Res 2011-127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program The Applicants considered one alternative to the anticipated take that would either reduce the amount of take or avoid take. That alternative involved a critical period program that would taining or increasing the population of the aquatic communities of the Comal and San Marcos springs, in particular the Covered Species.(EARIP 2009). To achieve this objective, the SSC determined that a single stage CPM reduction to approximately 85,000 ac-ft/yr would be necessary. That reduction would ensure: (1) a minimum monthly springflow of 30 cfs at Comal Springs and 60 cfs at San Marcos Springs; (2) minimum 6-month average flow of 75 cfs at Comal and San Marcos springs; and (3) long-term average flow of 225 cfs at Comal Springs and 140 cfs at San Marcos Springs. The trigger for that reduction would be 665 ft-MSL at J-17 for the San Antonio Pool and 865 ft_MSL for the Uvalde Pool. This alternative was not pursued for a variety of reasons. Because the required triggers are very close to the historical average for the two index wells, permitted pumping would have to be reduced from 572,000 ac-ft to approximately 86,000 ac-ft for significant amounts of time. Moreover, allowable withdrawal levels would have been well below the amount of water needed to meet public health and safety and fire protection needs. Although not formally evaluated, the cost to the region for the necessary replacement water, if in fact it could be obtained at all let alone in the time frame of the HCP, would be in the billions of dollars. Politically, it was generally viewed as impossible to obtain regional consensus on such an approach. For these reasons, this alternative was not pursued. A ist, although it was not pursued for reasons discussed below. If the Applicants did not proceed with the application for a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, then springflows at Comal Springs would have the potential to cease for 38 months during a repeat of the drought of record,(see Section 5.8 below), and be subject to possible litigation. However, enabling water management practices, procedures, and methods to ensure that, not later than December 31, 2012, the continuous minimum springflows of the Comal Springs and the San Marcos Springs are maintained to 1.14(h)). That deadline has not arrived, and the EAA has not made a specific determination about the level of continuous springflow to be achieved, or whether it would seek to implement measures to avoid all take as required by Section 9 of the ESA or to obtain an incidental take permit under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. Thus, it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty whether or not the level of take would be less than under the current HCP. This alternative was not pursued because it was believed that a regional, consensus-based approach was preferable. Further, EAA is an Applicant for this HCP, and EAA intends that this HCP satisfy the continuous minimum springflow requirement in Section 1.14(h). The Applicants considered other alternatives in developing the various minimization and mitigation measures designed to offset the impacts of the flow-related impacts of incidental take. The Phase I package of minimization and mitigation measures, consisted of identifying and conducting technical analyses for six basic alternative programs, each with one or more options. These alternative programs or packages included: 1-16