Res 2011-127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program TABLE 1-3 SPECIES PROPOSED FOR COVERAGE IN THE HCP Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Fountain Darter Endangered Etheostoma fonticola Comal Springs Riffle Beetle Endangered Heterelmis comalensis San Marcos Gambusia Endangered Gambusia georgei Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle Endangered Stygoparnus comalensis Endangered Stygobromus pecki Texas Wild Rice Endangered Zizania texana Texas Blind Salamander EuryceaEndangered [formerly ] Typhlomolgerathbuni San Marcos Salamander Eurycea nanaThreatened Edwards Aquifer Diving Beetle Haideoporus texanusPetitioned sp. Comal Springs Salamander Eurycea Petitioned Texas Troglobitic Water Slater Lirceolus smithiiPetitioned The work group considered six mussel species: Texas fatmucket (Lamspilis bracteata), golden orb (Quadrula aurea), Texas pimpleback (Quadrula petrina), false spike mussel (Quincuncina mitchelli), Salina mucket (Disconaias salinasensis), and Mexican fanwnsfoot (Truncilla cognata). The first four overlap most with the area of influence of the Covered Activities. Based on the criteria listed above, the work group concluded that seeking coverage for these six mussel species was not warranted. While the likelihood of listing during the permit term maybe high, the extent to which limitations to or modifications of Covered Activities will benefit the species is unclear as they do not occur in the headwaters of the two major springs and intervening activities that affect those species are not under the control of the Applicants. In addition the habitat, life cycle, and other biological parameters (e.g., tolerance of varying flow regimes) for these species are not sufficiently understood to determine whether the HCP will meet the issuance criteria with respect to the species. The whooping crane was considered for coverage in the HCP, but was not included. (See 3 Factors affecting the crane and its habitat are not under the control of the Applicants for the ITP or affected adversely by their Covered Activities. In addition, the minimization and mitigation measures developed for the activities covered by the proposed permit should provide greater stability in the flows emerging from the spring systems at Comal and San Marcos Springs and, therefore, are expected to provide a potential net benefit to the habitat conditions for the ecosystem used by the crane. The springflow protection measures in the HCP increase the water available in the San Marcos and Comal rivers. For example, simulations by HDR Engineers show that, compared to current baseline conditions, the springflow in the worst year of a repeat of the drought of record, results in an additional 19,819 ac-ft of water in the San Marcos Springs and an additional 36,102 ac-ft 3 http://earip.org/WhoopingCrane/FINAL%20Tech%20Memo%203-8-2010%20%28HICKS%29.pdf ; s ee http://www.earip.org/MeetingArchive.aspx (April 8, 2010)(Comments on Technical Memorandum). also 1-10