst preserve design recommendations. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas. Simmons, G.F. 1924. Birds of the Austin region. University of Texas Press, Austin. Soulé, M.E. 1987. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 189 pp. Soulé, M., A. Alberts, and D. Bolger. 1992. The effects of habitat fragmentation on chaparral plants and vertebrates. Oikos 63: 39-47.

41

Sperry, C. 2007. Influences of borders on golden-cheeked warbler habitat in the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve, Travis County, Texas. Texas state university, San Marcos, Texas, USA.

Suarez, A.V., D.T. Bolger, and T.J. Case. 1998. Effects of fragmentation and invasions on native

ant communities in coastal Southern California. Ecology 79: 2,041-2,056. Swannack, T., J. Bell, J. Gaertner, S. Mays, D. Hahn, and J.R Dixon. 2007. The Houston toad

2007: Annual summary of research and monitoring. Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and our collaborating partners.

Swannack, T.M., W.E. Grant, and M.R.J. Forstner. 2009. Projecting population trends of endangered amphibian species in the face of uncertainty: a pattern-oriented approach. Ecological Modeling 220: 148-159. Taylor, S.J., J.K. Krejca, and M.L. Denight. Foraging range and habitat use of Ceuthophilus

secretus (Orthoptera: Rhaphidophoridae), a key trogloxene in central Texas cave communities. American Midl. Nat. 154:97-114.

Thomas, R.A. 1977. The endangered Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis). Final report to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service under contract number 14-16-0002-3557. TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2002. A range-wide assessment of potential breeding habitat

for the golden-cheeked warbler. Final Report submitted to Natural Resources Management Branch, Fort Hood, Texas.

Tschinkel, W.R. 1988. Distribution of the fire ants Solenopsis invicta and S. germinata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in northern Florida in relation to habitat and disturbance. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 81: 76-81. Vandewege, M.W., T.M. Swannack, K.L. Greuter, D.J. Brown, and M.R.J. Forstner. 2013.

Breeding site fidelity and terrestrial movement of an endangered amphibian, the Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 8(2):435-446

Veni, G. 1994. Geologic controls on cave development and the distribution of endemic cave

fauna in the San Antonio, Texas, region. Report prepared for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Veni, G. 2002. Delineation of hydrogeologic areas and zones for the management and recovery

of endangered karst invertebrate species in Bexar County, Texas. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 75 pp.

VRRSP Consultants. 2016. Vista Ridge Regional Supply Project Biological Assessment,

SWF-2015-00466. Presented to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. November 15. 186 pp.

42

Wahl, R., D. D. Diamond, and D. Shaw. 1990. The golden-cheeked warbler: a status review. Final report submitted to: Office of Endangered Species, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Van Gelder, J. 1973. A quantitative approach to mortality resulting from traffic in a population

of Bufo bufo. Oecologica 13: 93-95. Vos, C.C. and J.P. Chardon. 1998. Effects of habitat fragmentation and road density on the

distribution pattern of the moor frog Rana arvalis. Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 44-56. Yanes, M., J. Velasco, and F. Suarez. 1995. Permeability of roads and railways to vertebrates: the importance of culverts. Biological Conservation 71: 217-222. Yantis, J. H. 1989. Performance report. A state funded project, Nongame Wildlife

Investigations, Job No. 78: Houston toad distribution and habitat status (Bufo houstonensis). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin TX.

Yantis, J. H. 1990. Performance report. A state funded project, Wildlife Research and Surveys, Job No. 78: Houston toad distribution and habitat status (Bufo houstonensis). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Yantis, J. H. 1991. Performance report. As required by Texas Wildlife Research and Surveys, Job No. 78: Houston toad distribution and habitat status (Bufo houstonensis). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Yantis, J. H. 1992. Performance report. As required by Texas Wildlife Research and Surveys,

Job No. 78: Houston toad distribution and habitat status (Bufo houstonensis). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Yantis, J.H. 1994. Houston toad comments. December 10, 1994 memorandum from Jim Yantis, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, to Lisa O’Donnell and Kathy Nemec, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Austin, Texas.