Update Balancing Water Needs in the Edwards Aquifer20070820 · 10/11/2007 · BCCP Mitigation Obligations The BCCP Partners are directed under the terms and conditions of the BCCP

1

Balancing Water Needs in the Edwards Aquifer

The Collaborative Approach of Recovery Implementation

Programs

The Recovery Implementation Program Approach

• Meeting the needs of endangered species while respecting and protecting the legal rights of water users is a priority of the Department of the Interior

• Recovery Implementation Programs (RIP) bring together a broad group of stakeholders including Federal, State, and private interests to work together to improve water management and recover endangered species

2

Current Water RIP Programs

• Middle Rio Grande ESA Collaborative Program• Upper Colorado RIP• San Juan RIP• Platte River Endangered Species Partnership• Lower Colorado Multi-species Conservation

Program

The Edwards Aquifer

3

Federally Listed SpeciesSeven endangered species :• Texas Blind Salamander• Fountain Darter • San Marcos Gambusia• Texas Wild Rice• Comal Springs Riffle Beetle• Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle• Peck's Cave Amphipod

One threatened species: • San Marcos Salamander

Edwards Aquifer• There is a need to increase collaboration

among water interests the Edwards Aquifer

• Federally listed species are just one piece of the puzzle

• Through a RIP, federal funds can be passed through a federal agency to accomplish Program goals

4

The RIP Process• Identify participants • Establish a voluntary program to address water

issues• Develop program goals and objectives• Consolidate information and identify gaps• Develop a long-term plan that balances water use

and species recovery• Develop a cooperative agreement for plan

implementation– signed by the Secretary of Interior– Congressional authorization of funds

The Goal

• To recover federally listed species dependent on the Edwards Aquifer while water development proceeds in compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws

5

Considerations• Development of a Habitat Conservation

Planning (HCP)• Promote species recovery• Continued water demands associated with

the Edwards Aquifer • Requirements of Senate Bill 3

Senate Bill 3 (SB 3)

• Designated the Steering Committee• Set forth procedures and deadlines for

specific milestones:– Hiring of a Program Manager (10/30/07)– Convening of a Science Committee (12/31/07)– Memorandum of Agreement (12/31/07)– Implementation Agreement (12/31/09) – Execution of a Program Document (12/31/12)

6

Steering Committee• Edwards Aquifer Authority• Texas Commission on Environmental Quality• Texas Parks and Wildlife Department• Texas Department of Agriculture• Texas Water Development Board• San Antonio Water System• Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority• San Antonio River Authority• South Central Texas Water Advisory Committee• Bexar County• CPS Energy • Bexar Metropolitan Water District

Steering Committee• Representative of a holder of an initial regular

permit issued to a retail public utility located west of Bexar County (EAA)

• Representative of a holder of an initial regular permit issued by the authority for industrial purposes (EAA)

• Representative of a holder of an industrial surface water right in the Guadalupe River Basin (TCEQ)

• Representative of a holder of a municipal surface water right in the Guadalupe River Basin (TCEQ)

7

Steering Committee• Representative of a retail public utility in whose

service area the Comal Springs or San Marcos Springs is located

• Representative of a holder of an initial regular permit issued by the authority for irrigation (TDA)

• Representative of an agricultural producer from the Edwards Aquifer region (TDA)

• Representative of environmental interests from the Texas Living Waters Project

• Representative of recreational interests in the Guadalupe River Basin (TPWD)

Program Activities

• Kick-off Meeting• Collaborative Learning Workshop• Meeting Presentations

– Update on the Region L Planning Process– Habitat Conservation Plans– Status of the Federally Listed Species – Barriers to Collaboration in Existing RIPs– The Lower Colorado Multi-Species Conservation

Program– Analysis of the content of SB 3

8

Program Activities

• Ad-Hoc Governance Committee– Program Operation Guidance Document

• Program Manager Search Committee• MOA Committee

– Draft MOA outlining purpose and objectives– Program Governance structure

• USFWS workshops on the ESA

Main Topics of Discussion• Geographic scope of the Program• Program governance structure• The interaction between the existing RIP

process and the requirements of SB3– Roles of steering committee and non-steering

committee participants– USFWS evaluation of the

legislated pumping caps

9

Future Activities• Evaluation of existing science and

proposal of new science

• Evaluation and development of species recovery actions

• Development of a Habitat Conservation Plan?

• Public education and outreach• OTHER???

For More Information

• Visit: http://irnr.tamu.edu/earip• Contact: Anna Maria Muñoz

[email protected]

1

The Balcones CanyonlandsThe Balcones CanyonlandsConservation Plan:Conservation Plan:

A CommunityA Community--Based SolutionBased Solution

What do you think of when What do you think of when you hear...you hear...

TEXASTEXAS

2

Wildlife DiversityWildlife Diversity

3

The Most Ecologically Diverse The Most Ecologically Diverse State in the NationState in the Nation

Ecological Diversity in TexasEcological Diversity in TexasTexas is recognized for high levels of plant diversity and Texas is recognized for high levels of plant diversity and endemism, with the Edwards Plateau alone with over 2,300 endemism, with the Edwards Plateau alone with over 2,300 indigenous species (Travis County hosts more endemic plant indigenous species (Travis County hosts more endemic plant species than any other county in the state)species than any other county in the state)

Texas has more surface water than all but two states, with over Texas has more surface water than all but two states, with over 80,000 miles of rivers and streams and an amazing diversity of 80,000 miles of rivers and streams and an amazing diversity of freshwater and marine lifefreshwater and marine life

Texas is recognized as the Texas is recognized as the ““most extraordinary herpetological most extraordinary herpetological region in the countryregion in the country”” due to our statedue to our state’’s incredible range of s incredible range of reptile and amphibian species (More than half of the reptile andreptile and amphibian species (More than half of the reptile andamphibian species in the U. S. can be found in Texas)amphibian species in the U. S. can be found in Texas)

Texas supports among the highest mammalian diversity in Texas supports among the highest mammalian diversity in North America, with more than 140 native species and more North America, with more than 140 native species and more than 100 species of introduced free ranging nonthan 100 species of introduced free ranging non--native speciesnative species

4

More kinds of birds have been More kinds of birds have been confirmed in Texas than in any confirmed in Texas than in any

other stateother state……

more than 620 species according to more than 620 species according to the Texas Ornithological Society.the Texas Ornithological Society.

ThatThat’’s more species of birds than are s more species of birds than are found in all of Europe.found in all of Europe.

Texas is ChangingTexas is Changing……Texas is the 2nd most populated state in the nationTexas is the 2nd most populated state in the nation

Texas has the largest number of Metropolitan Statistical Areas iTexas has the largest number of Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the nation (30)n the nation (30)

Texas saw a population boom of over 3 million people in the lastTexas saw a population boom of over 3 million people in the last 10 years10 years

One half of all Texans (thatOne half of all Texans (that’’s more than 10,000,000 people!) live in one of just s more than 10,000,000 people!) live in one of just six counties (Bexar, Dallas, El Paso, Harris, Tarrant, Travis)six counties (Bexar, Dallas, El Paso, Harris, Tarrant, Travis)

U.S. Census Bureau declared Austin one of the nationU.S. Census Bureau declared Austin one of the nation’’s fastest growing metro s fastest growing metro areasareas

Forbes Magazine named Austin the #3 on the list of Forbes Magazine named Austin the #3 on the list of ““Best PlacesBest Places”” for businessfor business

Austin Business Journal reported that Austin added over 30,000 nAustin Business Journal reported that Austin added over 30,000 new jobs last ew jobs last yearyear

Travis County recently #7 in the nation for number of housing buTravis County recently #7 in the nation for number of housing building permits ilding permits issuedissued

Travis County is now the 52Travis County is now the 52ndnd most populated county in the nationmost populated county in the nation

Texas population is expected to increase by 60% between 2000 andTexas population is expected to increase by 60% between 2000 and 20302030…… an an increase of over 12 million peopleincrease of over 12 million people

5

The #1 threat to wildlife today...The #1 threat to wildlife today...

Texas now loses more than 1 acre to development Texas now loses more than 1 acre to development every 10 minutes, 24 hours a day, 365 days a yearevery 10 minutes, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year

6

The Endangered Species ActThe Endangered Species ActThe U. S. Congress recognized and set out to halt the rapid lossThe U. S. Congress recognized and set out to halt the rapid loss of of

plants and animals that make up our nationplants and animals that make up our nation’’s natural heritage in 1973s natural heritage in 1973

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is the federal agency charged wThe US Fish and Wildlife Service is the federal agency charged with ith

administration and enforcementadministration and enforcement

An amendment to the Act in 1982 created Habitat Conservation PlAn amendment to the Act in 1982 created Habitat Conservation Plans ans

that allow development while protecting rare species by ensuringthat allow development while protecting rare species by ensuring

mitigating conservation measures. mitigating conservation measures.

Under the ESA, any activities that result in Under the ESA, any activities that result in ““taketake”” of listed species or of listed species or

their habitat requires consultation with the USFWStheir habitat requires consultation with the USFWS

What is What is ““TakeTake””??

"Take" is defined in the Endangered Species Act as to "Take" is defined in the Endangered Species Act as to

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,

capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species. capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species.

Harm may include habitat modification that impacts a Harm may include habitat modification that impacts a

listed species through impairment of essential behavior listed species through impairment of essential behavior

(e.g., nesting or reproduction). (e.g., nesting or reproduction).

7

Who must comply with the ESA?Who must comply with the ESA?Any landowner or individual engaging in activities that Any landowner or individual engaging in activities that

result in result in ““taketake”” are required to comply with the law.are required to comply with the law.

This includes:This includes:

Private LandownersPrivate Landowners

Commercial DevelopersCommercial Developers

Agricultural UsersAgricultural Users

Governmental AgenciesGovernmental Agencies

Infrastructure Providers Infrastructure Providers

Endangered Species in TexasEndangered Species in Texas

This total does not include candidate species (19) or proposed lThis total does not include candidate species (19) or proposed listingsistings

8

Endangered Species inEndangered Species inTravis CountyTravis County

There are nine federally listed endangered There are nine federally listed endangered species found in Travis County:species found in Travis County:

••Golden Cheeked Warbler: Golden Cheeked Warbler: Dendroica chrysopariaDendroica chrysoparia••BlackBlack--capped Vireo: capped Vireo: Vireo atricapillaVireo atricapilla••Tooth Cave Pseudoscorpion: Tooth Cave Pseudoscorpion: Tartarocreagris texanaTartarocreagris texana••Tooth Cave Tooth Cave spiderspider: : Neoleptoneta Neoleptoneta myopicamyopica••Tooth Cave ground beetle: Tooth Cave ground beetle: Rhadine persephoneRhadine persephone••Bee Creek harvestman: Bee Creek harvestman: Texella reddelliTexella reddelli••Bone Cave harvestman: Bone Cave harvestman: Texella reyesiTexella reyesi••Kretschmarr Cave mold Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle:beetle:TexamauropsTexamaurops reddellireddelli••Barton Creek Salamander: Barton Creek Salamander: Eurycea Eurycea sosorumsosorum

The Bad Old DaysThe Bad Old Days……

Before the BCCP, all economic growth and Before the BCCP, all economic growth and

development in our community was essentially left in development in our community was essentially left in

the hands of the federal government and the USFWS.the hands of the federal government and the USFWS.

The late 1980The late 1980’’s in Austin saw:s in Austin saw:

••development moratoriumsdevelopment moratoriums

••slowing pace of growthslowing pace of growth

••a long line of landowners and developers waiting for a long line of landowners and developers waiting for

the USFWS to review and approve their projectsthe USFWS to review and approve their projects

9

The very first The very first Regional MultiRegional Multi--

Species Habitat Conservation Species Habitat Conservation

Plan in the nationPlan in the nation

Issued May 2, 1996Issued May 2, 1996

Established the Balcones Established the Balcones

Canyonlands PreserveCanyonlands Preserve

Balcones CanyonlandsBalcones CanyonlandsConservation PlanConservation Plan

10

The BCCP PartnersThe BCCP Partners

Travis CountyTravis County

City of AustinCity of Austin

Private LandownersPrivate Landowners

The Lower Colorado River AuthorityThe Lower Colorado River Authority

Travis Audubon SocietyTravis Audubon Society

The Nature Conservancy of TexasThe Nature Conservancy of Texas

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceThe U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

BCCP Permit RequirementsBCCP Permit Requirements

Provide landowners with a streamlined Provide landowners with a streamlined approach to Endangered Species Act approach to Endangered Species Act

compliancecompliance

Acquire and manage 30,428 acres of habitat Acquire and manage 30,428 acres of habitat for two endangered songbirdsfor two endangered songbirds

Protect 62 karst featuresProtect 62 karst features

Protect populations of rare plants wherever Protect populations of rare plants wherever they occur on the Preservethey occur on the Preserve

11

BCP Management ObligationsBCP Management Obligations

Protect and Enhance populations ofProtect and Enhance populations of

listed specieslisted species

Research and Monitoring Research and Monitoring

Habitat ManagementHabitat Management

Law Enforcement Law Enforcement

Education and OutreachEducation and Outreach

BCCP Mitigation ObligationsBCCP Mitigation Obligations

The BCCP Partners are directed under the terms and The BCCP Partners are directed under the terms and conditions of the BCCP Permit to replace each acre of conditions of the BCCP Permit to replace each acre of

habitat habitat ““takentaken”” with an acre of habitat within the with an acre of habitat within the

Proposed Preserve Acquisition Area.Proposed Preserve Acquisition Area.

These acres make up the These acres make up the

Balcones Canyonlands Preserve or BCP.Balcones Canyonlands Preserve or BCP.

12

Endangered SpeciesEndangered Species•• GoldenGolden--cheeked warblercheeked warbler

•• BlackBlack--capped Vireocapped Vireo

•• Six karst invertebratesSix karst invertebrates

Species of ConcernSpecies of Concern•• 25 karst species25 karst species

•• 2 plant species2 plant species

What species are covered by What species are covered by the BCCP?the BCCP?

Only one bird breeds only inOnly one bird breeds only inthe Lone Star Statethe Lone Star State……

The GoldenThe Golden--cheeked Warbler cheeked Warbler ((Dendroica Dendroica crysopariacrysoparia))

13

The GoldenThe Golden--cheeked Warblercheeked WarblerTravis County is located at the Travis County is located at the

very center of the last very center of the last remaining large tracts of high remaining large tracts of high quality goldenquality golden--cheeked cheeked warbler habitatwarbler habitat

Requires oakRequires oak--mixed hardwoodmixed hardwood--juniper communities to successfully juniper communities to successfully rear youngrear young

Habitat loss, cowbird parasitism, and predation are the primary Habitat loss, cowbird parasitism, and predation are the primary threats to this native songbird.threats to this native songbird.

Requires the presence of oldRequires the presence of old--growth Ashe juniper (growth Ashe juniper (““cedarcedar””), ), which it uses to build its nestswhich it uses to build its nests

Total breeding Total breeding range of the range of the

GoldenGolden--cheeked cheeked WarblerWarbler

14

The BlackThe Black--capped Vireocapped VireoHistorical records show that Historical records show that this bird once nested this bird once nested throughout Central Texas and throughout Central Texas and as far as Oklahoma and central as far as Oklahoma and central Kansas. Kansas.

Today, central Texas provides Today, central Texas provides habitat for remaining habitat for remaining populations of this species. populations of this species.

Habitat loss, cowbird Habitat loss, cowbird parasitism, and predation are parasitism, and predation are the primary threats to this the primary threats to this native songbird.native songbird.

Breeding range of Breeding range of blackblack--capped capped

vireovireo

15

The BlackThe Black--capped Vireo andcapped Vireo andHabitat ManipulationHabitat Manipulation

••Vireos nesting in Travis Vireos nesting in Travis County require subCounty require sub--climax climax vegetation for nesting vegetation for nesting habitathabitat••Travis County has Travis County has manipulated ~ 150 acres of manipulated ~ 150 acres of habitat to datehabitat to date••Vireos have been Vireos have been observed nesting in observed nesting in

recently restored areasrecently restored areas

Karst ProtectionKarst Protection““KarstKarst”” refers to limestone refers to limestone caves and sinkholes with caves and sinkholes with underground streamsunderground streams

The Edwards Aquifer is the The Edwards Aquifer is the primary drinking water source primary drinking water source for millions of Central Texas for millions of Central Texas residentsresidents

ThirtyThirty--one of the species one of the species protected through the BCCP protected through the BCCP are associated with the areaare associated with the area’’s s karst featureskarst features

16

Rare PlantsRare PlantsIsolated populations of Isolated populations of

Texabama Croton are found in Texabama Croton are found in

the Balcones Canyonlands area the Balcones Canyonlands area

and over 1000km away in and over 1000km away in

AlabamaAlabama

The Bracted Twistflower is a The Bracted Twistflower is a

rare species threatened by rare species threatened by

habitat loss and grazing habitat loss and grazing

pressure from whitepressure from white--tailed deertailed deer

Jollyville Plateau SalamandersJollyville Plateau Salamanders

••Not listed as endangered Not listed as endangered

or threatened, yetor threatened, yet……

••Poorly understood: first Poorly understood: first

described in 2000described in 2000

••Associated with karst and Associated with karst and

springs systemssprings systems

••Almost all have been foundAlmost all have been found

within the boundaries of within the boundaries of

the Balcones Canyonlands the Balcones Canyonlands

PreservePreserve

17

NonNon--Native and NuisanceNative and NuisanceWildlife ManagementWildlife Management

BrownBrown--headed Cowbirdsheaded Cowbirds

Red Imported Fire AntsRed Imported Fire Ants

Feral HogsFeral Hogs

WhiteWhite--tailed Deertailed Deer

Education and OutreachEducation and Outreach

Presentations to special Presentations to special

interest groupsinterest groups

Activities with schools Activities with schools

and youth organizationsand youth organizations

Newsletters, tours and Newsletters, tours and

presentations to HOA presentations to HOA

and community groupsand community groups

Volunteer opportunitiesVolunteer opportunities

18

Public AccessPublic AccessThe 2007 BCP Hike and Lecture Series allows monthly The 2007 BCP Hike and Lecture Series allows monthly

guided tours and opportunities for the public to visit and guided tours and opportunities for the public to visit and

learn about the Preservelearn about the Preserve

BCP tracts open to the public include Travis CountyBCP tracts open to the public include Travis County’’s s

Hamilton Pool and Wild Basin Preserves, and the City of Hamilton Pool and Wild Basin Preserves, and the City of

AustinAustin’’s Barton Creek Greenbelt, Emma Long Park, Mount s Barton Creek Greenbelt, Emma Long Park, Mount

BonnellBonnell Park, and Commons Ford ParkPark, and Commons Ford Park

Other parcels are available for guided tours and programsOther parcels are available for guided tours and programs

Researchers from across the country are carrying out projects Researchers from across the country are carrying out projects

related to the unique systems found on the Preservesrelated to the unique systems found on the Preserves

Measures of SuccessMeasures of SuccessThe The BCCPBCCP’’ss balance of economic and habitat balance of economic and habitat

benefits have garnered the support of landowners, benefits have garnered the support of landowners,

developers, the business community, as well as developers, the business community, as well as

local, state and federal agencies.local, state and federal agencies.

Communities all across the country are modeling Communities all across the country are modeling

their habitat protection efforts on the example their habitat protection efforts on the example

created by the BCCP.created by the BCCP.

The BCP is one of the largest urban preserve The BCP is one of the largest urban preserve

systems in the nation.systems in the nation.

19

Measures of SuccessMeasures of SuccessHabitat Protection Requirements & Current StatusHabitat Protection Requirements & Current Status

GoldenGolden--Cheeked Warbler and BlackCheeked Warbler and Black--Capped Vireo:Capped Vireo:27,927 of 30,428 required acres (92%) have already been 27,927 of 30,428 required acres (92%) have already been

acquired or protectedacquired or protected

Balcones Canyonlands PreserveLand Acquisition Status

92%

5%

3%

Balcones CanyonlandsPreservePending Acquisitions,Deeds and EasementsAcreage needed to achievegoal

Measures of SuccessMeasures of Success43 of 62 Important Karst Features (71%) 43 of 62 Important Karst Features (71%)

have been Protectedhave been Protected

20

What is our vision of Texas inWhat is our vision of Texas in150 years?150 years?

For more information:For more information:

Travis CountyTravis CountyNatural Resources and Natural Resources and Environmental QualityEnvironmental Quality

WWWWWW.CO.TRAVIS.TX.US/TNR/.CO.TRAVIS.TX.US/TNR/BCCPBCCP

Kevin ConnallyKevin ConnallySr. Environmental Resource ManagerSr. Environmental Resource Manager512512--854854--72137213Kevin.Connally@[email protected]

Hays County HCP Annotated Outline DRAFT October 1, 2007

Hays County H:\Enviro_Projects\Hays_Co_HCP_(051001)\Initial_Strategy_Assessment\HCP_Annotated_Outline\DRAFT_Hays_County_HCP_annotated_outline_(working).docPage 1 Habitat Conservation Plan

TITLE PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction and Background

1.1 Introduction

What is a Regional HCP?

Why is Hays County developing a RHCP?

• Rare resources

• Expected population growth

• Endangered Species Act

What are the major components of an HCP?

1.2 Benefits of a Regional Habitat Conservation Plan

• Local solutions to endangered species issues with coordinated decision-making and long-term permitting assurances

• Voluntary participation

• Compatibility with other County goals, such as Parks and Open Space Master Plan

• Protect important natural resources

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action

The permit issued in connection with the RHCP would promote a comprehensive approach to conservation while authorizing land use activities that otherwise could result in a violation of the ESA. The plan would be designed to achieve the following goals:

• Conservation of natural resources;

• Efficient and effective administration of the ESA;

• Reduced burden on individual permit applicants;

• Responsible economic activities; and

• Maintenance of open space and quality of life in Hays County.



The plan is needed, because land use changes and development increasingly impact endangered species habitat in Hays County.

• Population increases drive construction of new land development projects.

• County government must expand infrastructure to accommodate population and encourage economic growth.

Other regional conservation efforts leave a “conservation gap” in Hays County.

• Regional HCPs in Travis, Williamson, Lost Pines, San Marcos, and Edwards Aquifer Region do not include Hays County.

• Hays County Conservation Plan would be a positive addition to the growing trend toward regional solutions for rare species.

1.4 Legal and Regulatory Framework for the Hays County HCP

1.4.1 Federal Law

Endangered Species Act and incidental take permit issuance criteria:

• Section 10(a) of the federal Endangered Species Act provides that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may issue a permit to authorize “take” associated with an otherwise lawful activity, provided the applicant meets certain criteria and prepares a “habitat conservation plan.”

National Environmental Polity Act (NEPA) and Environmental Impact Statement:

• NEPA requires preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) by a federal agency whenever the agency proposes a major action that will have a significant impact on the environment.

1.4.2 State Law

Chapter 83, Subchapter B of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code:

• State Law imposes procedural requirements on local governments as they develop, adopt, approve, or participate in a regional habitat conservation plan.

• Hays County (applicant) must establish a citizen advisory committee and a biological advisory team.

• The county must comply with open records/open meetings laws and public hearing requirements.



• There must be established a grievance process for citizens advisory committee members.

• Should the HCP identify certain areas as preserves, those areas must be acquired by specific deadlines.

1.4.3 Local Policy and Community Guidance

Specific guidance and direction provided by Hays County Commissioners Court, Citizens Advisory Committee, and Biological Advisory Team.

2.0 Natural Environment

2.1 Climate and Natural Region

General description of the natural environment of Hays County

2.2 Rare Natural Resources

2.2.1 Sensitive Wildlife Species

Lists and brief description of listed and non-listed species of concern

Detailed biology and habitat descriptions for species specifically addressed by RHCP

2.2.2 Terrestrial Habitats

General description of important terrestrial habitats in Hays County (particularly those associated with sensitive species)

2.2.3 Aquatic Features and Habitats

General description of important aquatic features and habitats in Hays County (including rivers and springs)

2.2.4 Geological Features and Habitats

General description of important geological features and habitats in Hays County (including karst features and aquifers)

3.0 Population and Land Use

3.1 Population Demographics and Distribution

Description of current population characteristics and projected population trends



What is current population and where is it distributed

3.2 Land Uses and Development Activities

Description of current land uses and recent development activities and projected land use trends

4.0 HCP Framework

4.1 Plan Area and Permit Duration

Describes area covered by the RCHP for incidental take authorization and the requested duration of the incidental take permit

4.2 Covered Species

Lists covered species and rational for inclusion in the RHCP. Refer to options matrix for species coverage by Loomis Austin, Inc.

4.3 Additional Species of Concern

Lists other species addressed by the RHCP, but for which incidental take covered is not sought. Explains rationale for inclusion in the RHCP as an additional species of concern. Refer to options matrix for species coverage by Loomis Austin, Inc.

4.4 Covered Activities

Description of the human activities for which incidental take of covered species will be provided. Covered activities could include:

• Public or private construction and development

• Road construction, maintenance, and improvement projects

• Utility installation and maintenance

• School development or improvement projects



5.0 Potential Take and Biological Impacts

5.1 Estimated Incidental Take and Impacts on Covered Species and Species of Concern

Describe the amount of expected incidental take of each covered species from the covered activities in terms of habitat loss/degradation and/or loss of individuals.

Describe the biological impacts of the expected taking on covered species populations in Hays County, the recovery region, and over the entire breeding range

5.2 Estimated Cumulative Take and Impacts

Describe the context of the requested amount of incidental take and impacts under the HCP to show that the proposed HCP would not result in jeopardy of the species (i.e., preclude its continued survival and recovery). Identify other actions in the County and recovery regions that are expected to result in take of covered species outside of the HCP and describe the cumulative impact of all of these actions on the covered species.

6.0 Conservation Program

6.1 Goals and Objectives

6.1.1 Community Goals

List the community goals of the HCP and specific objectives to accomplish these goals. Possible community goals could include:

• Conservation of natural resources: The RHCP will promote the long-term conservation and recovery of the species covered by the permit.

• Maintenance of open space and quality of life in Hays County: The RHCP will help to protect the County’s natural heritage and will compliment the County’s Parks and Open Space Master Plan.

• Responsible economic activities: The RHCP will facilitate the coordinated and beneficial use of land within Hays County to promote the local economy.

• Effective and efficient administration of the ESA: The RHCP will simplify compliance with the ESA and result in a comprehensive conservation framework for the covered species.



6.1.2 Biological Goals and Objectives

List the biological goals of the RHCP and specific objectives to accomplish these goals. Possible biological goals could include:

• Support and contribute to recovery goals for covered species by protecting, restoring, and enhancing habitat in Hays County

o Identify specific acreage goals or other appropriate measure that balances take and mitigation

• Enhance status of listed and non-listed species of concern in Hays County.

o Increase the knowledge and understanding of the covered and additional species through research and monitoring

o Increase public understanding and appreciation of the need to protect the covered and additional species through public education

6.2 Proposed Conservation Measures

Describe in detail the conservation measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for potential impacts to covered species

Structure of this section depends on guidance from Hays County and advisory committees on the preferred conservation strategy/model. See conservation options paper by Smith|Robertson.

6.2.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures

Measures to avoid or reduce the amount of take expected from individual covered activities; could include community education/awareness programs and land use guidance.

6.2.2 Mitigation Measures

Conservation measures used to offset the impacts of covered take, such as habitat protection, enhancement, and management activities.

6.2.3 Biological Monitoring Program

Biological monitoring necessary to monitor the biological benefits of the conservation program for covered species. Describe any other proposed research programs for additional species.

6.2.4 Adaptive Management Provisions

Adaptive management program describes how new information will be used to update/enhance the plan as necessary to meet the biological goals and objectives. Identifies major information gaps, proposes ways to fill these gaps via the biological monitoring program,



and describes how the new information will be evaluated and incorporated into the conservation plan.

7.0 Program Implementation

7.1 Program Administration

Describe how Hays County will operate the conservation program and implement the terms and conditions of the incidental take permit, including responsibilities of program partners and participants and procedures for handling amendments.

7.2 Participation Process

Describe the process for other private landowners/developers and other entities to participate in the plan and receive incidental take coverage, including mitigation fees or other commitments.

7.3 Compliance Monitoring and Reporting

Compliance/Administrative monitoring and reporting – includes tracking compliance with terms and conditions of the incidental take permit, including an annual accounting of actual take authorized by the permit and mitigation completed

8.0 Funding Describe the expected costs to fund the administration of the RHCP and

implementation of the conservation program.

Describe the expected revenues generated by mitigation fees and other revenue sources that will be used to ensure adequate funding of the plan.

9.0 No Surprises Policy Describe how Hays County will address changed or unforeseen circumstances to receive

the protections of the “No Surprises Policy” that would give the county certainty regarding the costs of mitigation and conservation of protected species.



9.1 Changed Circumstances

Changed circumstances are defined as “circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that can reasonably be anticipated by plan developers and the Service and that can be planned for...”

9.2 Unforeseen Circumstances

Unforeseen circumstances are “changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that could not reasonably have been anticipated by plan developers or the Service at the time of the conservation plan's negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species”

10.0 Alternatives Considered Describe alternatives to the proposed RHCP, including those that would result in less

take, and present reasons why these alternatives were not chosen.

11.0 Compliance with Statutory Issuance Criteria Document how RHCP meets issuance criteria for a Section 10a incidental take permit:

• Incidental nature of the taking -- All taking of federally listed and candidate species detailed in this RHCP will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities. For example, residential developments, commercial developments, roadway construction and improvements, utilities and other infrastructure projects, and other land use activities generally are incidental and could be authorized by this incidental take permit.

• Minimization and mitigation of impacts.

• Survival and recovery of the species.

• Adequacy of funding.

• Compliance with Texas State Law relevant to RHCPs.



12.0 Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

13.0 References

14.0 Acknowledgements

1

Conceptual Options for Hays County RHCP

Melinda TaylorSmith Robertson

USFWS HCP Handbook

• No rules for conceptual framework; flexibility to design plan appropriate to circumstances

• Mitigation strategy must be “commensurate with the impacts”

• Plan must meet the ESA’s “maximum extent practicable” test

2

Conceptual Options

• Pre-determined Preserve Model

• Conservation Bank with Permitting Authority

• Regulatory Plan

Predetermined Preserve

• BCCP, Riverside County, San Diego MultispeciesConservation Plan

• Up-front preserve design & acquisition

• Development is allowed outside the preserve

3


Advantages:• Up-front design,

based on scientific assessment of regional needs of the species

• Easy to administer


Disadvantages• Requires a large up-

front expenditure to acquire preserve land

• State law requirements

4

Conservation Bank with Permitting Authority

• County preserves parcels of land over a period of time

• Establishes “credits” that are “banked” for future use

• County sells credits to developers, road builders, school districts, etc. who are required to mitigate for the impacts of their projects


Advantages:• Possible to establish large preserves and reduce

fragmentation of habitat• Simple to administer• State law restrictions are not applicable• County could create credits even before

completion of the RHCPDisadvantages:• Less up-front preserve design on a county-wide

scale

5


How would it work?• County would establish bank through

series of acquisitions (fee simple or easement)

• Could would work with FWS to establish credits and mitigation ratio

• RHCP would establish a habitat assessment process that would apply to individual projects

Regulatory Plan• Regulations would be used to require (or

incentivize) habitat protection• Not realistic in Texas because:

(1) Counties have limited power to regulate land use; and(2) Chapter 83 Texas Parks & Wildlife Code limits counties’ ability to regulate for benefit of endangered species

DRAFT

Is the species rare/listed in Hays County? If yes, then . . .

Is the species likely to experience “take” as a result of projected growth in the county over the next 30 years? If yes, then . . .

Is the species a terrestrial species? If yes, then . . .

Do we understand the biological needs of the species well enough to design a mitigation strategy for it? If yes, then . . .

Is it possible to identify financial resources necessary to implement an effective mitigation strategy? If yes, then . . .

The species is probably a good candidate for coverage by the RHCP.

If no, then . . . The species is probably not a good candidate for coverage by the RHCP.

If no, then . . . The species is probably not a good candidate for coverage by the RHCP.

If no, then… Refer to the flowchart for aquatic and karst species.

If no, then . . . The species is not a good candidate for coverage by the RHCP.

If no, then . . . The species is not a good candidate for coverage by the RHCP.

RHCP Decision Making Flowchart for Terrestrial Species

DRAFT

Is there sufficient information about the biological needs of the species to understand the threats to its continued survival? If yes, then…

Is the species primarily threatened by water supply (spring flows)? If yes, then…

If no, then… Is the species primarily threatened by degradation in water quality? If yes, then…

If no, then… The species may not be a good candidate for coverage by the RHCP

RHCP Decision Making Flowchart for Aquatic Species and Karst


The species may be a good candidate for coverage by the RHCP.

Is the species rare or listed as threatened or endangered in Hays County? If yes, then . . .

Is the species likely to experience “take” as a result of projected growth in the county over the next 30 years? If yes, then . . .


The species may not be a good candidate for coverage by the RHCP.

Hays County Species of Concern DRAFT October 11, 2007

Taxon Common Name Scientific Name Habitat TypeNature Serve

Rank aFederal Status

State Status

Forest Guardians Petition b

Karst Waters Inst. List c

Texas NDD List d

TPWD Rare Species List e

Amphibians San Marcos salamander Eurycea nana Aquatic/Karst LT T

Amphibians Blanco River springs salamander Eurycea pterophila Aquatic/Karst

Amphibians Texas blind salamander Eurycea rathbuni Aquatic/Karst LE E Amphibians Blanco blind salamander Eurycea robusta Aquatic/Karst G1Q T

Arachnids Bandit Cave spider Cicurina bandida Karst G1G2

Arachnids A cave spider Cicurina cueva Karst G1G2

Arachnids Cicurina ezelli Karst

Arachnids Cicurina russelli Karst

Arachnids Cicurina ubicki Karst

Arachnids Undescribed species Dinocheris sp. Karst

Arachnids Undescribed species Eidmannella sp. Karst

Arachnids Gaucelmus augustinus Karst G3G4

Arachnids Hesperochernes unicolor Karst

Arachnids Undescribed species Neoleptoneta sp. Karst

Arachnids Undescribed species Philochorus sp. Karst

Arachnids Tartarocreagris comanche Karst G1G2

Arachnids Tartarocreagris cookei Karst G3

Arachnids Tartarocreagris grubbsi Karst G1G2

Arachnids Texella diplospina Karst G1G2

Arachnids Texella grubbsi Karst G1G2Arachnids Texella mulaiki Karst G3

Arachnids Texella renkesae Karst G1G2

Arachnids Tyrannochthonius texanus Karst G3Arachnids Undescribed species Tyrannochthonius sp. Karst

Birds Western Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea Terrestrial

Birds Zone-tailed Hawk Buteo albonotatus Terrestrial T

Birds Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus Terrestrial

Birds Golden-cheeked Warbler Dendroica chrysoparia Woodland LE E

Birds Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Terrestrial DL E T

Birds American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Terrestrial DL E

Birds Arctic Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius Terrestrial DL T

Birds Whooping Crane Grus americana Terrestrial LE E

Birds Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Terrestrial DL T Birds Black-capped Vireo Vireo atricapilla Shrubland LE E

Crustaceans Allotexiweckelia hirsuta Aquatic/Karst G3

Crustaceans Artesia subterranea Aquatic/Karst G1G2

Crustaceans Brackenridgia cavernarum Aquatic/Karst G3

Crustaceans Caecidotea reddelli Aquatic/Karst G3

Crustaceans Cirolanides texensis Aquatic/Karst G3

Crustaceans Holsingerius samacos Aquatic/Karst G1G2

Crustaceans Texas troglobitic water slater Lirceolus smithii Aquatic/Karst G1G2

Crustaceans A cave obligate crustaean Monodella texana Aquatic/Karst

Crustaceans Texas cave shrimp Palaemonetes antrorum Aquatic/Karst G3

Crustaceans Palaemonetes holthuisi Aquatic/Karst G1G2

Crustaceans Seborgia relicta Aquatic/Karst G3

Crustaceans Balcones cave amphipod Stygobromus balconis Aquatic/Karst G3

Table 1. DRAFT Hays County Species of Concern

Hays County Habitat Conservation Plan H:\Enviro_Projects\Hays_Co_HCP_(051001)\Resources_of_Concern\Hays_County_Species_of_Concern.xls Page 1 of 3




State Status



Texas NDD List d


Crustaceans Ezell's cave amphipod Stygobromus flagellatus Aquatic/Karst G1G2

Crustaceans Stygobromus russelli Aquatic/Karst G3

Crustaceans Texiweckelia texensis Aquatic/Karst G3Crustaceans Texiweckeliopsis insolita Aquatic/Karst G3

Diplopods Speodesmus echinourus Aquatic/Karst G3

Fishes American eel Anguilla rostrata Aquatic

Fishes Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus Aquatic T

Fishes Fountain darter Etheostoma fonticola Aquatic LE E

Fishes Largespring gambusia Gambusia geiseri Aquatic

Fishes San Marcos gambusia Gambusia georgei Aquatic LE E

Fishes Guadalupe bass Micropterus treculii AquaticFishes Guadalupe darter Percina sciera apristis Aquatic

Hexapods Arrhopalites texensis Aquatic/Karst G3Hexapods Texoreddellia texensis Aquatic/Karst G3

Insects A mayfly Allenhyphes michaeli Aquatic

Insects Leonora's dancer damselfly Argia leonorae Aquatic

Insects Texas austrotinodes caddisfly Austrotinodes texensis Aquatic/KarstInsects Batrisodes grubbsi Karst G1G2Insects Rawsons metalmark Calephelis rawsoni Terrestrial

Insects Flint's net-spinning caddisfly Cheumatopsyche flinti Aquatic

Insects Comal Springs diving beetle Comaldessus stygius Aquatic/Karst G1?

Insects Edwards Aquifer diving beetle Haideoporus texanus Aquatic/Karst G1

Insects Comal Springs riffle bettle Heterelmis comalensis Aquatic LE

Insects A mayfly Procloeon distinctum Aquatic

Insects San Marcos saddle-case caddisfly Protoptila arca Aquatic/Karst G1

Insects A Cave Obligate Beetle Rhadine austinica Karst G1G2

Insects Rhadine insolita Karst

Insects Undescribed species Rhadine sp. KarstInsects Comal Springs dryopid bettle Stygoparnus comalensis Aquatic LE

Mammals Red wolf Canis rufus Terrestrial LE E

Mammals Cave myotis bat Myotis velifer TerrestrialMammals Plains spotted skunk Spilogale putorius interrupta Terrestrial

Mollusks Rock pocketbook Arcidens confragosus Aquatic

Mollusks Texas fatmucket Lampsilis bracteata Aquatic G1

Mollusks Phreatodrobia micra Aquatic G3

Mollusks Phreatodrobia nugax Aquatic G3T3

Mollusks Phreatodrobia plana Aquatic G3

Mollusks Phreatodrobia punctata Aquatic G3

Mollusks Phreatodrobia rotunda Aquatic G1G2

Mollusks Golden orb Quadrula aurea Aquatic

Mollusks Texas pimpleback Quadrula petrina Aquatic

Mollusks False spike mussel Quincuncina mitchelli Aquatic

Mollusks Creeper (squawfoot) Strophitus undulatus AquaticMollusks Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa Aquatic

Plants Texas Amorpha Amorpha roemeriana Terrestrial

Plants Hill Country wild-mercury Argythamnia aphoroides Terrestrial

Plants Texas Barberry Berberis swaseyi Terrestrial





State Status



Texas NDD List d


Plants Leafy brickellbush Brickellia dentata Terrestrial

Plants Glass Mountains coral-rot Hexalectris nitida Terrestrial

Plants Warnock's coral-root Hexalectris warnockii Terrestrial

Plants Heller's false-gromwell Onosmodium helleri Terrestrial

Plants Canyon mock-orange Philadelphus ernestii Terrestrial

Plants Buckley tridens Tridens buckleyanus TerrestrialPlants Texas wild-rice Zizania texana Aquatic LE E

Reptiles Cagle's map turtle Graptemys caglei Aquatic T

Reptiles Spot-tailed earless lizard Holbrookia lacerata Terrestrial

Reptiles Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum Terrestrial T Reptiles Texas garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis annectens Terrestrial

Turbellarians Sphalloplana mohri Aquatic/Karst G3

d : Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD) information was requested by Loomis Austin, Inc.

e : TPWD Rare Species List is available at: http://gis.tpwd.state.tx.us/TpwEndangeredSpecies/DesktopDefault.aspx

a : Nature Serve rank provided by the Forest Guardians List and Karst Waters Institute List

b : Forest Guardians Petition available at: http://www.fguardians.org/support_docs/petition_protection-475-species_6-21-07.pdf

c : Karst Waters Institute List available at: http://www.karstwaters.org/trogslist.htm species_id_2003.xls


Initial Strategy Development: Species Options DRAFT September 13, 2007

Listed Status State of Knowledge (Habitat/Life History) Threats Options for Inclusion in HCP Comments (Pros & Cons) Other Conservation Opportunities

Federally Endangered (listed in 1990)

Large body of work on GCW life history and habitat. Many researchers are currently focused on developing methods for remotely mapping potential GCW habitat and assessing habitat quality. Data gaps related to GCWAs in Hays County include uncertainty over the extent of potential habitat and the number of birds present in the county, given an apparently patchy distribution of potential habitat.

Most recent researchers have indicated that the population decline of the golden-cheeked warbler is a result of various factors related to habitat destruction and fragmentation. Once researcher discussed three main causes for the decline in the amount of suitable habitat: land clearing for agricultural use, land development, and reservoir construction. Of these, land clearing for agricultural use and land development are activities occurring in Hays County. Nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds may also have contributed to the golden-cheeked warbler's population decline.

1) Include as a "covered species" for take authorization under the ESA.

This appears to be the appropriate option, because the species is currently listed as endangered (i.e., take of the species is prohibited by the ESA) and substantial amounts of potential habitat are present within the county. The section 6 grant Hays County received from USFWS assumes that the GCW will be covered by the HCP, as does the interlocal agreement with TPWD. Conflicts between public and private land development activities and the ESA are likely for this species. Sufficient information is available to estimate impacts to the species from covered activities, and conservation practices for the species are well understood (primarily involving avoiding habitat loss and permanent habitat protection). The HCP should address minimizing and avoiding impacts, as well as providing mitigation for take and impacts.

2) Include as an "additional species" without take authorization under the ESA. HCP could provide information and promote ways to avoid impacting the species without providing . Track conservation benefits of HCP minimization and mitigation activities on the resource.

Management guidance already exists for this species (prepared by TPWD). This option would not ensure that impacts from public or private land development activities are addressed. This option also would not reduce the regulatory burden for individuals that need incidental take coverage, and it would not leverage the potential for larger scale conservation to mitigate the impacts of individual projects.

3) Do not include species in the HCP. This is the current situation. If the GCW is not included in the HCP, conflicts between development activities and the ESA are expected for this species. Each project involving ESA issues would require individual consultation with the USFWS.

Golden-cheeked Warbler

Sensitive Resources in Hays County and an Assessment of Options for Inclusion in the Hays County Habitat Conservation Plan

Hays County Habitat Conservation Plan Species_options_20070913.xls Page 1 of 5



Federally Endangered (listed in 1987)

Large body of work on BCV life history and habitat. BCV habitat is difficult to identify using remote sensing, with currently available data. Species has a limited record of occurrence in Hays County, which may be due to limited habitat and/or lack of comprehensive surveys.

BCV depends on early successional shrubland habitat that often requires active management to maintain. Habitat loss may occur via land development, large-scale and intensive brush clearing, overgrazing, fire suppression, or woody succession (shrubland growing into woodland habitat). Nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds, which are commonly associated with livestock, farms, and crop fields, may also have contributed to the vireo's population decline.


This may be the most appropriate option. The section 6 grant Hays County received from USFWS assumes that the BCV will be covered by the HCP, as does the interlocal agreement with TPWD. However, additional study may be needed to better estimate the distribution of potential vireo habitat in Hays County, the current population size in the county, and the need for incidental take authorization. The species is known to occur in Hays County, and existing populations (both known and unknown) are likely to come into conflict with land development activities and range management practices, which could result in take that could be covered and mitigated by the HCP.

2) Include as an "additional species" without take authorization under the ESA. Identify "no-take" scenarios for activities covered by the HCP. Track conservation benefits of HCP minimization and mitigation activities on the resource.

Management guidance already exists for this species (prepared by TPWD). Leaving the BCV out of the HCP would mean that impacts from public and private land development activities would not be addressed by the permit. This option would not reduce the regulatory burden for individuals that need incidental take coverage (for land development or beneficial range management practices), and it would not leverage the conservation contributions of individual projects.

3) Do not include species in the HCP. This is the current situation. Without an HCP that covers BCVI, conflicts between development activities and the ESA may be expected for this species. Each project involving impacts to the BCV would require individual consultation with the USFWS.

Black-capped Vireo




Federally Endangered(red wolf is considered extirpated from Texas)

While the annual migratory path of the whooping crane broadly includes Hays County, suitable habitat for the species only occurs on the Gulf Coast. Any occurrence of the whooping crane in Hays County would be rare and incidental.

The red wolf is no longer known to occur in Texas.

Neither species regularly occurs in Hays County; therefore, covered activities would not represent a threat to either species.


Inclusion in the HCP is not necessary, because take is not expected to occur. In addition, no suitable habitat for either species is available in Hays County for conservation measures.

2) Include as an "additional species" without take authorization under the ESA.

Conservation actions under the HCP would not be expected to benefit either species.

3) Do not include the species in the HCP. This is likely the most appropriate option, since activities in Hays County are not expected to impact or benefit either species.

Other Listed Non-Aquatic Species(whooping crane and red wolf)




Federally Threatened: San Marcos salamander

Federally Endangered: Texas blind salamander, fountain darter, Comal Springs dryopid beetle, Comal Springs riffle beetle, Texas wild-rice

Federally Endangered, but extirpated: San Marcos gambusia

All listed aquatic species are associated with spring outlets, spring runs, or subterranean water-filled caves of the Edwards Aquifer system. In Hays County, all species except for the Comal Springs dryopid beetle are only known to occur at the San Marcos Springs in Spring Lake and nearby downstream segments of the San Marcos River. The Comal Springs dryopid beetle is known to occur at Fern Bank Springs on the Blanco River. Critical habitat has been formally designated for these species at San Marcos Springs and Fern Bank Springs.

The water source for the San Marcos Springs originates from the Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone and Recharge Zone - a large area encompassing thousands of square miles mostly to the southwest of Hays County. The water source for Fern Bank Springs is unknown, but may be some combination of local recharge from the Blanco River, recharge from nearby Glen Rose limestone formations, or the Trinity Aquifer.

Water quantity and water quality at these springs are critical habitat components.

The San Marcos Springs species depend on flow discharging from the Edwards Aquifer, either in conjunction with aquatic caves, spring outlets, or river runs dominated by spring discharge. Water flow discharged from the springs depends heavily on water usage over the Edwards Aquifer, the bulk of which is located to the southwest of Hays County. Reduced spring flow is one of the most significant threats to these species. Water quality, as influenced by flooding, erosion, pollution, siltation, and stormwater runoff from urbanized areas, is also an important component of aquatic habitat for these species - especially over aquifer recharge areas.

Threats to habitat at Fern Bank Springs would be similar in nature, but difficult to quantify without substantial new research, since the source of the spring discharge has not been established.

1) Include some or all of these aquatic species as "covered species" in the HCP for take authorization under the ESA.

The listed aquatic species are not included in the objective of the HCP effort, as described in the grant application or the interlocal agreement. Covering listed aquatic species in the HCP would be extremely challenging. First, the factors influencing the species' habitat are regional in scale, and involve areas outside the county's boundaries. Second, there are substantial gaps in data with respect to the influence of activities within the county on the species' habitat. Because of the data limitations, it would be difficult to establish estimates of take and impact on the species from covered activities, as required by the ESA. Inclusion of the species could not be achieved within the current project schedule and budget.

For San Marcos Springs, most water discharged from the springs originates far to the southwest of Hays County. Estimating the incremental impacts to water flow and water quality at the springs from covered activities would be difficult without additional research. Any local impacts might be masked by more important regional influences. Finally, Hays County likely lacks the legal authority to regulate groundwater pumping, which is a major influence on spring flow.

For Fern Bank Springs, the water source for the springs is largely unknown and additional research would be necessary to be able to assess impacts and develop effective conservation measures.

Good opportunities for aquatic resource conservation are available to Hays County outside of the structure of the HCP.

Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Plan (in progress) will address large scale aquifer management essential to maintaining spring flow at San Marcos Springs. Hays County could designate a representative to the EARIP Stakeholder Committee to officially participate in this aquifer-wide planning process to more effectively address groundwater availability at a regional scale.

TCEQ Edwards Aquifer Rules and Phase I optional water quality measures identify BMPs for construction projects to protect water quality. Hays County could make the optional Phase I water quality measures mandatory via the subdivision process as a way to ensure projects avoid impacts to water quality.

The Nature Conservancy of Texas is spearheading the Blanco River Project, which aims to promote collaboration between local stakeholders to conserve the Blanco River corridor.

2) Include as "additional species" without take authorization under the ESA. Possible actions could include identifying "no-take" scenarios for activities covered by the HCP, funding research, or implementing other conservation actions to promote recovery of the species.

This may be a viable option for addressing potential impacts to listed aquatic species from covered activities without having to document compliance with ESA issuance criteria. HCP could address water quality impacts by promoting measures that protect riparian buffers and recharge areas and actions that could result in "no-take" scenarios (i.e., projects constructed in compliance with delineated best management practices would be deemed not to have significant impacts on water quality). The HCP could promote recovery of listed species by funding research to help fill data gaps and/or including aquatic resources in the evaluation criteria for preserve lands mitigating terrestrial impacts. HCP could also specifically target aquatic features for protection, particularly land around Fern Bank Springs and other major aquatic resources.

Funding source for these additional conservation measures would need to be identified (the option would not provide take coverage, therefore mitigation fees would not be assessed).

Individuals requiring incidental take authorization for impacts to listed aquatic species would need to obtain individual authorization from the Service.

3) Do not include species in the HCP. Not including the species would simplify the HCP's development and administration. Other programs that are either existing or under development address groundwater pumping, physical protection of critical habitats at San Marcos Springs, and water quality protection.

San Marcos River HCP (under development) would protect the physical environment at San Marcos Springs and downstream segments of San Marcos River, and would cover impacts for most actions likely to directly and indirectly affect listed species in these areas.

EAA HCP (under development) would address groundwater usage affecting discharge at San Marcos Springs.

Individuals requiring incidental take authorization for impacts to listed aquatic species would need to obtain individual authorization from the Service.

Listed Aquatic Species(San Marcos salamander, Texas blind salamander, Fountain darter, San Marcos gambusia, Comal Springs dryopid beetle, Comal Springs riffle beetle, Texas wild-rice)




Not Listed(but could become listed or candidates for listing during permit period)

Limited data suggests that unique and/or rare karst or aquifer-dependent species occur in Hays County. While these species are not currently listed as Threatened or Endangered, experiences in other central Texas counties suggest that such species are likely to become listed in the future. Species of concern include several new and/or poorly known invertebrates and a possible undescribed species of Eurycea salamander.

Karst habitats are not well studied in Hays County; very little is known about the extent or presence of cave systems in the county and the species that may occur within them. However, the county contains geologic formations suitable for the development of these habitats. A similar lack of data exists for wildlife associated with most of the spring complexes in Hays County (particularly those over the Trinity Aquifer, such as Jacob's Well).

Much more basic research and surveying needs to be done to establish a reasonable baseline of information on habitats and species biology to meet ESA standards.

Threats to karst habitats may come from loss of habitat as caves are filled, collapsed, or altered during construction, or as part of ranching activities. Sensitive cave habitats are also susceptible to impact from adjacent development where the stable cave environment is altered by contamination, changes in surface drainage, nutrient input, and changes to the composition of surface plant and animal communities in the vicinity.

Spring complexes may be affected by land development and other land use changes that alter the quantity and quality of water discharged from the springs.


These species are not included in the objective of the HCP effort, as described inthe grant application or the interlocal agreement. Unlisted species may be "covered" in an HCP and automatically included for incidental take authorization if they become listed. However, the demonstration of take, impacts, and mitigation for the unlisted species must meet ESA issuance criteria. Meeting the ESA issuance criteria for any of the unlisted species, given the current body of knowledge, would be challenging. It may be possible to include some non-listed karst and aquifer dependent species under the "No Surprises" rule. Substantial new research on the basic biology and life history of these rare species and the distribution and characteristics of their habitats would likely be needed.

In favor of this option, covering these species for incidental take would reduce future uncertainty regarding possible mitigation obligations.

2) Include as "additional species" without take authorization under the ESA to help preclude future listing.

Viable option to spur beneficial conservation activities for rare resources. HCP platform could be used to help generate grant funding and as a framework to prioritize research. Data generated could be used to help preclude listing of rare species or to facilitate a major amendment to the HCP to fully "cover" newly listed species. HCP could also include possible benefits to rare, non-listed species when evaluating potential preserve lands for terrestrial species.

3) Do not include the species in the HCP. Viable option. There is no ESA liability associated with unlisted species, and landowners have no obligation to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts as long as the species remains unlisted. The reduced scope and complexity of the HCP would speed plan development and ease implementation.

Non-listed Karst and Aquifer-dependant Species


Documents

Update Balancing Water Needs in the Edwards Aquifer20070820 · 10/11/2007 · BCCP Mitigation Obligations The BCCP Partners are directed under the terms and conditions of the BCCP