united states department of the interior...water act (33 u.s.c. 1251-1376) for a city of san marcos...

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200

Austin, Texas 78758 512 490-0057

FAX 490-0974

MAY 15 2012 Stephen Brooks Chief, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 17300 USACE No. SWF-2010-00438 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300 Consultation No. 02ETAU00-2012-F-0090 Dear Mr. Brooks: This transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opinion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) proposed authorization under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) for a City of San Marcos (City) stormwater outfall to the San Marcos River. The City proposes improvements to the stormwater system serving part of downtown San Marcos in the vicinity of Hutchison Street. In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), the USACE has determined this project may affect two listed endangered species: Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana) and fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola). The USACE is the Federal agency authorizing this project. The USACE has provided a biological assessment (BA) of the project prepared by the Whitenton Group, Inc. and requested formal consultation in a January 30, 2012, letter. This biological opinion is based on information from: (1) your initiation letter, (2) the BA, (3) conversations with the USACE, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), and Whitenton Group, Inc., (4) field investigations by the Service, TPWD, Texas State University – San Marcos, Baylor University, and BIO-WEST, Inc., and (5) other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at our office. Consultation History November 10, 2011 Whitenton Group, Inc. provides USACE and Service with description of

planned field efforts near proposed Hutchison Stormwater project outfall. December 9, 2011 Service provides Whitenton Group, Inc. with example of BA. January 30, 2012 USACE requests formal consultation. February 13, 2012 Service acknowledges initiation of formal consultation. March 28, 2012 Whitenton Group, Inc. provides additional information on drainage area. May 1, 2012 Service provides draft biological opinion to USACE. May 15, 2012 USACE provides their review of draft biological opinion.

Brooks – Biological Opinion 2012-F-0090

BIOLOGICAL OPINION The BA identifies nine federally listed species and one candidate species that either may occur in Hays County, Texas or potentially be affected by activities in Hays County (Table 2 of the BA did not include the San Marcos gambusia). Of the 10 listed species, the USACE has determined that the project may affect Texas wild-rice and fountain darter. Additionally, the USACE has determined that the project may affect federally designated critical habitat (CH) of Texas wild-rice and fountain darter. Table 1 summarizes the USACE’s determinations.

Species Federal Status USACE Determination

bracted twistflower Candidate No Effect Texas wild-rice Endangered May Affect Comal Springs riffle beetle Endangered No Effect Comal Springs dryopid beetle Endangered No Effect San Marcos gambusia Endangered No Effect fountain darter Endangered May Affect San Marcos salamander Threatened No Effect Texas blind salamander Endangered No Effect whooping crane Endangered No Effect golden-cheeked warbler Endangered No Effect black-capped vireo Endangered No Effect

Table 1. Listed and Candidate Species Considered in the Biological Assessment. The San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia georgei) is presumed to be extinct. Multiple extensive surveys have not found evidence of the species in the wild; therefore the proposed project will have no effect on the San Marcos gambusia. However, the action area (described below) includes designated critical habitat of the San Marcos gambusia and we include an analysis of the effects of the proposed project on San Marcos gambusia designated critical habitat. This biological opinion does not rely on the regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat” at 50 CFR 402.02. Instead, we have relied on the statutory provisions of the Endangered Species Act to complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat. I. Description of Proposed Action The City has requested authorization from the USACE to make improvements to part of its municipal separate stormwater sewer system (MS4) serving southern downtown San Marcos in


the vicinity of Hutchinson Street (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The City proposes to make these system upgrades to (1) reduce street flooding by increasing the capacity of the stormwater drainage system, (2) improve the quality of discharged stormwater through the installation of three sediment control structures (one pond and two Vortechs® devices), (3) reconstruct sidewalks and streets in the project area, and (4) replace the existing stormwater outfall structure where stormwater flows into the San Marcos River. The new measures for improving water quality are a settling pond and two Vortechs sediment separators. A Vortechs system is a hydrodynamic separator that treats stormwater and reduces the load of fine sediments, oil, and debris to the receiving stream. The new outfall structure will be larger than the existing outlet to handle a larger volume of runoff, and it will include erosion control measures and bank stabilization. Replacing the existing structure and installing erosion and bank stabilization features will require construction in the river channel and the placement of fill material into the San Marcos River. These activities require authorization from the USACE pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Description of the Action Area “Action area” 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). For the purposes of this biological opinion, the action area includes: (1) the stormwater infrastructure associated with the Hutchison Street drainage project and the area of San Marcos contributing runoff to the project, (2) the San Marcos River from City Park downstream to its confluence with the Blanco River, and (3) nearby roads that may be used during project construction (Figure 3). II. Status of the Species and Critical Habitat Texas wild-rice Texas wild-rice was listed as endangered on April 26, 1978, and its critical habitat was designated on July 14, 1980. Critical habitat includes Spring Lake and its outflow, and the San Marcos River, downstream to the confluence with the Blanco River. Species Description and Life History Texas wild-rice is an aquatic perennial grass. Leaves are about 3 to 6.5 feet long. Texas wild-rice is typically submergent. When flowering, the inflorescence and the upper culms and leaves emerge above the water surface. In slow moving waters, Texas wild-rice functions as an annual, exhibiting less robust vegetative growth, then flowering, setting seed, and dying within a single season. Texas wild-rice forms stands in the San Marcos River at depths from 0.7 to 7.0 feet. The species requires clear, relatively cool, thermally constant (about 72°F) flowing water. Texas wild-rice prefers gravel and sand substrates overlaying Crawford black silt and clay soils (Poole and Bowles 1999, Saunders et al. 2001).


Reproduction of Texas wild-rice occurs either asexually (clonally) through stolons or sexually via seeds. Asexual reproduction occurs where shoots arise as clones at the ends of rooting stolons (Emery and Guy 1979). Clonal reproduction appears to be the primary mechanism for expansion of established stands, but does not appear to be an efficient mechanism for dispersal and colonization of new areas. Texas wild-rice tillers have, however, been observed floating downstream and some of these tillers may become established plants; but only if lodged in suitable substrate and physical habitat. Seed production is therefore believed to be essential for dispersal and establishment of new stands of Texas wild-rice (Service 1996a). Sexual reproduction occurs when wind pollinated florets produce seed. This typically takes place in late spring through fall, though flowering and seed set may occur at other times in warm years (Service 1996a). Triggers for flowering are not well understood. Texas wild-rice seed is not long-lived, and viability begins to drop markedly within one year of production. No appreciable seed bank is therefore expected. Historic and Current Distribution Texas wild-rice was first collected in the San Marcos River in 1892 (Service 1996a). When the species was originally described in 1933, it was reported to be abundant in the San Marcos River, including Spring Lake and its irrigation waterways (Silveus 1933, Terrell et al. 1978). Beaty (1975) reported about 240 square meters (m2) of coverage, though the survey methodology used is not known. In 1976, Emery surveyed Texas wild-rice and estimated areal coverage at 1,131 m2 in the San Marcos River (Emery 1977). Vaughan (1986) estimated overall Texas wild-rice coverage in 1986 at 454 m2. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has monitored Texas wild-rice coverage since June 1989, and its areal extent has ranged from 1,004 m2 (1989) to 4,854 m2 (2010). Texas wild-rice only occurs today in the upper San Marcos River from the vicinity of Spring Lake Dam downstream 5.0 river-kilometers. The most recent rangewide estimate of Texas wild-rice coverage is 3,662 m2 from September, 2011 (BIO-WEST 2012). Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival Reduced springflow is the greatest threat to the survival of Texas wild-rice. Other threats include water quality degradation, physical alteration of Spring Lake or the San Marcos River, and physical disturbance of the species (Service 1980). Non-native species have also been implicated as a threat to the species. Texas wild-rice is adapted to clear water, uniform flow rate, and constant year-round temperature (Beaty 1975). Low springflows and reduced San Marcos River flows can cause adverse effects to Texas wild-rice and designated critical habitat (Service 1996a). Drought conditions can adversely affect Texas wild-rice by reducing flows or eliminating water in portions of the river. Low flow conditions allow floating mats of vegetation (which normally move slowly downriver)


to become lodged in wild-rice leaves near the surface. Vegetation mats shade and may mechanically damage Texas wild-rice. Mats may interfere with culm emergence thereby interfering with sexual reproduction (Power 1996, Power 1997). Decreased flows expose Texas wild-rice to herbivory by waterfowl, nutria, and giant rams-horn snails (Rose and Power 1992). Altered flow conditions may also result in competitive advantages for non-native plants when conditions are sub-optimal for Texas wild-rice. An additional threat is recreational use of the river, which has been shown to have measurable adverse effects on Texas wild-rice (Breslin 1997). Breslin (1997) detailed the relative impacts of various activities (tubing, swimming, boating, and dog activities) to Texas wild-rice, and Bradsby (1994) discussed the relative quantity of use of the river during different levels of flow. These studies did not, however, quantify effects to the species at various discharge levels. As discharge decreases and the river becomes shallower, a greater percentage of Texas wild-rice plants are exposed to trampling. With decreased water depths, more Texas wild-rice leaves are on or near the river surface and therefore more exposed to physical disturbance. Recreational use of the river has also been postulated to interfere with flowering and seed set (Service 1996a). In September 2006, a significant loss of Texas wild-rice between Spring Lake Dam and University Drive bridge was reported and attributed to vandalism (BIO-WEST 2007). Range-wide Survival and Recovery Needs There are specific recovery actions listed in the 1996 San Marcos and Comal Springs and Associated Aquatic Ecosystems (Revised) Recovery Plan (Service 1996a). These include: (1) ensuring adequate flows and water quality in Spring Lake and the San Marcos River; (2) maintenance of genetically diverse reproductive populations in captivity; (3) creation of reintroduction techniques for use in the event of a catastrophic event; (4) removal or reduction of threats due to: (a) non-native species, (b) recreational use of the river, and (c) habitat alteration; and (5) maintenance of healthy, self-sustaining, reproductive populations in the wild. Please refer to the Recovery Plan for additional details and priority actions prescribed for recovery (Service 1996a). Adequate springflows and river flows are needed throughout the year for existing Texas wild-rice to survive, grow, and recruit new individuals (stands). The San Marcos River flow regime is characterized by generally stable flows punctuated by small and large floods. However, during droughts, springflow and river flow may decrease 100 cfs in less than one year. Survival and recovery of Texas wild-rice will depend on aquifer management to avoid critically low flows. Status of Texas wild-rice Critical Habitat Texas wild-rice critical habitat includes Spring Lake and extends downstream to the confluence of the Blanco River. Critical habitat for Texas wild-rice (45 FR 47355) was designated July 14, 1980, prior to our October 1, 1984, regulation (49 FR 38900) directing the Service to identify primary constituent elements (PCEs) in rules designating critical habitat. Nonetheless, important


biological and physico-chemical factors (effectively PCEs) were described in the final rule for critical habitat of Texas wild-rice, and fountain darter. The Texas wild-rice critical habitat designation (Service 1980) emphasizes the importance of: (1) flow in the San Marcos River, (2) water quality, (3) substrates, and (4) disturbance to Texas wild-rice stands. Texas wild-rice critical habitat encompasses about 253,000 m2 (62 acres) of the upper San Marcos River. Fountain Darter The fountain darter was listed as endangered on October 13, 1970, and critical habitat was designated on July 14, 1980. The designated critical habitat is described as “Texas, Hays County; Spring Lake and its outflow, the San Marcos River, downstream approximately 0.5 miles below Interstate Highway 35 Bridge.” Fountain darter critical habitat encompasses about 199,772 m2 (49 acres) of the upper San Marcos River. Species Description and Life History The fountain darter is a small benthic, reddish-brown fish. Adult fountain darters range in length from 0.75 to 1.5 inches. Fountain darter habitat requirements as described in the Recovery Plan (Service 1996a) include: undisturbed stream floor habitats; a mix of submergent plants (algae, mosses, and vascular plants), in part for cover; clear and clean water; invertebrate food supply of living organisms; constant water temperatures within the natural and normal river gradients; and adequate springflows. Fountain darters have reduced densities (or are absent) in areas lacking submergent vegetation (Service 1996b, BIO-WEST 2011). Historic and Current Distribution The historic range of the fountain darter includes the San Marcos and Comal rivers in central Texas (Service 1996a). In 1884, Jordan and Gilbert (1886) collected the type specimens of E. fonticola in the San Marcos River from immediately below the confluence of the Blanco River. The fountain darter is also found in Spring Lake and the San Marcos River downstream to an area just below the emergency spillway to the Smith Ranch impoundment. The population of the fountain darter in the San Marcos River downstream of Spring Lake Dam was estimated over a 9 year period (2002 – 2010) to range from a minimum of 58,562 to a maximum of 471,315 (average = 181,478)(EARIP 2012). Fountain darter densities appear to be highest in the upper segments of the San Marcos River and decrease markedly below Cape's Dam (Linam 1993). The fountain darter is found in Landa Lake and throughout the Comal River system downstream to the confluence with the Guadalupe River (Service, unpublished data, 1996b). The population of the fountain darter in the Comal River system (including Landa Lake) was estimated over a 9 year period (2002 – 2010) to range from a minimum of 172,783 to a maximum of 775,567 (average 528,818)(EARIP 2012). Similar to the San Marcos River, Comal River fountain darter


densities are lowest in the downstream reaches, due in part to a limited coverage of rooted aquatic plants. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival The Recovery Plan (Service 1996a) identifies several threats to the fountain darter. The primary threats are related to the quality and quantity of aquifer and spring water. Drought conditions or increased groundwater utilization resulting in reductions to or loss of springflows threaten the species recovery. Activities that may pollute the Edwards aquifer and its springs and streamflows may also threaten or harm the species (Service 1996a). Additional threats include effects from increased urbanization near the rivers, recreational activities, alteration of the rivers, habitat modification (e.g., dams, bank stabilization, and flood control), predation, competition, habitat alteration by non-native species, and introduced parasites (Service 1996a). An introduced parasite is impacting the Comal population of fountain darters. Multiple researchers have documented the presence of a trematode parasite that threatens fountain darters (Mitchell et al. 2000 and McDonald et al. 2006). This research documents a trematode that attacks fountain darter gills. This trematode is more widespread in the Comal than the San Marcos system. The effect of these parasites on darters is likely to increase during stressful periods of low spring discharge (Cantu 2003), and the parasite’s adverse effects may be greater to younger fountain darter life-stages (McDonald et al. 2006). Currently, the trematode in the San Marcos system is found in the river reaches near IH-35. A concern is the trematode may spread in the San Marcos system (through movement of host species such as other fish species, snails, and black-crowned night-herons) and adversely impact the health of the San Marcos fountain darter population. One of the local threats is habitat degradation caused by non-native fish species including suckermouth catfish (Loricariidae), which burrow into river banks (Hoover et al. 2004, Pound et al. 2010). Range-wide Survival and Recovery Needs There are numerous actions listed in the Recovery Plan regarding specific recovery efforts. The Recovery Plan recommends recovery efforts aimed at maintaining adequate springflows, protecting water quality, and reducing local threats to fountain darter habitat. The Recovery Plan specifies the need to develop and implement management plans for both the San Marcos and Comal systems. One recovery need is the protection of species and their habitats by management of river recreation entry and exit points to help avoid aquatic plant losses (Service 1996a, EARIP 2011). Recreational use of the river adversely impacts aquatic vegetation. Rooted submergent plants are an important component of fountain darter habitat. Aquatic plants provide: (1) surface area for


egg attachment (breeding); (2) nursery habitats; (3) habitat for prey species such as amphipods; and (4) cover from predators. The recovery plan calls for enhancement of fountain darter habitat by protecting and restoring rooted aquatic plants, including Texas wild-rice.

Status of Fountain Darter Critical Habitat Critical habitat includes the San Marcos River, including Spring Lake downstream to approximately 0.5 miles below the Interstate Highway 35 Bridge (45 FR 47355). Important elements of fountain darter habitat include: (1) flow in the San Marcos Springs and River, (2) unpolluted water, and (3) undisturbed aquatic plants and substrates. The springflow element of fountain darter critical habitat is dependent on Edwards aquifer levels and pumping from the Edwards aquifer. The water quality in the upper San Marcos River is generally recognized as good. However, a gradient of increasing turbidity as one moves downstream is notable, particularly during daylight hours in the months of May through September. Aquatic plants have been mapped and highest densities are found in the uppermost reaches. Below IH-35 and particularly below Capes Dam, aquatic plants in the San Marcos River become less dense. Thus, overall, there is a decreasing trend to elements of fountain darter critical habitat as one moves downstream from Spring Lake to the Cape Dam and this trend continues downstream to the lower boundary of critical habitat. Status of San Marcos Gambusia Critical Habitat Critical habitat of the San Marcos gambusia includes the San Marcos River from Hopkins Street Bridge downstream to approximately 0.5 miles below IH-35 Bridge (45 FR 47355). Important elements of San Marcos gambusia habitat are: (1) open areas with minimal aquatic vegetation, (2) mud substrate, (3) reduced water velocities, and (4) stenothermal (fairly constant) water temperature regime of the spring-fed San Marcos River. The San Marcos River currently provides these elements. The factors contributing to the apparent extinction of the San Marcos gambusia may include: (1) the invasive emergent plant elephant ears (Colocasia esculenta), (2) the dominance of largespring gambusia (Gambusia geiseri), and the negative effects of other non-native introduced species. III. Environmental Baseline Status of the Species with the Action Area This section focuses on the status of Texas wild-rice, fountain darter, and their respective federally designated critical habitats in the action area. A brief discussion of federally designated critical habitat of the San Marcos gambusia is included. The action area includes the upper San Marcos River from City Park downstream to the Blanco River confluence. The upper San Marcos River is designated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as Segment No. 1814. This segment is designated as having exceptional aquatic life use and fit for primary contact recreation. There are no significant water diversions in the upper San Marcos


River and flow (river discharge) in the action area is effectively similar to the flow in the upstream reaches. Texas wild-rice Texas wild-rice coverage in the action area was estimated in September, 2011, at 1,351 m2 (or about 37 percent of total Texas wild-rice coverage at that time). The proposed outfall is located in the lower reach of TPWD’s Texas wild-rice Segment B. As of the last rangewide survey, segment B contained 2,288 m2 of Texas wild-rice or 62 percent of all known Texas wild-rice. The riverine part of the action area (151,213 m2) encompasses about 60 percent of Texas wild-rice critical habitat. The action area also constitutes a large part of the historic range. The San Marcos River downstream of IH-35 appears to have ample suitable physical habitat (appropriate water velocities and water depths), but few Texas wild-rice stands. However, we do not understand all of the factors that may be responsible for the lack of Texas wild-rice in the lower reaches of the action area. The recovery target for Texas wild-rice areal coverage (rangewide) is 11,930 m2. The recovery target for segment B, which partially encompasses the upper action area, is 5,000 m2. Segment B, per the last survey, has 2,288 m2 of Texas wild-rice or about 46 percent of segment B’s target areal extent for recovery (Table 2 and Figure 5). Texas Wild-rice Designated Critical Habitat Springflow and San Marcos River discharge are critically important for growth and survival of Texas wild-rice (Saunders et al. 2001) and other macrophytes. Texas wild-rice relies on carbon dioxide as its inorganic carbon source for photosynthesis rather than the more commonly available bicarbonate used by most other aquatic plants (Power and Doyle 2004). Edwards aquifer water contains relatively high levels of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (free CO2) in water depends on several factors including alkalinity and pH. Free CO2 is readily available in the upper San Marcos River and in relatively fast-moving waters. The pH of the San Marcos River near the springs is near 7 and pH increases slightly going downstream. Low flow conditions (with longer retention times in impounded waters) may be carbon limiting for carbon dioxide-using obligates including Texas wild-rice. The upper part of the action area (above IH-35) has the important biological and physico-chemical factors described in the final rule for Texas wild-rice critical habitat. The key habitat attributes (in effect, primary constituent elements) are fully present at the most upstream part of the action area. The lower part of the action area has similar water depths and water velocities as the upper part. However, the lower part appears to have higher turbidity particularly in the summer.


Table 2. Current Texas Wild-Rice Areal Extent Compared to Recovery Targets. The action area includes part of segment B and all of segments C through X.

Texas Wild-rice Segment

Most Recent Estimate of Texas Wild-Rice Coverage

BIO-WEST (SEPT 2011)

RECOVERY TARGET AREAL COVERAGE IN M

SQ

PERCENT OF RECOVERY

TARGET

Spring Lake

32.1 1,500.0 2.1%

A 325.8 1,400.0 23.3%

B 2,287.9 5,000.0 45.8%

C 536.7 1,000.0 53.7%

D 0.0 100.0 0.0%

E 0.0 500.0 0.0%

F 364.0 900.0 40.4%

G 52.1 100.0 52.1%

H 9.6 50.0 19.1%

I 0.0 30.0 0.0%

X 0.0 50.0 0.0%

J 0.7 400.0 0.2%

K 59.4 700.0 8.5%

L 3.3 100.0 3.3%

M 0.0 100.0 0.0%

Rangewide 3,671.6 11,930.0 30.8%

Fountain darter The upper reaches of the action area (City Park downstream to IH-35) supports a large fountain darter population. However, the lower reaches of the action area generally lack rooted aquatic plants. The downstream reaches of the action area (below IH-35) have lower suitability for fountain darters and lower densities of fountain darters.


Fountain darter designated critical habitat The action area encompasses about 76 percent of fountain darter critical habitat. The upper part of the action area has the important biological (e.g., extensive coverage of rooted macrophytes) and physico-chemical factors (spring ambient water quality). However, fountain darter critical habitat in the lower part of the action area has fewer macrophytes and wider variation in water quality (e.g., water temperature and turbidity). Effectively, the San Marcos River from the upper part of the action area to the downstream boundary of critical habitat represents a gradual transition from spring ambient characteristics towards creeks more typical of central Texas. San Marcos gambusia designated critical habitat The San Marcos gambusia has been presumed extinct for over ten years. The uppermost reach of the action area (City Park downstream to Thompson Island) has less suitable San Marcos gambusia habitat compared to 50 years ago due to spread of elephant ears on the San Marcos River banks. There are small areas of suitable habitat for the San Marcos gambusia present in the reach between Hopkins Road and Capes Dam. The action area encompasses 100 percent of San Marcos gambusia critical habitat. Factors Affecting Species Environment within the Action Area Prior section 7 formal consultations involving Texas wild-rice and fountain darter Programmatic Consultations - We have completed formal consultation with the Department of Defense related to the operation of its missions in the San Antonio region and use of the Edwards aquifer (January 11, 2008). We have consulted with the Service’s Fisheries Program on their use of the Edwards aquifer as a water supply for the San Marcos National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center and Uvalde National Fish Hatchery and have finalized a biological opinion covering those Service activities (March 1, 2010). No incidental take of fountain darters was authorized for these formal consultations. Local Consultations - We formally consulted with the USACE on the replacement of the Union Pacific Railroad bridge just downstream of Hopkins Road (December 26, 2007) with authorized incidental take of 188 fountain darters. We also consulted with USACE on the Cape Road Bridge replacement (January 11, 2012) with authorized incidental take of 75 fountain darters. Environmental Factors Affecting Both Texas Wild-Rice and Fountain Darter Factors affecting these species and their respective habitats can be divided into two classes: regional and local. The regional factors include effects to the hydrology and water quality of the Edwards aquifer. Local factors include, but are not limited to, effects to the species and their habitats such as stormwater pollution, water recreation effects to habitats (especially to submergent plants such as Texas wild-rice), and effects from non-native species. In summer, turbidity appears to increase during daylight hours in reaches downstream of river recreation. The river upstream and downstream of the stormwater outfall is heavily used by water


recreationists. Water recreation includes use of canoes, kayaks, inner tubes, wading, and swimming. These activities may affect listed species, e.g., wading decreases or eliminates rooted aquatic plants in an area, damaging Texas wild-rice and reducing fountain darter habitat suitability. Factors Affecting Texas wild-rice A factor not presented above that affects the likelihood of Texas wild-rice establishing new plants, clumps, or stands in the action area is the overall coverage of Texas wild-rice upstream of the action area. If the coverage Texas wild-rice above City Park is healthy and growing, the more likely it is that Texas wild-rice plants (including tillers) will be carried downstream to potentially create new stands in the action area. If Texas wild-rice upstream produces viable seed, new plants may be recruited downstream. In 1998, about 10,000 Texas wild-rice seeds were broadcast into the San Marcos River near Spring Lake Dam and this (along with average river flow) may have been an important factor in the increase in Texas wild-rice in segments A, B, and C for 2003 through 2007. The average annual change (growth) in Texas wild-rice coverage since 1989 has been about 7 percent. In the period from 1989 through 2011, the largest decrease in areal coverage (− 1,200 m2) occurred between 2010 and 2011; however, we do not understand the factors involved in this decrease. Factors affecting Texas wild-rice critical habitat The regional factors affecting the river flow element of Texas wild-rice critical habitat include drought and Edwards aquifer pumping. Local factors affecting the water quality, substrate, and disturbance elements of Texas wild-rice critical habitat include: (1) sediment transported by creeks to the San Marcos River from developments in the immediate watershed, (2) elevated turbidity from water recreation disturbance of substrate, and (3) mounding of floating vegetation mats on Texas wild-rice. Factors affecting fountain darters Fountain darters may be affected by water recreation impacts that decrease the coverage of rooted aquatic plants. Fountain darters require aquatic plants for reproduction, cover, and feeding. Stormwater and treated wastewater are other factors that may negatively affect fountain darters, their prey base, and aquatic plants. The San Marcos River above City Park (including Spring Lake) may be a source population of fountain darters, providing individuals that disperse – move downstream, to colonize suitable habitat. Dams on the upper San Marcos River decrease fish movement and alter the physical habitat upstream by increasing water depth. In the lower part of the action area, water depth and turbidity (caused by water recreation in the upper part of the action area) likely reduce the habitat suitability for most of the submergent plant species in the upper San Marcos River.


Factors affecting fountain darter critical habitat Effects to fountain darter critical habitat elements include water quality and changes in the plant and animal communities. The water quality element of fountain darter critical habitat is affected contaminants in stormwater that may in certain cases impact the health of fountain darters or their prey base. Fountain darter critical habitat is also affected by the same regional and local factors impacting river flow, water quality, and aquatic plants. Low river flow in summer months can result in higher than normal water temperatures, which reduces fountain darter reproduction. Low river flow in winter months may harm aquatic plants that fountain darters depend on. Non-native suckermouth catfish interfere with fountain darter habitat by burrowing into the bed and banks of the San Marcos River, which likely decreases establishment of rooted aquatic plants. Factors affecting San Marcos gambusia critical habitat The San Marcos gambusia critical habitat element of water quality is affected by the San Marcos River flow regime and contaminants transported to the river by tributaries and the stormwater system. Water temperatures in San Marcos gambusia critical habitat under low flow conditions would vary widely relative to normal river flow conditions. Open areas with little vegetation provide suitable habitat for San Marcos gambusia. The local factor with the apparently greatest impact on San Marcos gambusia critical habitat (open areas) is the pervasive spread of elephant ears along San Marcos River banks. IV. Effects of the Action Factors to be considered In the upper part of the action area near the project, the river stage by the project is largely determined by: (1) San Marcos Springs discharge and (2) local runoff during periods of precipitation. Analyses for effects of the action The following analyses are based on the exposure of subject species (Texas wild-rice, fountain darter, their respective CH, and San Marcos gambusia CH) to effects of the action. The estimated fountain darter densities are based on best available information including Service, TPWD, Whitenton Group, Inc., and BIO-WEST research on the fountain darter. Maps and descriptions of aquatic plants in the project area were provided by USACE, Texas State University – San Marcos, Baylor University, and Whitenton Group, Inc. Effects to Texas wild-rice Texas wild-rice occurs upstream and downstream of the project outfall. A patch of Texas wild-rice occurs near (about 2 m) the proposed outfall. This patch is also about 19 m downstream of


the upper pedestrian bridge on the west side of the river. Based on the BIO-WEST survey of September, 2011, the San Marcos River between the proposed stormwater outfall and Hopkins Street Bridge has 35 patches of Texas wild-rice with a combined area of 120 m2 (Figure 4). The proposed avoidance and minimization measures are described in the BA. The proposed outfall construction will employ typical temporary sediment – erosion control measures (specified in the applicant’s pollution prevention plan). Texas wild-rice stands downstream of the outfall are not expected to be damaged by the construction phase of the project. After the outfall is built, it is not clear what effects stormwater will have on Texas wild-rice downstream of the proposed outfall during the operational phase of the project. Virtually nothing is known about potential phytotoxins in San Marcos stormwater. Effects to Texas wild-rice critical habitat The project is expected to result in permanent changes to about 61 m2 of potential habitat for Texas wild-rice in the project vicinity. This represents less than 0.03 percent of all Texas wild-rice critical habitat. Based on the proposed footprint of construction and the use of temporary erosion and sediment controls, we do not anticipate any project-related construction impacts to existing stands of Texas wild-rice. Due to the small areal impacts of the project, Texas wild-rice critical habitat will not be adversely modified by the construction phase of the project. The proposed outfall has features to dissipate energy from the stormwater flows and thus reduce the likelihood that stormwater itself will scour nearby aquatic plants in the river. The proposed BMPs will reduce certain pollutants such as fine sediment under normal conditions. However, when a larger precipitation event occurs, the BMPs will bypass (short-circuit) stormwater exceeding their treatment capacity. The drainage area for this part of the MS4 encompasses about 40 acres and during a 2 year flood event, the Hutchison Street outfall will convey over 6 acre-feet to the San Marcos River (or about 73 cfs during runoff, based on stormwater conveyance estimates for the Rio Vista stormwater project). Stormwater from a highly urbanized area may contain phytotoxins such as herbicides and heavy metals, including zinc, copper, cadmium, and lead. However, very little information is available on the concentration of these pollutants in San Marcos stormwater. Thus, we are uncertain as to the frequency and magnitude of stormwater effects on Texas wild-rice in the operational phase of the project. Average river discharge combined with the stormwater discharge will result in a mixing zone where stormwater concentrations are attenuated with distance from the outfall. We are concerned that during periods of low river discharge, localized rainfall may result in a larger mixing zone with higher stormwater concentrations in the San Marcos River (albeit for a limited period) and potentially damage Texas wild-rice. However, we are currently unable to determine the effects of the present day and proposed stormwater discharges on Texas wild-rice, indicating a need for research on this issue.


Effects to fountain darters The project will stabilize the bank near the outfall with grouted riprap. About 61 m2 of San Marcos River with natural substrate will be replaced with a hard surface with no potential for supporting rooted aquatic plants. The project will result in the removal of an unknown number of elephant ear plants in the vicinity of the outfall structure (specifically, around the grouted riprap apron). The removal of elephant ears will improve fountain darter habitat values, particularly if rooted submergent aquatic plants colonize this area. Even with efforts to clear the immediate work area of fountain darters prior to installation of the grouted riprap apron, a small number of fountain darters (see below) may remain in the area and be killed when the apron is installed. We anticipate this will be the main construction-related adverse impact to fountain darters and critical habitat. Specific construction-related activities that have the potential to harm fountain darters include: (1) placement of grouted rock riprap in the river and (2) temporary increases in turbidity resulting from disturbance of aquatic substrates not controlled by BMPs; downstream fountain darters and downstream stands of Texas wild-rice would be subject to episodic pulses of turbidity. Fountain darters that remain in an area where the apron is built may be killed when material is placed in the river. Regarding turbidity, fountain darters and Texas wild-rice downstream of stormwater outfall will be exposed to pulses of turbidity. Elevated turbidity has the potential to interfere with fountain darter feeding and photosynthesis by submergent aquatic plants like Texas wild-rice. Poole and Bowles (1999) and Groeger et al. (1997) provided turbidity surveys of the upper San Marcos River. The reaches upstream of the Blanco River confluence were typically less than 10 nephelometric turbidity units (ntu). However, conditions in the action area during construction will be affected by the discharge of San Marcos Springs and upper San Marcos River. If discharge near the construction site is at or above average, turbidity will be moderated and dissipated by flow, likely in a matter of hours. Fountain darters generally are expected to survive being captured in nets and being placed in suitable nearby undisturbed habitats. However, some darters may harmed in the netting or when temporarily removed from water. Section 7.1 of the BA describes various measures that will be taken to minimize project impacts. The Vortechs devices are expected to improve the water quality above the status quo. The Vortechs devices will capture some of the sediment that would otherwise have been transported to the river and certain types of contaminants sorbed to the sediment would also be captured. However, as discussed in section 6.2 of the BA, stormwater presents some risk of toxic and nutrient impacts on biota in the receiving stream. The Vortechs devices will remove some but not all contaminants. Stormwater (even with multiple new structural best management practices in place) may still affect fountain darters, particularly from dissolved metal constituents like


copper and zinc. The City has monitored fecal group bacteria in the upper San Marcos and while certain bacterial sources have been identified and fixed, we are concerned that high levels of fecal coliform are periodically reaching the river through the MS4. An extensive effort is needed to characterize the biological activity of the City’s stormwater and we recommend it include whole effluent toxicity testing (with three test species, Ceriodaphnia dubia, fathead minnows, and fountain darters) to help resolve the potential acute and chronic adverse effects that San Marcos stormwater may have. Just prior to outfall construction, fountain darters and other fish will be captured and moved out of harms way. The fountain darters that evade capture may be harmed, injured, and killed in several ways. During the construction of the outfall, fountain darters: (1) may remain undetected in the temporary work areas and be killed when materials are placed in aquatic habitat, (2) may seek cover in roots of the temporary work area and then will be killed or hurt as bank stabilization measures are put in place; and (3) may be directly affected by material placed in river. Submergent aquatic plants near the apron may be directly and adversely affected by temporary work areas. Water quality effects such as construction related turbidity, although temporary, may impair fountain darter feeding. Turbidity would interfere with the fountain darter feeding since they are known to select microcrustacean prey based on visual cues. Feeding would be interrupted as long as turbidity interfered with visual cues. Bell (1986) described avoidance “as a reluctance or refusal of fish to move from one place or situation to another.” Fish may not recognize areas as dangerous and may enter and remain in a location “whether good or bad” (Bell 1986). Most of the fountain darters in the work area may be captured by biologists and removed from the disturbed area. However, some fraction of fountain darters will remain in the area where the outfall is built. Fountain darters observed while snorkeling appear to generally move less than three meters before stopping. Additionally, fish are known to swim into silty and turbid areas. Once in turbid areas, fish may remain until turbidity subsides. Turbidity resulting from the construction and operational phase of the outfall is not expected to be significant in terms of the area affected nor long in duration. River flow would be expected to dissipate turbidity within several hours. Most of the turbidity in this reach will likely be the result of river recreation. Fountain darter density may vary greatly over small spatial domains. Effectively, fountain darters in certain habitats have a clumped distribution. They have highest densities in nursery and prey-rich microhabitats. It is possible that our density value (used to estimate take) will underestimate the number of fountain darters affected by the project. If, for example, there are patches of filamentous algae or mosses in the area where outfall will be built, the number of fountain darters may exceed our estimate.


Effects to fountain darter critical habitat The project is expected to result in permanent changes (establishment of erosion protection measures including a grouted riprap apron) to about 61 m2 of habitat for fountain darters in the project vicinity. We are uncertain about the effects stormwater from the Hutchison Street outfall will have on the water quality element of fountain darter critical habitat. Stormwater in mid-summer is likely to have higher temperatures than the upper San Marcos River. The permanent changes to aquatic habitat represent less than 0.04 percent of all fountain darter critical habitat. The project is not expected to appreciably alter the quantity and quality of fountain darter critical habitat relative to the time critical habitat was designated. The City may be able to avoid and reduce Hutchison Street stormwater effects to fountain darter habitat by following recommendations in the TCEQ publication, Complying with the Edwards Aquifer Rules: Technical Guidance on Best Management Practices (RG-348). Effects to San Marcos Gambusia Critical Habitat The project will result in about 61 m2 loss of aquatic habitat in designated San Marcos gambusia critical habitat (from the physical footprint of the outfall apron). This represents less than 1 percent of all San Marcos gambusia critical habitat. The project is not expected to appreciably alter the quantity and quality of San Marcos gambusia critical habitat. Effects to water quality from the Hutchison Street stormwater outfall, when present are expected to occur in the immediate vicinity of the outfall (mixing zone). Most water quality impacts are expected to be temporary, co-occurring with runoff events. If elephant ears near the outfall are removed and prevented from recolonizing aquatic habitat nearby, potential habitat for San Marcos gambusia would be increased slightly. Effects of the Hutchison Street stormwater system Stormwater from downtown may carry pollutants to the San Marcos River. Pollutants associated with roads, parking lots, and downtown land use may negatively affect the survival, growth, and/or reproduction of (1) fountain darters, (2) fountain darter prey, and (3) submergent aquatic plants including Texas wild-rice. We recognize that these effects may: (1) be small in scale, (2) occur infrequently, and (3) vary over the lifetime of the project. Nonetheless, there are limited data from previous biomonitoring near IH-35 that indicate water quality in the San Marcos River may adversely affect sensitive species (Longley and Castillo 2001). V. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area. 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 USACE, Service, Federal Highway Administration, FEMA, U.S. Department of Agriculture – Rural Development, and the USEPA are the most likely Federal


agencies to authorize or fund projects warranting section 7 review in the vicinity of San Marcos, Texas. Habitat conservation planning is progressing on a regional front for Edwards aquifer species through the EARIP. The EARIP is a collaborative consensus-based process that involves many stakeholders. An objective of this EARIP is to submit an application under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to address the effects of Edwards aquifer management (which includes pumping) on federally listed threatened and endangered species dependent on the Edwards aquifer. The EARIP submitted a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit application with a habitat conservation plan (HCP) to the Service in January, 2012 (EARIP 2011). Ongoing impacts from water recreationists remain a serious local threat to Texas wild-rice and fountain darter habitat. The most intense use of the river by recreationists is from late spring to late summer. An invasive non-native species, Beckett’s water trumpet (Cryptocoryne beckettii), has almost been eliminated in the action area. However, future unintentional introductions (and establishment) of other non-native plants seem likely to occur. These introduced plants may out compete with Texas wild-rice for habitat. Flooding, varying from mild to severe, is expected in the action area during the life of the project. Flood control projects in the San Marcos area have reduced the severity of flooding in the action area. However, as the immediate watershed becomes more developed, the stormwater hydrograph and water quality are expected to be altered. Texas wild-rice, fountain darters, and other biota of the upper San Marcos River may be affected by contaminants associated with land use near the river. VI. Conclusion After reviewing the current status of the Texas wild-rice, the fountain darter, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the proposed Hutchison Street stormwater outfall to the San Marcos River will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed threatened or endangered species. This is based on: (1) the limited areal extent of the project effects relative to the areas currently occupied by these species; (2) the likely continued occupation of this reach of the San Marcos River by Texas wild-rice and fountain darters; and (3) the likelihood of that fountain darters will recolonize available aquatic habitats near the outfall after disturbance has subsided. The proposed project, a small subset of the City’s stormwater system, will not adversely modify designated critical habitat of Texas wild-rice, fountain darter, or San Marcos gambusia. This is based on the limited amount of critical habitat affected by the proposed action and the temporary nature of project-related effects.


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 as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior 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. Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act do not generally apply to listed plant species. However, limited protection of listed plants from damage is provided to the extent that the Act prohibits the removal and reduction to possession of federally listed endangered plants from areas under Federal jurisdiction, or for any act that would remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy any such species on any other area in know violation of any regulation of any State or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law. The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the USACE so that they become binding conditions of any authorization issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The USACE has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the USACE: (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. To monitor the effect of incidental take, the USACE must report the progress of the action and its effect on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)]. Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated Fountain Darter Incidental Take We estimate the incidental take associated with the construction phase but are unable to estimate the effect of the operational phase, which involves a complex and variable effluent. The incidental take statement below applies specifically to construction impacts and not operations.


The incidental take for construction is considered to be all fountain darters within the 61 m2 of habitat impacted. We estimate that about 61 m2 of fountain darter habitat will be permanently lost as a result of the construction of the new outfall. We estimate vegetated habitat in this section (not including elephant ears) of the San Marcos River to have fountain darter density of 3.2 individuals per m2 (Service 1996b). The habitat where the outfall will be built is low in suitability for the fountain darter as it currently has few rooted submergent plants. We estimate that 195 fountain darters will be in the immediate area (61 m2) of the outfall structure. Clearing the area near the outfall will reduce the numbers of fountain darters killed and the Service estimates that biologists will remove 90 percent of the fountain darters in the immediate area of construction. We estimate 10 percent of fountain darters, a total of 20 individuals, will avoid capture and be killed when grouted riprap apron is built. Capturing and moving fountain darters also constitutes take. Incidental take for fountain darters will be the total number of fountain darters in the 61 m2 impacted by construction, namely 195. We assume 100 percent of the darters (n = 20) remaining in affected areas will be killed. Some of the darters in the construction area will move out of the area and escape harm. However, we are uncertain as to how many will escape the area disturbed for outfall construction. The construction phase of the project is expected to result in the death (take) of 20 fountain darters. The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the effects of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The USACE must directly provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures. Effect of the take In the accompanying biological opinion, we have determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species for the reasons stated in Section VI above. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES Pursuant to section 7(b)(4) of the Act, we believe the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPM) are necessary and appropriate to minimize effects of incidental take on fountain darters. (RPM 1) Construction-related disturbance of the (a) substrate, (b) water quality, (c) plants,

and (d) animals of the San Marcos River due to outfall construction shall be avoided when possible and reduced to the maximum extent practicable where disturbance is unavoidable.


(RPM 2) The applicant shall monitor the project and ensure appropriate and relevant information on the project is provided in a timely manner to the USACE and Service.

Terms and conditions To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the USACE must ensure compliance with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. The applicant shall be responsible for complying with these terms and conditions, which are non-discretionary. Terms and conditions that implement RPM 1: (1) USACE will ensure project-related work will be actively monitored by the applicant

(City), who will help ensure that actions taken on-site are consistent with approved plans and this biological opinion.

(2) The applicant will ensure: (a) equipment will be readied and mobilized in a manner to minimize the duration for disturbance, and (b) equipment will be demobilized if a precipitation event and runoff is likely to flood the area.

(3) Work by the applicant and the contractor shall be done with careful staging of heavy equipment by the river and inspections for leakage of fuels, hydraulic fluids, coolants, and any other fluids are required. If fluid leakage is detected, equipment must be repaired and cleaned prior to working in or along the river. Care must be taken to prevent material falling into the river.

(4) The biologists working to clear listed species from the area will carefully move any algal or moss mats, to nearby areas with macrophytes.

(5) Captured fountain darters will be removed and released in a manner that avoids predation by larger fishes, by releasing individuals with aquarium nets near plant cover on the river bed. Persons involved in these efforts should have proper equipment and authorizations/permits from the Service (section 10(a)(1)(A)) and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (Scientific Permits pursuant to Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 43, subchapter C).

(6) San Marcos River habitat will be swept with small (D-frame type or similar) dipnets or small seine to salvage fountain darters immediately prior to initial disturbance of construction. The amount of time that netted fountain darters are out of water must be kept to a minimum.

(7) Turbidity will be visually monitored daily during construction. If construction-related turbidity in the San Marcos River averages more than 20 ntu (nephelometric turbidity units) in a 24-hour period, the applicant will contact the Service to discuss the source of turbidity. If indicated, additional measures to reduce turbidity may be recommended.


Terms and conditions that implement RPM 2: (8) The USACE will ensure that the applicant contact the USACE and the Service’s Austin

Ecological Services Field Office at: (a) the beginning of work, (b) the end of work, and (c) any notable or unforeseen event that may affect the aquatic community in a manner not considered in this biological opinion. An example of a notable event would be flooding. Contact with the Service can be made through facsimile (512 490-0094), phone (512 334-8419), and/or e-mail ([email protected]). Similarly, if it is deemed necessary to disturb aquatic habitats in a manner not described in the project description, the applicant will contact the USACE and Service prior to any ground disturbing activities and receive approval of the project modification prior to commencement. In addition, the applicant shall provide a one-page summary report of construction activities to the USACE and Service no later than 30 days after construction is complete.

Conservation Recommendations Section 7(a)(1) 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. We provide the USACE with the following conservation recommendations: (1) Assist with research to better understand the adverse effects of stormwater on Texas

wild-rice, other aquatic plants, fountain darters, and fountain darter prey species, including but not limited to investigations assessing stormwater toxicity and water quality.

(2) Assist with restoration and protection of native macrophytes in the upper San Marcos River, including Texas wild-rice.

(3) Assist with efforts to improve the water quality of runoff from San Marcos to the San Marcos River including but not limited to stormwater associated with roads.

(4) Assist with additional efforts to avoid and minimize disturbance of the San Marcos River by people.

(5) Assist with the implementation of recovery tasks for the fountain darter and Texas wild-rice in the revised Recovery Plan.

We request notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations so we may be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats.


Reinitiation Notice This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in the request. As provided in 50 CFR § 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. If the final action to be carried out differs from the proposed action that our opinion is based on, USACE needs to communicate with the Service to make sure the effects to species and the amount of take are not changed. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation. Reinitiation would be indicated if final plans differ from the proposed action in a manner that additional aquatic habitats or species numbers are affected. If you have any questions about this consultation, please contact Patrick Connor at (512) 490-0057, extension 227. Thank you for your interest in conserving our Nation’s natural resources. Sincerely, /s/ Adam Zerrenner Field Supervisor cc: Fred Land, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas


References Cited Beaty, H.E. 1975. Texas wild-rice. Texas Horticulturist 2(1): 9-11.

Bell, M.C. 1986. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon.

BIO-WEST. 2007. Variable flow study – Seven years of monitoring and applied research. Report for Edwards Aquifer Authority, August. Round Rock, Texas.

BIO-WEST. 2011. Summary of 2010 sampling efforts related to Edwards Aquifer Authority Variable Flow Study under USFWS permit number TE037155-0. Round Rock, Texas.

BIO-WEST. 2012. Summary of 2011 sampling efforts related to Edwards Aquifer Authority Variable Flow Study under USFWS permit number TE037155-0. Round Rock, Texas.

Bradsby, D.D. 1994. A recreational use survey of the San Marcos River. M.S. thesis, Southwest Texas State University. San Marcos, Texas.

Breslin, S.L. 1997. The impact of recreation on Texas wild-rice. Unpublished Master of Applied Geography thesis. Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos.

Cantu, V. 2003. Spatial and temporal variation of Centrocestus formosanus in river water and endangered fountain darters (Etheostoma fonticola) in the Comal River, TX. Master of Science Thesis. Texas State University - San Marcos.

Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program. 2011. Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program – Habitat Conservation Plan.

Emery, W.H.P. 1977. Current status of Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana Hitchc.). Southwestern Naturalist 12(3):393-394.

Emery, W.H.P., and M.N. Guy. 1979. Reproduction and embryo development in Texas wild rice Zizania texana. Bull. Torrey. Bot. Club. 106(1):29-31.

Groeger, A.W., P.F. Brown, T.E. Tietjen, and T.C. Kelsey. 1997. Water quality of the San Marcos River. Texas Journal of Science 49(4):279-294.

Hoover, J.J., K.J. Killgore, and A.F. Confrancesco. 2004. Suckermouth catfishes: threats to aquatic ecosystems in the United States? Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Program Bulletin 4:1–9.

Jordan, D.S. and C.H. Gilbert. 1886. List of fishes collected in Arkansas, Indian Territory, and Texas, in September 1884, with notes and descriptions. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 9:1-25.


Linam, L.A. 1993. A reassessment of the distribution, habitat preference, and population size estimate of the fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola) in the San Marcos River, Texas. Section 6 report, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Job 2.5. March 12, 1993.

Longley, G., and V. Castillo III. 2001. The toxicity of highway runoff using USEPA aquatic target toxicity test organisms and the fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola). Report prepared for the Texas Department of Transportation. Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Center, San Marcos, Texas.

McDonald, D.L., T.H. Bonner, T.M. Brandt, and G.H. Trevino. 2006. Size susceptibility to trematode-induced mortality in the endangered fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola). Journal of Freshwater Ecology 21(2)293-299.

Mitchell, A.J., M.J. Salmon, D.G. Huffman, A.E. Goodwin, and T.M. Brandt. 2000. Prevalence and pathogenicity of a heterophyid trematode infecting the gills of an endangered fish , the fountain darter, in two central Texas spring-fed rivers. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 12:283-289.

Poole, J., and D.E. Bowles. 1999. Habitat characterization of Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana Hitchcock), an endangered aquatic macrophyte from the San Marcos River, TX, USA. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 9:291-302.

Pound, K.L., W.H. Nowlin, D.G. Huffman, and T.H. Bonner. 2010. Trophic ecology of a nonnative population of suckermouth catfish (Hypostomus plecostomus) in a central Texas spring-fed stream. Environmental Biology of Fishes 90(3):277-285.

Power, P. 1996. Direct and indirect effects of floating vegetation mats on Texas wildrice (Zizania texana) Southwestern Naturalist 41:462-464.

Power, P. 1997. Moisture, seeds, and reproductive failure in Texas wildrice (Zizania texana). Southwestern Naturalist 42(4):435-440.

Power, P., and R.D. Doyle. 2004. Carbon use by the endangered Texas wild rice (Zizania texana, Poaceae). SIDA 21(1):389-398.

Rose, F. and P. Power. 1992. Performance report on management and continued research on Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana). Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2

Saunders, K.S., K.B. Mayes, T.A. Jurgensen, J.F. Trungale, L.J. Kleinsasser, K. Aziz, J.R. Fields, and R.E. Moss. 2001. An evaluation of spring flows to support the upper San Marcos River ecosystem, Hays County, Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Resource Protection Division River Studies Report No. 16.


Silveus, W.A. 1933. Texas grasses: classification and description of grasses. The Clegg Co. San Antonio, Texas.

Terrell, E.E., W.H.P. Emery, and H.E. Beatty. 1978. Observations on Zizania texana (Texas wild-rice), an endangered species. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 105:50-57.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. San Marcos & Comal Springs & Associated Aquatic Ecosystems (Revised) Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996b. Unpublished data, Comal and San Marcos rivers fountain darter surveys, 1993 – 1996. Ecological Services Field Office, Austin, TX.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Biological opinion for Department of Defense regarding use of the Edwards aquifer. January 11, Ecological Services Field Office. Austin, TX.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Biological opinion for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding use of the Edwards aquifer. March 1, Ecological Services Field Office. Austin, TX.

Vaughan, Jr., J.E. 1986. Population and autecological assessment of Zizania texana Hitchcock (Poaceae) in the San Marcos River. M.S. Thesis, Southwest Texas State University.

San Marcos Springs

SpringLake

Sessoms Creek

FIGURE 1.CITY OF SAN MARCOSHUTCHISON STREET

STORMWATER PROJECTOVERVIEW

Hutchison St StormwaterHIGHLIGHT BMPsVORTECHS AND POND BMPsOUTFALL_STRUCTURESTORMWATER MAINS PROJECT

±

0 300 600150 Meters

DOWNTOWN

FIGURE 2.CITY OF SAN MARCOSHUTCHISON STREET

STORMWATER PROJECTDETAIL

OUTFALL_STRUCTURESTORMWATER MAINS PROJECT ±

0 30 6015 Meters

!!!!!!

!!!!

!

!!!

!!!!

!

San Marcos

River

San Marcos Springs

SpringLake

BlancoRiver

Purgatory Creek

Willo

w Springs

C

reek

Sessoms Creek

Sink Creek

§̈¦35

ACTION AREACITY OF SAN MARCOSHUTCHISON STREET

STORMWATER PROJECTACTION AREA - SAN MARCOS RIVERACTION AREA - STORMWATER DRAINAGEPROJECT STORMWATER MAINS

±0 750 1,500375 Meters

pconnor

Typewritten Text

pconnor

Typewritten Text

FIGURE 3.

UPPER SAN MARCOS RIVERTEXAS WILD-RICE

Pedestrian BridgeStormwater Outfall ApronZizania BIO-WEST 9/2011Zizania_Sept2011_SW_outfall_to_Hopkins

±

FLOW 07.5

1522.5

30

3.75

Meters

pconnor

Typewritten Text

pconnor

Typewritten Text

pconnor

Typewritten Text

pconnor

Typewritten Text

FIGURE 4.

pconnor

Typewritten Text

±

#0

M

L

KJ

IXH

GF

ED

C

B

A

0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Kilometers

FIGURE 5.TEXAS WILD-RICE SEGMENTSTEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE

Upper San Marcos RiverTPWD SEGMENTS

Spring LakeABCDEFGHXIJKLM

§̈¦35

Hutchison St.StormwaterOutfall

united states department of the interior...water act (33 u.s.c. 1251-1376) for a city of san marcos...

Documents