HomeMy WebLinkAboutContract 58097 CSC No. 58097
CANDIDATE CONSERVATION
AG REEM ENT WITH ASSURANCES
FOR SIX SPECIES IN THE TRINITY
RIVER BASIN
.7 1'I vk' ��"
1 ..;
el
f:_ ... -.ram.—..-- 1• . A � '.r. � -
Texas Heelsplitter Trinity Pigtoe Texas Fawnsfoot
�. rL
y f
# ► ,le »:
Louisiana Pigtoe Western Chicken Turtle Alligator Snapping Turtle
Developed cooperatively by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife or-iCia`RECO�I"
CIrY SECRETARY
Service — Southwest Region, Trinity River Authority, and FT.WORTH,TX
us. partners included under Certificates of Inclusion:
FI6H&WII.DI.IFE
SERVICE
4 North Texas Municipal Water District, Tarrant Regional
Water District, City of Dallas, and City of Fort Worth
2022 FINAL DRAFT
Photo Credits
Texas Heelsplitter
Kelly McKnight, TRA
Trinity Pigtoe
Kelly McKnight, TRA
Texas Fawnsfoot
Kelly McKnight, TRA
Louisiana Pigtoe
Kelly McKnight, TRA
Western Chicken Turtle
Environmental Institute of Houston University of Houston-Clear Lake EIH-UHCL
Alligator Snapping Turtle
Eric Munscher, SWCA Environmental Consultants
i
Contents
Listof Tables and Figures................................................................................................................vi
Listof Acronyms.............................................................................................................................vii
Glossaryof Terms .........................................................................................................................viii
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances................................................... 1
1.2 Covered Parties and Certificates of Inclusion .................................................................. 2
1.3 Benefits of this Agreement .............................................................................................. 2
1.4 Purpose of this Agreement .............................................................................................. 3
2 Authority.................................................................................................................................4
3 Covered Species...................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Texas Fawnsfoot............................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Texas Heelsplitter............................................................................................................. 7
3.3 Trinity Pigtoe .................................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Louisiana Pigtoe ............................................................................................................... 9
3.5 Alligator Snapping Turtle.................................................................................................. 9
3.6 Western Chicken Turtle.................................................................................................. 10
4 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................ 10
4.1 Upper Basin.................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Middle Basin................................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Lower Basin .................................................................................................................... 14
5 Threats .................................................................................................................................. 14
5.1 Altered Hydrology.......................................................................................................... 14
5.2 Water Quality................................................................................................................. 15
5.1 Degradation, Loss, and Fragmentation of Habitat......................................................... 17
5.2 Barriers to Dispersal....................................................................................................... 18
5.3 Direct Mortality and Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
EducationalPurposes................................................................................................................ 19
5.3.1 Freshwater Mussels................................................................................................ 19
5.3.2 Turtle Species.......................................................................................................... 20
5.4 Exotic Species................................................................................................................. 20
ii
5.4.1 Zebra Mussels......................................................................................................... 20
6 Covered Area and Conservation Zones................................................................................. 21
6.1 Conservation Zones and Conservation Priority Areas ................................................... 21
6.1.1 Zone A..................................................................................................................... 23
6.1.2 Zone B ..................................................................................................................... 23
6.1.3 Zone C ..................................................................................................................... 24
6.1.4 Zone D..................................................................................................................... 24
6.1.5 Zone E...................................................................................................................... 24
7 Covered Activities................................................................................................................. 24
7.1 Conservation Activities................................................................................................... 24
7.2 Water Supply.................................................................................................................. 25
7.3 Reservoir Operations...................................................................................................... 25
7.4 Levee, Dams, Bulkheads, Boat Dock, Boat Ramps, and Instream Structures................ 26
7.5 Wastewater Treatment.................................................................................................. 26
7.6 Pipelines ......................................................................................................................... 26
7.7 Invasive Aquatic Plant Control ....................................................................................... 27
7.8 Boat Dock and Pier Permitting....................................................................................... 27
8 Conservation Strategy........................................................................................................... 27
8.1 Conservation Strategy for Mussels ................................................................................ 27
8.2 Conservation Strategy for Turtles.................................................................................. 28
8.3 Overall Avoidance and Minimization Measures............................................................ 29
8.3.1 Site-level Disturbances............................................................................................ 29
8.4 Conservation Measures and Monitoring ....................................................................... 30
8.4.1 Eradication and Control Measures to Address Invasive Aquatic Plants................. 30
8.4.2 Measures to Address Altered Hydrology................................................................ 32
8.4.3 Measures to Address Water Quality....................................................................... 35
8.4.4 Measures to Address Degradation, Loss, Fragmentation of Habitat ..................... 37
8.4.5 Measures to Address Direct Mortality, Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes ................................................................ 37
8.4.6 Measures to Address Exotic Species....................................................................... 38
9 Implementation Timeline ..................................................................................................... 39
iii
10 Adaptive Management ......................................................................................................... 41
10.1 Strategy..........................................................................................................................41
11 Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances.............................................................................44
11.1 Changed Circumstances.................................................................................................45
11.1.1 New Listing or Critical Habitat Designation within the Covered Area....................45
11.1.2 Adding a Covered Species.......................................................................................45
11.1.3 Louisiana Pigtoe Re-discovered in the Trinity Basin...............................................46
11.1.4 New Science on the Impacts of WWTP Effluent to the Covered Species............... 46
11.1.5 Delisting of a Covered Species................................................................................ 47
11.1.6 Taxonomic Changes................................................................................................48
11.1.7 Unforeseen Catastrophic Event..............................................................................48
11.1.8 Lack of Self-Sustaining Population within Suitable Habitat....................................49
11.1.9 Environmental Flow Standards Substantially Revised or Abolished ......................49
11.1.10 Invasive Species Threaten Covered Species in Covered Area............................. 49
11.1.11 Change in Covered Parties Service Area .............................................................49
11.1.12 Change in Anticipated Grant Funding.................................................................49
11.1.13 Significant Degradation in Water Quality in CPAs .............................................. 50
11.1.14 Environmental Flows Alteration.......................................................................... 50
11.1.15 Change in Covered Parties .................................................................................. 50
11.2 Unforeseen Circumstances ............................................................................................ 50
12 Effects and Incidental Take................................................................................................... 51
12.1 Level and Type of Take................................................................................................... 53
12.2 Take of Turtles................................................................................................................ 54
12.3 Take of Mussels.............................................................................................................. 54
13 Regulatory Assurances.......................................................................................................... 58
14 Reporting............................................................................................................................... 58
14.1 Annual CCAA Highlights Report...................................................................................... 59
14.2 5-year CCAA Summary Report ....................................................................................... 59
15 Agreement Term, Responsibilities, Amendment, and Termination..................................... 59
15.1 Agreement Term ............................................................................................................ 59
15.2 Responsibilities of Each Party ........................................................................................ 60
iv
15.3 Modifications and Amendments.................................................................................... 60
15.4 Dispute Resolution ......................................................................................................... 61
15.5 Termination of CCAA, Suspension or Revocation of Permit.......................................... 61
16 Authorized Signatures........................................................................................................... 62
17 References ............................................................................................................................ 63
v
List of Tables and Figures
TABLES
Table 7-1. Lakes Owned and Operated by the Compact or TRWD.............................................. 26
Table 8-1. Issues and conservation goals identified in the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation
Society's National Strategy for the Conservation of Native Freshwater Mollusks (FMCS, 2016).27
Table 8-2. Table summarizing the Conservation Measures. ....................................................... 31
Table 8-3. Table showing the seasonal SB3 Environmental Baseflow Standards codified into the
TCEQ Water Availability Model (TRA, 2017)................................................................................. 33
Table 9-1. Summary table of funding for the Conservation Measures. ......................................40
Table 10-1. Table describing potential Adaptive Management considerations for the annual and
5-year timeframes......................................................................................................................... 42
FIGURES
Figure 1. Areas in the Trinity River Basin currently occupied by the Trinity Pigtoe, Texas
Heelsplitter, and Texas Fawnsfoot, with a TPWD designated mussel sanctuary shown in the
Middle Basin above Lake Livingston. Note: Currently, Louisiana Pigtoe are believed to be
extirpated from the Trinity basin; the Alligator snapping turtle and Western chicken turtle likely
occur throughout the basin. Sources: Randklev, C.R., et al. (2020) and USFWS Central Texas
and East Texas Mussels Species Status Assessments..................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Map of the Trinity River Basin showing upper, middle, and lower basins and reservoir
ownership. .................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3. Indicators of Hydraulic Alteration analysis of 3-day minimum flows in the Trinity River
at the USGS Gage 08062500,Trinity River near Rosser,just below the DFW metro area, where
baseflows have increased significantly overtime. ....................................................................... 15
Figure 4. Graph showing decrease in total ammonia nitrogen (mg/L as N) at State Highway 34
near Rosser,Texas in southeast Dallas County. Data source is based on surface grab samples
from the TCEQ Surface Water Quality Database.......................................................................... 17
Figure 5. Map of Trinity River Basin Conservation Zones and areas currently occupied by the
CoveredSpecies............................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 6. Daily average reservoir surface elevation on Lake Grapevine between 1989 and 2016.
....................................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 7. Adaptive Management conceptual diagram. ...............................................................44
vi
List of Acronyms
Acronym Meaning
BMPs Best Management Practices
CCAA Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances
CI(s) Certificate of Inclusion
Compact Upper Trinity River Water Quality Compact
CPA(s) Conservation Priority Areas
DFW Dallas and Fort Worth Metropolitan Area
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
NTMWD North Texas Municipal Water District
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
RRMM Reasonable Risk Minimization Measures
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TPDES Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
TRA Trinity River Authority of Texas
TRWD Tarrant Regional Water District
TWDB Texas Water Development Board
USACE US Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS US Geological Survey
WAM Water Availability Model
WLA Waste Load Allocation
vii
Glossary of Terms
Term Definition
An in-depth report that the TRA will complete every 5 years that
summarizes the previous 5 years of CCAA implementation activities,
adaptive management, and the strategy and plans for the next 5-year
5-year CCAA timeframe. This will replace the Annual CCAA Highlights Report for that
Summary Report year.
The 5-year CCAA Summary Reports will be due to the USFWS on March
1, every 5t"year, with the first due in 2028.
This report will summarize the results of the previous year's activities,
Annual CCAA discuss lessons learned, and provide data review and analysis as needed.
Highlights Report The report will be due to USFWS March 1 annually, except every 5t"year,
and cover the previous calendar year. Every 5t" year, the 5-year CCAA
Summary Report will replace this report.
Adaptive The process of monitoring the implementation of conservation
Management measures, then adjusting future conservation measures according to
lessons learned and new information.
Applicant (and
Trinity River Authority of Texas
Permit Holder)
Avoidance and
Measures that reduce the amount of(or completely avoids) incidental
Minimization
take of a Covered Species
Measures
Candidate
A voluntary agreement that provides regulatory assurances for non-
Conservation
federal landowners to conserve candidate species and other unlisted
Agreement with
species likely to become candidates in the future.
Assurances
Candidate
Programs that bridge non-regulatory and regulatory approaches to
Conservation
Programs species conservation.
Defined by regulations at 50 CFR §17.3 as "changes in circumstances
affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan or
Changed agreement that can reasonably be anticipated by plan or agreement
Circumstances developers and the Service [USFWS] and that can be planned for (e.g.,
the listing of new species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in
areas prone to such events)"
viii
Compact Upper Trinity River Water Quality Compact -Association of the major
wastewater dischargers in the Dallas and Fort Worth metro area.
Conservation Covered Parties operations that include water quality monitoring,
Activities biological monitoring, riparian and instream data collection, and other
activities, designed to monitor the health of the ecosystem.
Conservation Activities that collectively are designed to provide a net conservation
Measures benefit to the Covered Species
Conservation Portions of the Conservation Zones that are currently occupied by the
Priority Areas Covered Species and/or contain suitable habitat, and where restoration
and reintroduction efforts will be focused over the life of the CCAA
Conservation The voluntary Conservation Measures and Avoidance and Minimization
Strategy Measures described in this CCAA.
Conservation Areas within the basin delineated based on Covered Species of mussels
Zones occupancy, watershed characteristics, geography, and recovery potential
The geographic area where the Covered Parties will implement this CCAA
Covered Area and where incidental take may be authorized when performing Covered
Activities.
Covered Activities An activity, when performed in accordance with this CCAA, that may
result in authorized incidental take of the Covered Species.
The entities covered by this CCAA by either signature or Certificate of
Covered Parties Inclusion (CI). (Signatory—Trinity River Authority, Cls—City of Dallas,
City of Fort Worth, North Texas Municipal Water District, and Tarrant
Regional Water District)
Covered Species Collectively, the set of species whose conservation is the focus of this
CCAA.
Gate Operation Engineering documents describing reservoir gate operation procedures
Procedures that operators are require to follow to ensure public safety.
This is a specific permit issued by the FWS under Section 10(a) of the ESA
Incidental Take to private parties that are conducting otherwise lawful activities, but not
Permit for the purpose of take, that might result in the taking of listed
endangered or threatened species.
Permit Section 10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement of Survival Permit
ix
Permit Holder
Trinity River Authority of Texas
(and Applicant)
Reasonable Risk RRMMs are defined as measures that can be expected to benefit the
Minimization Covered Species that are within the Covered Parties direct control, and
Measures implementation of those RRMMs is at a level of effort commensurate
with the financial commitments described in Section 9 of this CCAA.
Suitable Habitat Areas that possess the elements of habitat required by a Covered Species
Unforeseen Circumstances are changes in circumstances affecting a
Unforeseen species or geographic area covered by an HCP that could not reasonably
Circumstances have been anticipated by the ITP applicant and the USFWS at the time of
the CCAA development, and that result in a substantial and adverse
change in the status of any Covered Species (50 CFR §17.3).
Zone Conservation Zone
x
1 Introduction
1.1 Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances
This Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) for Six Species in the Trinity
Basin is a voluntary conservation agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and the Trinity River Authority of Texas (TRA). Both the Upper Trinity River Water
Quality Compact' (Compact) and the Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) have assisted in
the development of this CCAA and intend to sign onto the agreement upon its completion. To
develop a candidate conservation agreement with assurances, the USFWS works with its
partners to identify threats to at-risk or candidate species (i.e., candidates for potential listing
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.0 1531 et seq.)) and
designs conservation measures needed to address the threats, identifies landowners willing to
implement those measures through conservation agreements, and monitors the effectiveness
of those measures utilizing adaptive management. In return, participating landowners who
voluntarily sign a CCAA under a Cl are given assurances that should a species covered by the
agreement become listed under the ESA in the future, no additional conservation will be
required beyond what is outlined in the agreement for Covered Activities that may result in
take' of the listed species, so long as the applicant is fulfilling the terms of the agreement. The
goal of the agreement is to provide a net conservation benefit for candidate and at-risk species.
In some cases, the conservation benefit may be sufficient to preclude the need for a species to
become listed under the ESA in the future. If the candidate species does become listed, parties
who have already entered into a CCAA with the USFWS can be covered under an issued Section
10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement of Survival Permit (Permit) and will not be required to implement
additional conservation measures beyond those outlined in the CCAA. It is this regulatory
certainty that appeals to many conservation partners and is one of the primary incentives for
parties to enter into a CCAA. Once an agreement is in place and if a candidate species becomes
listed, parties to the agreement are covered for incidental take if they are in compliance with
the terms of the CCAA and operations may proceed as long as the terms of the CCAA continue
to be met.
The Covered Species for this CCAA include four species of freshwater mussels, 1)Texas
Fawnsfoot, Truncilla macrodon, 2)Texas Heelsplitter, Potamilus amphichaenus, 3)Trinity
Pigtoe, Fusconaia chunii, and 4) Louisiana Pigtoe, Pleurobema ridellii; and two species of turtles,
1) Alligator Snapping Turtle, Macrochelys temminckii, and 2) Western Chicken Turtle,
Deirochelys reticularia miaria. While the conservation measures outlined in this document are
1 Members include Trinity River Authority, North Texas Municipal Water District, and the Cities of Dallas and Fort
Worth.
Z The term "take" as defined in Section 3 of the ESA means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,shoot, wound, kill,trap,
capture, or collect,or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.
1
designed to benefit these six species specifically, they should benefit a variety of aquatic
species, including amphibians, fish, and macro invertebrates.
1.2 Covered Parties and Certificates of Inclusion
The Upper Trinity River Water Quality Compact (Compact), a partnership consisting of North
Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD)3, Trinity River Authority (TRA), City of Dallas, and the
City of Fort Worth was formally organized in 1975 to facilitate cooperation among the large
wastewater treatment plant operators in the basin in regulatory and planning matters, a
collaborative partnership that continues today. The Compact has a long history of cooperation
on water quality projects, such as the adoption of stream standards, nutrient modeling,
instream water quality monitoring, ongoing funding of United States Geological Survey (USGS)
gages, and emerging contaminant studies. One outcome of this collaboration is the Wasteload
Allocation (WLA) study, the first of which was adopted in 1974. The WLA process determines
the Trinity River's assimilative capacity for constituents (i.e. the river's ability to absorb nutrient
or biochemical oxygen demand loading without exceeding water quality standards), sets
discharge limits, and then allocates that load out among the Compact members. These
loadings are then codified in Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permit limits
issued to Compact members by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) with
overview by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). The WLA is updated, if needed, when
Compact discharge permits are modified to account for population growth and increases in
wastewater discharges. The most recent WLA was completed in 2021 (Plummer Associates,
Inc. 2021). The Compact recently funded a freshwater mussel survey along the mainstem and
Elm Fork Trinity River, specifically targeting two east Texas mussels, Texas Heelsplitter and
Louisiana Pigtoe, that are species of concern and are among the species included in this CCAA.
Though not a formal member of the Compact, TRWD is a regional raw water supplier for the
western portions of the Dallas Fort Worth Metropolitan Area (DFW) and has a long history of
partnerships with the entities that make up the Compact. If issued, TRA will hold the Permit,
and each member of the Compact and TRWD will participate and be provided take protections
and regulatory assurances under a Cl. Together, these entities are the Covered Parties. Each of
the Covered Parties commit to this agreement, including the TRWD with the exception of any
wastewater-specific components since they do not conduct any wastewater operations. Should
one or more of the Covered Parties decide to withdraw from this CCAA, the term "Covered
Parties" will automatically be amended to mean the parties continuing to abide by the CCAA.
1.3 Benefits of this Agreement
This agreement is designed to provide a net conservation benefit to the Covered Species. The
Conservation Measures (Section 8.4) are specifically designed to reduce threats and increase
2
the viability of these species, while ongoing and future water supply development and
wastewater treatment activities continue as needed to meet the demands of an increasing
human population within the Trinity River Basin over the 25-year term of this CCAA. Although
this agreement is targeted to specific species, it is anticipated that the conservation measures
implemented as part of this agreement will also improve conditions for other aquatic-
dependent species.
1.4 Purpose of this Agreement
The purpose of this CCAA is to protect and enhance ecological diversity and function in the
Trinity River Basin while allowing for existing operations and future growth of the Covered
Parties operations, in accordance with applicable laws, which are required to support a fast-
growing population. To this end, this CCAA describes the net conservation benefits provided to
the Covered Species, thereby addressing the Section 10 (ESA) permitting requirements relevant
to these species for activities conducted within the Covered Parties operational areas.
This CCAA has been designed to meet the following purposes:
• Provide comprehensive, species-specific conservation in the Trinity basin.
• Provide an ongoing, adaptively managed program that will monitor the status of the
Covered Species for the 25-year CCAA term, which will provide baseline status
information and long-term population monitoring.
0 Enhance and restore riparian and instream habitat to the benefit of the Covered
Species and all native aquatic life.
Provide education and outreach opportunities that are designed to educate future
generations on how to protect and improve water quality and habitat availability
resulting in long-term benefits to all native aquatic species.
• Allow Covered Parties operations to continue uninterrupted should a Covered
Species become listed under the ESA in the future.
0 Provide a roadmap and structure for when permitting of Covered Parties activities
will fall under Section 10 (CCAA) or Section 7 (consultation with federal agencies) of
the ESA.
• Provide clear expectations and regulatory predictability for the Covered Parties
operations and conservation efforts related to the Covered Species and associated
natural communities within the Covered Area (Section 6 of CCAA) by identifying
relevant conservation requirements for ongoing and future activities.
An important goal of this CCAA is to provide a framework for ESA compliance for Covered
Species that may be impacted by Covered Activities within the Covered Area. Whether a
Covered Activity occurs under Section 7 or 10 of the ESA, the Plan will provide the framework
for future ESA compliance. Federal projects (i.e., projects that are funded, approved, regulated,
or carried out by a federal agency), which are subject to Section 7 of the ESA, are evaluated
under standards that are different from those of non-federal projects, which are subject to
3
Section 10 of the ESA. Non-federal projects must obtain a permit for take of listed species,
while federal agencies must consult with USFWS or NMFS whenever their actions have the
potential to affect a listed species. For example, the definition of"affect" differs slightly from
that of"take" and may be applied differently, depending on the species and the project. In
addition, compliance under Section 7 does not provide No Surprises assurances. This CCAA is
not intended to alter the obligation of a federal agency to consult USFWS pursuant to Section 7
of the ESA. USFWS will conduct ESA consultations for Covered Activities in accordance with the
established regulatory process and deadlines (50 CFR Section 402.14). Section 7 consultations
apply only to federally listed species; therefore, only those Covered Species that are federally
listed at the time of the consultation need to be included in the consultation. Unless otherwise
required by law or regulation, USFWS will not impose measures on applicants for take coverage
under this CCAA in excess of those that have been or will be required by the permits issued
should one of these Covered Species be listed. Before completing a Section 7 consultation for a
Covered Activity in which USFWS proposes to require a measure that exceeds the requirements
of this CCAA or associated permits, USFWS will meet and confer with the Covered Party with
jurisdiction over the affected project to discuss alternatives to the imposition of the measure
that would meet the applicable legal or regulatory requirements.
This CCAA strikes a balance between natural resource conservation and the Covered Parties
important water supply, wastewater treatment, flood control, and reservoir operations. It also
reflects the Covered Parties potential threat to the Covered Species while balancing the
benefits that the Covered Parties operations provide. Due to reservoir construction and the
highly altered hydrology of the basin today, wastewater and water supply delivery operations
provide water to a system that would otherwise be dry during low flows, however, these
operations can also negatively impact the Covered Species. This regimented system, which is
designed to capture and store rainfall for beneficial consumptive uses, affords minimal control
to the Covered Parties within the Covered Area in that the Covered Parties have some
legislative authority, but have no permitting or regulatory authority and actually own a de
minimis amount of property.
2 Authority
Sections 2, 7, and 10 of the ESA, along with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, allow USFWS
and TRA to enter into this agreement.This agreement is prepared in accordance with the
USFWS's 1999 Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances Final Policy (64 FIR 32726)
and 2016 revisions to the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances Policy (81 FIR
95164), which became effective on March 21, 2017 (82 FIR 8540).
Section 2 of the ESA states that encouraging interested parties to develop and maintain
conservation programs, through a system of federal financial assistance and incentives, is key to
safeguarding the Nation's diverse heritage of fish, wildlife, and plants. Section 7 of the ESA
requires the USFWS and other federal agencies to review programs they administer and utilize
their authorities in the furtherance of the ESA. By entering into this CCAA, the USFWS is utilizing
4
its Candidate Conservation Programs to further the conservation of the nation's fish and
wildlife. Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA allows USFWS to authorize incidental take for activities
that enhance the propagation and survival of species.Take, as defined under the ESA, means to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage
in any such conduct. Incidental take is defined as take of a federally listed species that is
incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out otherwise lawful activities.
TRA was created in 1955 with House Bill 20 during the 54th Texas Legislature as a conservation
and reclamation district under Article XVI, Section 59 of the Texas Constitution. As such,TRA is
authorized to effectuate flood control and the conservation and use, for all beneficial purposes,
of storm and floodwaters and unappropriated flow waters in the Trinity watershed. Outside of
its owned properties, TRA does not have any regulatory or enforcement authorities, which are
designated to other state agencies. TRA has a long history as a regional coordinator for
wastewater, water supply, and conservation activities throughout the basin.
3 Covered Species
Relevant details on the status, distribution, life history and habitat requirements, and a
summary of the primary threats for the Covered Species are provided below, as well the
occupied area for the Covered Species (Figure 1).
5
Trinity River Basin
Texas Heelsplitter Range
Trinity Pigtoe Range
TX Fawnsfoot&TX Heelsplitter co-occur
Texas Fawnsfoot and Trinity Pigtoe ce-occur
All above species co-occur
_ TPWD Designated Mussel Sanctuary
i Co
Fannin Co
lack Co �5� o
T ��
m
ke Grapevine DFW
U °
� F
�J
Oklahoma City
PaIE
ARf" "`�.:T Lake Livin storo
:.'txlco 9
ospas rin
Paso-
TEXAS
Bo
Austin
° Hous"'
San Antonio
0
Chihuahua
O
Houston
CNAN Esn,HERE,Garmin,
o crredn Mont A,USGS,EPA,USGS
uliacan
N
0 25 50 Miles
I I I I I
Figure 1. Areas in the Trinity River Basin currently occupied by the Trinity Pigtoe, Texas
Heelsplitter, and Texas Fawnsfoot, with a TPWD designated mussel sanctuary shown in the
Middle Basin above Lake Livingston. Note: Currently, Louisiana Pigtoe are believed to be
extirpated from the Trinity basin; the Alligator snapping turtle and Western chicken turtle likely
occur throughout the basin. Sources: Randklev, C.R., et al. (2020) and USFWS Central Texas
and East Texas Mussels Species Status Assessments.
6
3.1 Texas Fawnsfoot
The Field Guide to Texas Freshwater Mussels (Howells, 2014) describes the Texas Fawnsfoot as
summarized below:
A rare, elongate oval shaped mussel with adults reaching up to 60 mm in
length. They have psuedocardinal teeth (two left, one right), two lateral
teeth, and are generally unscluptured with an exterior color of dull green,
tan, yellowish brown, or reddish-brown with broken rays. The nacre (inner
shell layer) is white to bluish-white.
Until recently, the current range of the Texas Fawnsfoot was thought to be limited to the
Brazos and Colorado river basins (Howells, 2014); though they historically occurred in the
Trinity River Basin, they were presumed extirpated (Howells, Neck and Murry, 1996). Recent
genetic work on mussels previously classified as Fawnsfoot (Truncilla donaciformis) from the
Middle and Lower East Fork of the Trinity River(Randklev, Smith and Wolf, 2017) indicate that
those mussels are actually Texas Fawnsfoot (Inoue, Randklev and Pieri, 2018). This 2019 range
expansion for the Texas Fawnsfoot resulted in the Trinity River Basin (previously considered
only as part of the USFWS's status review for East Texas Mussels) now also being affected by
the status review for the Central Texas Mussels. In addition to the Texas Fawnsfoot, the Central
Texas Mussels Species Status Assessment (SSA) includes five additional species of mussels
(which are not thought to co-occur with the Eastern Texas mussels) currently under
consideration by the Service for ESA protections.
The Texas Fawnsfoot is a rare species (Randklev et al., 2010; Burlakova et al., 2019) and little is
known about its life history. In other river basins, Texas Fawnsfoot prefers deep bank habitats
but they are also found in backwaters and on the upstream end of point bars (Randklev et al.,
2014). Conversely, in the Trinity River Basin,Texas Fawnsfoot are primarily found in riffle
habitats (Randklev, Smith and Wolf, 2017). Texas Fawnsfoot are known to bury in up to 15-20
cm of sand, or in a mixture of sand and gravel, near the shore in riffles (Burlakova et al., 2019),
making it difficult to locate using tactile sampling methods. The presumed host fish for this
species is the Freshwater Drum,Aplodinotus grunniens (Haag, 2012; Howells, 2014).
3.2 Texas Heelsplitter
The Field Guide to Texas Freshwater Mussels (Howells, 2014) describes the Texas Heelsplitter
as follows:
An elliptical shaped mussel with adults reaching up to 177 mm in length.
They have two thin, compressed pseudocardinal teeth, two left and low
beaks slightly above the hinge line. They lack sculpturing on the outside and
are tan to chestnut brown or black. Nacre is white or bluish-white with
purple or pink along the hinge line.
7
The Texas Heelsplitter prefers slow to moderately flowing habitats in deep pools with sand or
mud substrate, although recent research has suggested that they prefer bank habitats
(Randklev et al., 2017). This species, which only occurs in Texas and is endemic to three east
Texas river basins (Trinity, Neches, Sabine), is considered a riverine obligate species but is
capable of surviving in backwater and reservoir habitats. Based on laboratory trials in Texas,
the host fish for the Texas Heelsplitter is the freshwater drum (Bosman et al., 2015).
3.3 Trinity Pigtoe
The Mussels of Texas database (Randklev et. al., 2020) describes the Trinity Pigtoe as follows:
Shell structure is moderately thin to thick, inflated; outline subtriangular to
subrhomboid; posterior ridge high, sharp or narrowly rounded, ends at a blunt point,
may show a second or third ridge; sulcus present anterior to the posterior ridge;
posterior slope steep and slightly concave with 2 wrinkle-like lines extending from the
umbo to the margin. Shell color is reddish-brown, greenish-brown, or brown; may
present green or brown rays; surface usually dull to subglossy. Shell is smooth with an
inner nacre color that is usually white but can have salmon or rose highlights, some may
show brassy blotches; iridescent posteriorly.
The Trinity Pigtoe was recently distinguished as genetically separate from other Pigtoe species
present in Texas and has a distribution restricted to the Trinity basin, specifically in the
mainstem of the Trinity River near Dallas-Fort Worth downstream to just above Lake Livingston
and adjacent tributaries (Inoue et al., 2018 and Pieri et al., 2018). The Trinity Pigtoe is
morphologically difficult to distinguish between other types of Pigtoe including the Wabash
Pigtoe, Fusconaia flava, which also occurs in the Trinity River Basin (Pieri et al., 2018). In the
absence of genetic verification, problems with misidentification can lead to confusion about the
status and distribution of the species (Howells, 2014).The species is currently classified as
threatened by the TPWD, but is not currently under review by the USFWS for potential listing
under the ESA.
Most habitat, host, and reproduction remarks are similar to other Pigtoe congeners that occur
in Texas. Habitat is thought to include streams and rivers, but the Trinity Pigtoe is not known to
inhabit reservoirs. It can be found in nearshore habitats such as banks and backwaters but is
most common in main channel habitats such as riffles and runs. Preferred substrates include
mud, sand, gravel, and cobble or a mix thereof in moderate to swift currents (Randklev et al.,
2017). Trinity Pigtoe appears to be intolerant of flow alteration and poor water quality and is
believed to have a maximum life expectancy of 45 years (Randklev et al., 2017). Host fish are
unknown but likely include hosts of congener species, such as Red Shiner, Cyprinella lutrensis,
Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta, and Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax(Bertram et al.,
2017; Dudding et al., 2019); Spotfin Shiner, Cyprinella spiloptera, Silver Shiner, Notropis
photogenis, and Creek Chub, Semotilus atromaculatus (Randklev et al., 2020).
8
3.4 Louisiana Pigtoe
The Mussels of Texas database (Randklev, et. al., 2020) describes the Louisiana Pigtoe as the
following:
A Triangular shaped mussel with adult shell length over 62mm. The external shell does
not have sculpturing and is brown to reddish brown in color, or black. Nacre is typically
white and iridescent posteriorly. They can be found in small streams to large rivers in
slow to moderate currents in substrates of clay, mud, sand, and gravel (Howells, 2014).
Mussels of Texas (accessed 2021) refers to the Blacktail Shiner as the host species for Louisiana
Pigtoe while acknowledging that further study of possible host fishes is needed. Some past
research has suggested other potential host fish may include Bullhead Minnow, Red Shiner and
others (Marshall, 2014, pp. 57, 59-60). Currently, the range of the Louisiana Pigtoe extends
across five states (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi), but it is thought to
be extirpated from the Trinity River Basin. According to Mussels of Texas database (accessed
2021), the current range in Texas is from the San Jacinto drainage east to the Sabine River
(including the Neches River, Angelina River, and possibly Big Cypress Bayou). Other native
mussel species (e.g. Pimpleback, Cyclonaias pustulosa; Texas Pigtoe, Fusconaia askewi;Trinity
Pigtoe, F. chunii; and Wabash Pigtoe, F.flava) can easily be mistaken for Louisiana Pigtoe when
identified by shell morphology alone; this has caused some confusion regarding its status. A
recent survey suggested experienced malacologists had a 76% success rate accurately
identifying the species in the Little River, Oklahoma, when field identifications were compared
with genetic analysis results (Inoue, 2018).The Louisiana Pigtoe has been categorized as state
threatened by TPWD and is currently under review by the USFWS for potential protection
under the ESA.
3.5 Alligator Snapping Turtle
The Alligator Snapping Turtle is striking in appearance, with a characteristic spiked shell and
large, broad head. Adult males can reach 175lbs or more with females weighing around 50 lbs.
Although hatchling survival is low, the lifespan of adults can be over 100 years. They can be
found on land but mainly inhabit aquatic environments, preferring the calm deep waters of
ponds, oxbows, lakes, and large rivers. Upon reaching sexual maturity (approx. 15 years),
females will emerge to lay their eggs along the shoreline or in upland areas up to 1 mile from
water. This species is the only turtle that possesses a predatory worm-like mouth appendage,
pink or drab in color, used to lure its prey. They are considered omnivores and will feed on
small fish, insects, reptiles, animals, and amphibians -including other turtles (Hibbitts, 2016).
The current range of the Alligator Snapping Turtle extends across fourteen states in the
southeastern U.S., including all the major river basins in east Texas. The Alligator Snapping
Turtle likely occurs throughout the entire Trinity River Basin wherever suitable habitat is
present.
9
The Alligator Snapping Turtle is one of the heaviest freshwater turtles in the world, and the
largest in North America (Carwardine, 2008). Though the species is most often associated with
the common snapping turtle, it is not closely related to it, being a different genus.The Alligator
Snapping Turtle has long been prized as a food source, which led to population declines and the
creation of laws limiting its capture. Poaching (i.e., illegal harvest) is considered a major threat
and remains a cause for concern, as seen in the recent news of 27 Alligator Snapping Turtles
that were returned to East Texas from Louisiana in August 2021. The released individuals were
seized in 2016 by law enforcement during an attempt to illegally transport individuals from
Texas to Louisiana where they likely would have been sold for human consumption (TPWD,
2021).
3.6 Western Chicken Turtle
Turtles of the United States and Canada describes the Western Chicken Turtle as summarized
below:
The skin of the western chicken turtle is olive to brown with yellow lines extending from
the head across the neck, from the shoulder to the feet and vertically on the rump. The
long narrow head comes to a point at the beak. The western chicken turtle received its
common name from its long head and neck, which tends to be as long as the [underside
of the shell]. This species also exhibits sexual dimorphism with the female being larger
than males.The egg-shaped carapace is rough textured and tends to be olive to brown
in color. Adults primarily feed on plants, aquatic insects and crayfish.
The Western Chicken Turtle is considered rare and declining throughout its range, although no
range-wide population surveys have been conducted. Uncertainty regarding population status
and perceived threats to habitat convinced the USFWS to consider ESA protections (Ryberg et
al., 2016); the species is currently under review by the agency for potential listing.Threats to
the species include habitat loss and commercial harvest to meet demand by the pet trade. The
Western Chicken Turtle is a fairly mobile aquatic species, and in addition to basking on land it
frequently travels overland for a variety of activities including nesting twice per year, migration,
estivation, and hibernation (Buhlmann, 1995).This cryptic species spends a considerable
portion of the year buried underground in a state of estivation, making it difficult to survey. The
current range of the Western Chicken Turtle includes portions of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri. In Texas, the Western Chicken Turtle's historical range
once comprised the entire eastern third of the state (Dixon, 2013); its current status is largely
unknown.
4 Existing Conditions
At over 18,000 mil, the Trinity River Basin is the largest river basin in Texas that both begins and
ends in Texas (Figure 2), providing water to over 50% of the population of Texas. The basin
serves as a transition zone between the arid plains of West Texas and the wet piney woods of
East Texas and is unique relative to other basins in Texas in that it contains very large,
10
urbanized populations in both the upper (DFW) and lower (Houston) portions of the basin. It
also serves as a major water source for large, urbanized populations near the lower part of the
basin. Because of its geographical, climatological, and political variability, the Trinity basin is
segmented into three parts: Upper, Middle, and Lower.
Water supply operations in the Trinity River Basin are complicated and nuanced due to the
number of regional entities and major cities involved in the raw water supply chain and
intra/inter-basin transfers, the importance of wastewater return flows, and a rapidly growing
population. A major challenge is that there is not a single overarching entity that manages
water supplies in the basin, which has led to an environment of regional cooperation among
water managers over the last 70 years.
11
Municipality/Utility
TRA
- TRWD
USACE
G,o
12
'%AG Carter
R RobeRs,�\
Lavon
Brir�ptSon fi
Eagle Mtf�� Lewi Ville F R Hubbard
Grapevine Whiteock
Weatherford DFW R
D Worth�.�tiMtn Crk
¢ '', Ot Arlington
Joe Poo!
8enbraok f� -
{ Cedar Crk
Waxahachie
Bardwelli Q`
�r r0
po,v rro Mills 2
Richland
Chambers
Houston.CO
5
Oklahoma City Livingston 10//
AR v�
A.NIGXIGO
�9
Callas
TCXAS LOn
Austin
San Antonio Houston
0
Chihuahua
0
Houston Anahuac
ONAN Esri,HERE,Garmin,
Torreon �Mont�� A,USGS,EP USGS
uliacar
N
0 25 50 Miles
I t I t I
Figure 2. Map of the Trinity River Basin showing upper, middle, and lower basins and
reservoir ownership.
12
4.1 Upper Basin
The Trinity River is comprised of four main tributaries that converge just below the DFW area.
The Upper Basin's hydrology has been highly modified and urbanized since the 1800s. Each of
these tributaries contain at least one major multipurpose reservoir and the river has been
straightened and leveed for flood control purposes in many places. The United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) operates seven flood control reservoirs in the upper basin. These
flood control reservoirs are operated as a system which is designed to impound water in the
flood pool (the reservoir capacity above normal conservation pool designed to temporarily
store and release floodwater) and release that water in a controlled manner to prevent
downstream flooding. There are also additional water supply reservoirs in the Upper Basin that
do not have a flood pool. These reservoirs are designed to impound water up to the top of the
conservation pool to ensure that water supply is available during dry times. Because these
reservoirs do not have a flood pool, water is captured until the reservoir reaches conservation
pool elevation, then the remainder of the flow is released through tainter gates downstream in
a pattern designed to mimic upstream conditions—what comes in, goes out. Additionally,
several of these reservoirs receive imported water from inside or outside of the Trinity River
Basin to supplement the natural yield of the reservoir.
While flooding and flood releases drive the hydrology during wet seasons, wastewater return
flows supplement baseflows year-round and provide the majority of the water in the river
during times of drought or low precipitation. Most of the water use in the Upper Basin is
municipal and not wholly consumptive, that is, generally 63% of the municipal and industrial
water used in the Upper Basin is returned to the river through wastewater treatment plants
(Espey Consultants, Inc., 2001). These wastewater return flows keep baseflows artificially
elevated at all times, but provide the only means of flow connectivity during times of drought in
the Upper and Middle Basins.
4.2 Middle Basin
The largely rural Middle Basin begins below the DFW area in Ellis County and contains three
major water supply reservoirs, Cedar Creek and Richland Chambers in the upper third of the
Middle Basin and Lake Livingston at the bottommost portion. Richland Chambers and Cedar
Creek provide important water supply and recreation opportunities for the surrounding
communities and the DFW area. Water is transferred from these reservoirs upstream through
a series of pipelines to supplement the natural yield in Lakes Arlington, Benbrook, Eagle
Mountain, and Worth.
Although much of the Middle Basin is rural and in a relatively natural state compared to the
Upper Basin, the hydrology of this area is largely driven by the upper basin. Baseflows in the
Middle Basin during times of drought are artificially elevated by wastewater return flows and
flows can remain elevated for long periods of time due to controlled flood water releases from
Upper Basin flood storage. The Middle Basin also contains a Texas Parks and Wildlife
13
Department (TPWD) designated native mussel sanctuary where commercial harvest of mussels
is prohibited.
4.3 Lower Basin
Below Lake Livingston, the hydrology of this rural portion of the basin is driven largely by
reservoir releases, tropical storm systems, and local climate. The Trinity River in the Lower
Basin is characterized by wide, long meanders. Large, mobile sand bars and tall cut banks are
common in this area. Below Highway 90 near Liberty,Texas, the river becomes tidally
influenced. Near the mouth of the river where the Trinity meets Galveston Bay is the Wallisville
Saltwater barrier. This barrier is designed to be opened and narrowed in a manner that
maintains constant positive flow in a downstream direction toward Trinity Bay, which prevents
saltwater intrusion upstream that would otherwise contaminate freshwater supplies.
5 Threats
The USFWS has identified threats to the Covered Species as including: (1) altered hydrology, (2)
degraded water quality, (3) modification, loss, or fragmentation of habitat, and (4) barriers to
dispersal. All of these threats can affect the Covered Species to varying degrees and are
discussed in greater detail below. The Covered Parties have agreed to implement a
Conservation Strategy (Section 8 of CCAA) designed to reduce or eliminate these threats within
the Covered Area, thus providing a net conservation benefit to the Covered Species.
5.1 Altered Hydrology
While dewatering is not considered a threat in the Trinity basin during the 25-year timeframe of
this agreement, changes to water quantity and altered hydrology are considered ongoing
threats for the Covered Species. The Trinity River Basin provides water for the DFW area in the
upper part of the basin and the Houston metro area in the lower basin. Upstream
infrastructure related to flood control and water supply reservoirs, in combination with
constant regional wastewater return flows from treatment plants that are further bolstered by
inter and intra-basin water transfers, delivery of water supply for contracts, downstream senior
water rights, and geography, ensure that under typical baseflow and dry weather/drought
conditions there is more water available than would be present under natural conditions (Figure
3) (Land et al., 1998; Austin, 2006;TRA, 2017; Mangham, 2018; Clark, B. and Mangham, 2019).
These water supply and wastewater activities have resulted in baseflows that have steadily
increased over the past century from less than 160 cubic feet per second (cfs) to over 620 cfs
(based on annual minimum 3-day mean discharge).
While TRA's water supply obligations and wastewater return flows help ensure base and low
flows are sustained in the river, these same flows may also exceed conditions that mussels or
other species can tolerate (e.g., shear force), resulting in degraded habitat that may no longer
be suitable for freshwater mussels or other Covered Species. The USACE operates six major
flood control reservoirs and the Dallas Floodway in the Upper Basin and two flood control
14
reservoirs in the Middle Basin. Most of these reservoirs have been in place since the 1950s and
1960s. These reservoirs capture and store excess water during periods of heavy rainfall, then
release that water in a controlled manner after flood risks have subsided. The release schedule
lowers the peak flows, but extends the amount of time that the channel remains full. This
altered hydrologic regime can cause increased erosion downstream of reservoirs due to the
extended periods of higher than normal flow and reduced deposition of sediments that are
captured upstream or entrained by the reservoirs. This altered hydrology is a threat to the
Covered Species, but is also considered a part of existing baseline conditions for the Trinity
basin.
3-day Annual Agerage Minimum
USGS Gage Trinity River at Rosser#08062500
850
800
750
700
650
600 -
550
500
450 -
400 -
350
300
250 -
200 -
150
100
50
0
1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019
Figure 3. Indicators of Hydraulic Alteration analysis of 3-day minimum flows in the Trinity River
at the USGS Gage 08062500,Trinity River near Rosser,just below the DFW metro area, where
baseflows have increased significantly overtime.
5.2 Water Quality
Water quality has long been an issue in the Trinity River Basin. During A. W. Moore's
reconnaissance of Texas in 1846, he described the Trinity river as a "narrow deep stinky affair
[sic] scarcely worthy the name of river."(Moore, 1927) Just after the turn of the century, water
quality problems intensified when two large slaughterhouses opened in Fort Worth. Their
arrival, coupled with continued growth by the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, made the river
dangerous to public health, with numerous cases of typhoid fever and dead animals near the
river in downtown Dallas. In the Texas State Department of Health's 1924-25 survey, the Trinity
River below Dallas was described as follows:
15
"The flow below Dallas for many miles does not impress one as being that of a
river. A stench from its inky surface putrescent with the oxidizing process to
which the shadows of overarching trees add Stygian blackness and the
suggestion of some mythological river of death. With this burden of filth [sic]
the purifying agencies of the stream are prostrated; it lodges against obstruction
in the stream and rots, becoming hatcheries for mosquitoes and malaria. A thing
of beauty is thus transformed into one of hideous danger" (Texas State
Department of Health, 1925).
In the 1930s, secondary treatment of wastewater began, but water quality continued to remain
poor. Beginning in the 1970's however, advances in wastewater treatment resulted in dramatic
improvements. In 1971, implementation of the Upper Trinity River Basin Comprehensive Sewer
Plan resulted in the elimination of many small, independently operated municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment plants and the adoption of larger, regional systems that were better able
to treat effluent to much higher standards. The following year in 1972, Congress passed the
Clean Water Act (CWA) which established the basic structure for wastewater discharge
permitting and standards. Dissolved oxygen levels increased between 1971 and 1985 and have
held steady at levels that are significantly above the 5 mg/L standard for decades. Total
ammonia nitrogen, which can be harmful to aquatic organisms, has fallen dramatically since
1985 (Figure 4). Between 1972 and 1985, ammonia nitrogen averaged 3.4 mg/L; from 1985 to
present, average ammonia nitrogen levels have held steady averaging 0.16 mg/L.
Overwhelmingly, these water quality improvements are due to the conversion from onsite
septic systems and small, dysfunctional package plants to large, sophisticated regional
wastewater treatment. Anoxic conditions that led to regular fish kills in the Upper Basin during
the 1970s and 80s no longer occur. The water quality in the Upper Basin has improved to such
a level that in 2020, the United States National Park Service recognized the Trinity River
Paddling Trail as a National Recreation Trail. In 2008, the Trinity River, San Jacinto River, and
Galveston Bay Stakeholder Committees and Expert Science Teams, comprised of panels of basin
experts assembled to recommend environmental flow regimes to TCEQ, declared that the
Trinity River system was a sound ecological environment.
16
Total Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L as N) at SH 34 Near Rosser, TX in
Southeast Dallas County
25
20 i
•
z 15
� I
10 • �"
• i
i M •
i i •
5 • • i
ii ••
0
3/8/1972 8/29/1977 2/19/1983 8/11/1988 2/1/1994 7/25/1999 1/14/2005 7/7/2010 12/28/2015
Figure 4. Graph showing decrease in total ammonia nitrogen (mg/L as N) at State Highway 34
near Rosser,Texas in southeast Dallas County. Data source is based on surface grab samples
from the TCEQ Surface Water Quality Database.
While water quality improvements in the Upper Basin over the last 50 years are a success story,
the system as a whole has been significantly modified compared to pre-industrial conditions
and remains heavily affected by a variety of ongoing anthropogenic activities that influence
water quality. These activities include urbanization, changes to hydrology that influence water
quality, agricultural practices, and a variety of point and non-point source pollution, including
pollutants inherently present in effluent-dominated systems that can alter natural water quality
conditions and influence survival, growth, and reproduction of the Covered Species (Chen et al.,
2014). Excessive nutrients or other pollutants common to wastewater effluents can pose a
threat to the Covered Species, though species-specific tolerance limits are largely unknown.
Legacy contamination such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are also present in the river and
may continue to negatively affect ecosystem health for decades.
5.1 Degradation, Loss, and Fragmentation of Habitat
Natural and anthropogenic factors can lead to degradation, loss, or fragmentation of habitat for
the Covered Species. For example, changes to water quantity or quality have the potential to
degrade Covered Species habitat. Sedimentation from runoff and erosion can alter substrate
conditions and lead to degradation of habitat, while inundation by reservoirs or desiccation
during drought conditions can lead to loss of habitat. Fragmentation can occur as Covered
Species populations become separated by dams, drought, or expanses of poor-quality habitat.
Such fragmentation can restrict gene flow and result in genetic isolation of previously
connected populations (BRA and USFWS, 2021).
17
Rivers and streams are a direct reflection of the hydrologic and geologic characteristics of their
watershed which, according to Lane's Balance, directly affects each river's pattern, plan, and
profile (Lane, 1954; Leopold, Wolman and Miller, 1964; Brandt, 2000; Rosgen, 2006). According
to Lane's Balance, if there is change or disturbance of the watershed which changes the flow or
sediment regime, instream changes are inevitable. Changes within a watershed, such as
residential development, deforestation, or other changes to land use or condition, can alter
aquatic ecosystems and lead to degradation or loss of habitat for the Covered Species (Poole
and Downing, 2004).
Alterations to landscapes within watersheds have significantly affected the Trinity River. The
upper basin has experienced significant channel widening and downcutting of the channel bed
due to elevated base flows, prolonged bankfull releases of stored flood waters, trapped
sediment supply in upstream reservoirs, and increases in impervious surfaces (e.g., paved
roads, concrete foundations, etc.). The Middle Basin is subjected to the same flow dynamics as
the upper basin, though they are attenuated as the water moves downstream. In the middle
basin, some agricultural practices like removal of riparian habitat, results in significant bank
erosion and collapse which can cover substrates preferred by mussels and suffocate native
mussels. Erosion and sedimentation are considered a threat to the Covered Species in the
Trinity River Basin.
Riparian area disturbance is a threat to the Covered Species throughout the Trinity River Basin.
Among other benefits, healthy riparian zones can directly impact mussel populations by
reducing nutrient loading, filtering particulates from runoff, reducing velocities during high flow
events, and providing spawning habitat for host fish. There is a direct relationship between the
quality of a river's riparian zone and the status of freshwater mussels and their habitat (Hastie
et al., 2003; Poole and Downing, 2004). Riparian habitat can be affected by urban development
and infrastructure projects, as well as improper agriculture practices like plowing fields up to
the streambank and allowing cattle direct access to streams. Uninhibited access of livestock to
streams destroys the vegetation that protects the banks and degrades water quality.
5.2 Barriers to Dispersal
Dispersal of mussels is dependent on movement of host fish and serves several important
functions such as connecting subpopulations within the occupied range of a species or allowing
a species to move into formerly uninhabited areas (Strayer, 2008). Degradation and loss of
habitat due to anthropogenic actions may lead to large sections of unsuitable mussel habitat,
thus reducing dispersal success (Strayer, 2008). Dams can act as permanent barriers to host fish
movement, and hydroelectric dams may impinge or entrain hosts and result in mortality
(Watters, 1996; Newton et al., 2008; Rytwinski et al., 2017).
The underlying geology of the Middle Trinity may affect host fish migration under certain
circumstances, namely during low and base flow conditions. A portion of the Middle Trinity has
marl outcrops which create small waterfalls and very shallow riffles during base and/or low
flow conditions. Natural physical barriers, such as waterfalls associated with resistant
18
geological formations, are thought to potentially restrict host fish movement and subsequently
affect the structure of mussel communities, although recent genetic diversity studies have
produced conflicting evidence regarding gene flow among certain species of host fish and
unionids (Kelly and Rhymer, 2005; Haponski et al., 2007; Szumowski et al., 2012). Evidence
presented by Watters (1996) suggested that low head dams as small as 1 m high are
problematic for the distribution of host fish, particularly for benthic species such as freshwater
drum. Given the apparent similarity in structure and hydrological function, the geological
outcrops along the Middle Trinity could present similar migratory obstacles. Also located in this
reach are four river locks (Locks 2 through 5), which likely were constructed on similar
geological formations. The existing locks, although continuously left open since construction in
the early 1900s, may be contributing similarly in part as a migratory barrier. Low head dams
are also in the upper basin for grade control in the Fort Worth Floodway and as part of existing
and historical water supply intake structures.
5.3 Direct Mortality and Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
5.3.1 Freshwater Mussels
Historically, the commercial harvesting of freshwater mussels for buttons and the pearl industry
was common (Haag, 2012). In 2010,TRA staff encountered a commercial harvesting boat in the
Middle Basin which was being used to harvest freshwater mussels. TPWD controls commercial
freshwater mussel harvesting permits for Texas; currently there is a moratorium on the
issuance of new permits. The Texas Department of Health and Human Services has issued a
consumption ban on all freshwater mussel species in Texas, though harvesting up to 25 pounds
of whole freshwater mussels per person, per day for recreational fishing bait is legal with a
state fishing license'. The data for commercial and recreation harvesting of freshwater mussels
are not available, but present-day numbers are not believed to be significant (Winemiller et al.,
2010).
With the increase in freshwater mussel-related field work over the last decade, scientific
research itself could pose a threat to the Covered Species. Due to the difficulty in accessing
much of the Trinity River, especially in the Middle Trinity River, many of the known mussel beds
are near public access points. There is concern across the state that research projects could
cause excessive stress on these more accessible animals and result in unintentional take of the
covered mussel species. To mitigate this concern, the Freshwater Mussel Workgroup, chaired
by the USFWS, meets annually to coordinate research efforts. All research implemented as part
of this CCAA will be coordinated with the above-mentioned workgroup or an equivalent multi-
stakeholder group.
4 2021-2022 TPWD fishing regulations.
19
5.3.2 Turtle Species
The commercial and recreational harvest of Alligator Snapping Turtles and Western Chicken
Turtles is illegal in Texas. The exact number of Alligator Snapping Turtles and Western Chicken
Turtles taken as recreational by-catch or during harvest for scientific purposes is unknown, but
the latter is expected to be minimal because a scientific collection permit and annual reporting
is required. Harvest of Alligator Snapping Turtles as by-catch during recreational and
commercial fishing, along with poaching and habitat loss, are believed to be the primary threats
to the species (USFWS SE Region, 2021).
5.3.2.1 Poaching
In 2016, Texas Game Wardens and the USFWS Law Enforcement Office investigated an illegal,
multistate Alligator Snapping Turtle poaching crime which resulted in several federal
convictions. Alligator Snapping Turtles were illegally being taken from Texas and transported to
Louisiana where they were sold primarily for human consumption. Though the full extent of
illegal poaching operations is unknown, it is considered a major threat to the species. A variety
of turtle species are collected legally and illegally in the U.S. as part of the pet trade. The level
to which this activity is affecting Alligator Snapping Turtles or Western Chicken Turtles is
unknown, although anecdotal evidence suggests it is likely impacting these species on some
level, and rare or at-risk species are often highly sought after.
5.3.2.2 Bycatch
Bycatch is the harvest of a non-target species incidental to fishing or recreational activities
intended for other species. Alligator Snapping Turtles are drawn to the same bait that
commercial and recreational anglers use on rod and reel, trot lines, nets, and handlines.
Alligator Snapping Turtles can drown when they become entangled in lines or be killed by
complications encountered when ingesting hooks or line (USFWS 2021a, Enge et al., 2014). By-
catch is believed to be a significant threat for this species.
5.4 Exotic Species
5.4.1 Zebra Mussels
Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), native to the Caspian and Black Sea, are small exotic
freshwater mussels that were brought into the Great Lakes in cargo ship ballast water. The first
zebra mussel infestation in Texas was found in Lake Texoma in 2009. Since then, zebra mussels
have spread to many parts of Texas. According to TPWD, nine of the major reservoirs in the
Trinity River Basin have been designated as either positive or infested for zebra mussels.
Though some minor colonization may occur in lotic systems (i.e., moving water), zebra mussels
have historically reached problematic densities in lentic environments (e.g., lakes). Zebra
mussels compete with native mussels for food and resources. They use bissel threads to attach
to virtually any solid surface, including other mussel species, preventing native mussels from
filter feeding properly and ultimately leading to mortality (Nichols & Wolcox, 1997; Baker&
Levinton, 2003). Zebra mussels are considered a threat to Texas Heelsplitter because both
inhabit lentic systems, such as Lake Grapevine in the Upper basin.
20
6 Covered Area and Conservation Zones
The Covered Area for this agreement includes all existing infrastructure and the operation of
future' infrastructure, fee land and easements, and facilities owned or operated by the Covered
Parties within the Trinity River Basin, as well as the downstream rivers and tributaries where
activities by the Covered Parties may cause take of the Covered Species.
6.1 Conservation Zones and Conservation Priority Areas
To facilitate discussion and resource management practices implemented as part of this
agreement, the basin was delineated into five Conservation Zones based on areas occupied by
the Covered Species, watershed characteristics, geography, and recovery potential (Figure 5).
Within each Conservation Zone, the Covered Parties will work with USFWS and TPWD to
identify potential Conservation Priority Areas (CPAs) in the first year of this agreement.
Designated CPAs will primarily consist of areas that are currently occupied by at least one
Covered Species with a reasonably high potential of either stabilizing the existing population by
reducing threats or increasing the population size through various conservation actions, such as
additional measures to protect water quality or habitat restoration. The Conservation Zones
are described in greater detail below.
5 Coverage for future infrastructure does not include the new construction which will be permitted outside of this
agreement, but the operations of those facilities once constructed are covered.
21
Texas Heelsplitter Range
Trinity Pigtoe Range
TX Fawnsfoot&Heelsplitter co-occur
Texas Fawnsfoot and Trinity Pigtoe co-occur
All above species co-occur
®TIMID Designated Mussel Sanctuary
a HUC_8_TRRASIN
r
_ r -;,;jyscn Co
...-.,,{ I-annmC.o
r
` \y
Le, ' A• Lake,, ��o r;..
�' Grape t�
77
� S
VA '
� •, Rig r r,
r Afriderson
'�\ �• _d � CO �S
- Hnu;ton Cn
4
Cc Trinity Co
l
t
t`Polk Co
Nk�diso!I D
Oklahoma City
0
AR _ s ,k
r:,r_ Lake'Livingston
Dallas t
EI-P-aso -
TEXAS LOU
.Austin
San Antonio Houston -
D l
Chihuahua
Houston
ONAN Esri,HERE,Garmin,
Torreon Monti A.USGS,EPA,ksn,
0 4 uSGS
uliacan
N
0 25 50 Miles
I i I I I
Figure 5. Map of Trinity River Basin Conservation Zones and areas currently occupied by the
Covered Species.
22
6.1.1 Zone A
Zone A is defined as all stream reaches upstream of the major reservoirs in the upper reaches
of the basin. Water in these tributaries is generally dependent on rainfall and these watersheds
are controlled at the downstream end by major dams that form reservoirs (Figure 5). The
major reservoirs in Zone A are primarily flood control and/or water supply reservoirs. As such,
extreme reservoir elevation changes are common and by design. For example, Lake Grapevine,
where Texas heelsplitter(n=2) were detected in 2014 near the headwaters, fluctuated almost
40 feet in a nine-month period in 2015 (Figure 6).
U S GS 080 54500 Grapevine Lk nr Grapevine, TX
`~
L �' 565
y
' 560
y CQ rn 555 1 _
x 550 I.
aLO 545 i
a
L y 540 -
L� 535
L 530 — - — - —F
4 O
0 1 525 I.
J x 520 --
4�
0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018� 2021
2
I
d
Value unavailable.
— Daily nean lake or reservoir water surface elevation above ngvd 1929
— Daily naxinun lake or reservoir water surface elevation above ngvd 1929
— Daily nininun lake or reservoir water surface elevation above ngvd 1929
Daily observation at midnight lake or reservoir water surface elevation a
.. Period of approved data
— Period of provisional data
Figure 6. Daily average reservoir surface elevation on Lake Grapevine between 1989 and 2016.
6.1.2 Zone B
Zone B is defined as highly urbanized with highly modified stream reaches in the DFW area.
Much of the river in this zone is controlled by flood control levees and the water in these
reaches is effluent dominated during low flow periods; the USACE controls flood releases
during periods of high flow. The Trinity Pigtoe is present on the Elm Fork and Mainstem Trinity
River and the Texas Fawnstoot is known to occur on portions of the East Fork Trinity River
(Figure 5).
23
6.1.3 Zone C
Zone C is a rural watershed where freshwater mussels are more common. All four of the
Covered Species of mussels occur in this reach. This Zone exhibits more "natural' riverine
conditions, although it is highly modified hydrologically. Summertime baseflows are generally
over ninety percent WWTP effluent and elevated flows can be dominated by long-term flood
releases from upstream flood control reservoirs. This zone has the highest mussel abundance
of any zone in the Trinity River and quality, occupied habitat is dispersed throughout the zone.
A TPWD designated mussel sanctuary is located at the downstream end of this zone, where
commercial harvest of mussels is prohibited.
6.1.4 Zone D
Zone D is defined as Lake Livingston and the surrounding direct watersheds. This multipurpose
reservoir (e.g., water supply and recreation) is a major water supply for Houston, but does not
serve in a flood control capacity. Lake Livingston regularly fluctuates 5 to 6 feet, as it draws
down during periods of drought, refills during wet periods, and passes through flood waters.
The Texas heelsplitter has been documented in Lake Livingston.
6.1.5 Zone E
Zone E is defined as the Lower Trinity River and the Trinity Pigtoe and Texas Fawnsfoot are
known to occur in this zone. Much of this zone is dominated by large, shifting sandbars. The
low flows in this coastal region are dominated by a constant 1,000 cfs water supply delivery
from Lake Livingston at River Mile 116.5 to the Coastal Water Authority intake a River Mile
30.5, and high flows consist of floodwater pass throughs from Lake Livingston and storm
systems (e.g., hurricanes and tropical storms). Water supply deliveries from Lake Livingston to
Houston are forecasted to increase significantly over the term of this agreement. Inundation of
overbank areas within Zone E is common.
Estimates vary, but Alligator Snapping Turtles are believed to number in the thousands in the
Trinity River Basin. Only 9 Western Chicken Turtles have been documented in the basin, but
surveys are ongoing and the population as a whole is likely larger.
7 Covered Activities
7.1 Conservation Activities
The Covered Parties all have ongoing Conservation Activities which include water quality
monitoring, biological monitoring, riparian and instream data collection, and other activities
which are designed to monitor the health of the ecosystem. These activities are an integral
part of protecting the environment and provide information to federal, state, and local
conservation managers. Although research activities may have short-term impacts, these
efforts will continue and are designed to benefit the Covered Species in the long-term. When
coupled with the additional conservation planned as part of this agreement, these combined
efforts are expected to provide a net benefit over the life of this CCAA that far exceeds any
short-term impacts. Research specific to the Covered Species will utilize methods and sampling
24
techniques designed to follow both USFWS and TPWD guidance, which are intended to
minimize the risk of incidental take.
7.2 Water Supply
Supplying water to meet the needs of millions of residents of the Trinity River Basin is a
complicated and difficult task. The State of Texas completes a State Water Plan every five years
that describes current and future water demand and how it will be met. The State Plan is
assembled by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) based on Regional Water Plans
submitted by 16 Regional Water Planning Districts from across the state. During the timeframe
of this 25-year Agreement, the TWDB expects the Dallas and Houston areas to grow by
approximately 40%, combined. This future demand will actually increase the amount of water
in the river due to increases in consumption for municipal use and corresponding increases in
municipal wastewater return flows to the upper basin.
This CCAA covers water supply operations including the current and future day-to-day tasks of
reservoir gate operations, inspections, maintenance, repairs, cleaning, pumping operations,
emergency repairs, contractually or permitted releases, permitted and future diversions,
current and future water supply imports, and impoundment of water for water supply and
flood control purposes. The Trinity basin will require more water in the future to support a
growing population and nothing in this CCAA precludes the Covered Parties from seeking
additional sources of water.
7.3 Reservoir Operations
Reservoirs in the basin are operated according to each reservoir's Gate Operations Procedures
and specific design specification s6. These engineering documents guide day-to-day operations
and maintenance and must be followed to ensure safe reservoir operations. The seven non-
USACE reservoirs in the Trinity basin that are covered in this CCAA are listed in Table 7-1.
Reservoirs managed by the USACE are not included or covered by this CCAA.
6 If hydropower is produced from a reservoir, then reservoir operations may have additional
procedures and requirements put in place by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC).
25
Table 7-1. Lakes Owned and Operated by the Compact or TRWD
Lake Owner/Operator Dam Location Use*
Bridgeport TRWD Upper West Fork Trinity F, WS, R
Eagle Mountain TRWD Upper West Fork Trinity F, WS, R
Worth Fort Worth Upper West Fork Trinity WS, R
Lake Ray Hubbard Dallas East Fork Trinity WS, R, H
Cedar Creek TRWD Cedar Creek WS, R
Richland TRWD Richland and Chambers WS, R
Chambers Creeks
Livingston TRA Trinity River Mainstem WS, R, H
* F— Flood Control, WS—Water Supply, R— Recreation, H - Hydropower
7.4 Levee, Dams, Bulkheads, Boat Dock, Boat Ramps, and Instream Structures
The Covered Parties are responsible for the routine repair and maintenance of instream
infrastructure (e.g. intakes, outfalls, meters, pipelines, etc.), bulkheads, dams, boat docks, boat
ramps, and levees which require repair and maintenance. Examples of routine repair and
maintenance activities include dredging, mowing, manual clearing of vegetation, stabilizing
disturbed soils, installing temporary erosion control structures (including silt fencing, silt boxes,
earthen berms, etc.), temporary fencing, temporary coffer dams, relocation of existing utilities,
remediation, restoration of disturbed gradients to original contours, temporary placement of
construction materials and structures, and mobilization and demobilization of equipment. This
agreement does not supersede any additional state or federal permitting requirements that
may be required for some of these activities.
7.5 Wastewater Treatment'
The routine operation of permitted water and wastewater treatment plants are covered by this
agreement. Examples of these operations include routine plant and pipeline operations and
maintenance and the discharge of treated effluent. Nothing in this agreement will prevent the
Covered Parties from seeking to expand these operations through the appropriate permitting
processes.
7.6 Pipelines
The Covered Parties own and operate hundreds of miles of pipelines to move treated water,
raw water, and wastewater. Pipeline operations, inspections, repairs, and maintenance
activities are covered by this agreement. This agreement does not supersede any additional
state or federal permitting requirements that may be required for some of these activities.
This section excludes TRWD as they do not operate wastewater treatment plants.
26
7.7 Invasive Aquatic Plant Control
Aquatic invasive plant species like giant salvinia, water hyacinth, and hydrilla are serious threats
to aquatic ecosystems. One effective measure to control these invasive plants is chemical
treatment. These treatments are applied according to state and federal laws, permit, best
management practices, and manufacturers recommendations. Chemical treatment of invasive
plant species will be covered by this agreement.
7.8 Boat Dock and Pier Permitting
The Covered Parties issue permits for construction of boathouses and piers by individual
homeowners and/or businesses on the reservoirs they own and operate through a General
Permit from the USACE. These permits are designed to streamline the permitting process
between the USACE, Covered Parties, and the property owners. Permitting of boat docks and
piers will be covered by this agreement so long as the Covered Parties operate within the
General Permit requirements set forth by the USACE, which included Section 7 consultation
under the ESA when it was issued and every 5 years thereafter when the permit is renewed.
8 Conservation Strategy
8.1 Conservation Strategy for Mussels
Conservation measures that will be implemented as part of this CCAA to benefit the Covered
Species of mussels are based on recommendations from the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation
Society's National Strategy for the Conservation of Native Freshwater Mollusks (FMCS, 2016)
shown in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1. Issues and conservation goals identified in the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation
Society's National Strategy for the Conservation of Native Freshwater Mollusks (FMCS, 2016).
Issues Goals
1. Increase knowledge of the distribution and
Understand the status and trends of
taxonomy of mollusks at multiple scales
mollusk populations to better manage and
over time and make that information
available. conserve.
2. Address the impacts of past, ongoing, and
Minimize threats to mollusks and their
newly emerging stressors on mollusks and
habitats.
their habitats.
3. Understand and conserve the quantity and Increase understanding of physical,
quality of suitable habitat for mollusks over chemical, and biological characteristics of
time. habitat to support sustainable assemblages
of mollusks.
27
Issues Goals
4. Understand the ecology of mollusks at the Increase fundamental knowledge of the
individual, population, and community biology of mollusks so managers can more
levels. effectively conserve them.
5. Restore abundant and diverse mollusk Conserve and restore viable populations
populations until they are self-sustaining. and communities of mollusks.
Improve science-based consideration of the
6. Identify the ecosystem services provided by social and economic values of mollusk
mollusks and their habitats. communities and functioning aquatic
systems.
7. Strengthen advocacy and build support for Increase information sharing and
the conservation of mollusks and their communication among citizens and
habitats.
decision-makers at multiple levels
regarding conserving mollusk resources.
8. Educate and train the conservation
Provide a suite of training opportunities to
community and future generations about
the greater conservation community, and
the importance of mollusks to ensure
inspire future generations to work on the
conservation efforts continue into the
conservation of mollusks.
future.
9. Seek consistent, long-term funding to
Increase funding for mollusk conservation.
support mollusk conservation efforts.
Increase coordination and information
10. Coordinate a national strategy for the sharing among local, state, national, and
conservation of mollusk resources. international partners in conserving
mollusk resources.
8.2 Conservation Strategy for Turtles
The Western Chicken Turtle is a cryptic species and little is known about its actual behavior
throughout the year. Western Chicken Turtles spend extended amounts of time estivating (a
form of dormancy similar to hibernation) in upland areas (McKnight and Day, 2020), making
standard survey methodologies less effective. Rivers and streams are not preferred habitat for
this species, which tends to occupy lentic systems such as ephemeral wetlands, swamps, and
ponds, although oxbows and marginal wetland areas may be utilized to some extent (pers.
com., Brandon Bowers, Texas A&M University).
28
The conservation measures for Covered Species of turtles described in the CCAA are based on
recommendations from resource managers, academic research, and USFWS and TPWD species
experts, relying primarily on the use of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the
threats.
Due to the existing data gaps on basic life history, movement patterns, and areas occupied by
the species, only limited, species-specific conservation measures that address direct impacts
are proposed at this time. However, research is ongoing and future work is planned that may
identify new conservation measures in the future. If and when more refined BMPs are
developed and recommended by the scientific community, the Covered Parties will consider
implementing those BMPs during normal operation and maintenance activities to the extent
they are able to do so while also meeting the needs of their customers, as long as the effort
level fits within the existing framework of this CCAA as described in Table 8-2.
8.3 Overall Avoidance and Minimization Measures
During the term of this CCAA, the Covered Parties will implement the general Avoidance and
Minimization Measures described below. These measures, when implemented along with the
Conservation Measures described in Section 8.4 and within Section 10 Adaptive Management,
reflect a Conservation Strategy that is expected to help maintain existing populations of
Covered Species and help occupied habitats to expand naturally, contributing to a substantial
net conservation benefit for the Covered Species in the Covered Area.
8.3.1 Site-level Disturbances
Where applicable, feasible, and consistent with other regulatory requirements, the Covered
Parties will implement the Covered Activities in a manner that reduces or avoids impacts to the
Covered Species by implementing the measures described below.
1. Prior to initiating any Disturbance associated with a Covered Activity within an
intermittent or perennial watercourse within Zones B, C, or E, mussel surveys and
relocations will be conducted consistent with current USFWS and TPWD protocols
and requirements.
2. Where possible, any Covered Activity or construction projects requiring other Clean
Water Act Section 404 permitting which requires consultation between USACE and
the USFWS will avoid occupied mussel beds in CPAs.
3. During any site-level Disturbance activities, standard erosion and sediment control
measures that are consistent with any state or local requirements and tailored to
each site will be implemented, maintained, and regularly inspected to minimize the
amount of sediment entering any watercourse within the Covered Area.
4. Within Zones B, C, and E, the area of new Disturbance within a streambed will be
minimized as much as feasible.
5. Vegetation clearing within riparian zones as part of a Covered Activity will be
minimized as much as feasible.
29
6. Temporary coffer dams will be made of nontoxic materials.
7. Streambanks,vegetation, and streambeds and all temporary work areas will be
restored after completing any construction that is a Covered Activity to pre-existing
conditions or better.
8. If Covered Species of mussels are present in areas that will be disturbed, relocation
of freshwater mussels will follow TPWD and USFWS protocols outlined in their
Aquatic Resource Relocation Plan.
8.4 Conservation Measures and Monitoring
In addition to the Overall Avoidance and Minimization Measures discussed in Section 8.3, the
Covered Parties will implement the following Conservation Measures, summarized in Table 8-2,
which are designed to protect and improve habitat, maintain environmental flows, and support
field investigations which inform conservation activities and the global scientific knowledge of
the species, thus providing an overall net conservation benefit to the Covered Species and their
habitats. Collectively, these measures represent a commitment by the Covered Parties to work
in partnership with the USFWS and TPWD to provide a net conservation benefit to the Covered
Species over the life of the agreement. During the timeframe of this agreement, if Reasonable
Risk Minimization Measures (RRMMs) are identified within CPAs, the Covered Parties will
consider adjusting operational procedures to benefit the Covered Species, to the extent they
are able to do so while also meeting the requirements of their charter, contracts, permits, and
customers. RRMMs are defined as measures that can be expected to benefit the Covered
Species that are within the Covered Parties direct control, and implementation of those RRMMs
is at a level of effort commensurate with the financial commitments described in Table 8-2.
Implementation of RRMMs will be done in consultation with the USFWS and TPWD, but the
decision to implement RRMMs is at the sole discretion of the Covered Parties.
8.4.1 Eradication and Control Measures to Address Invasive Aquatic Plants
Invasive aquatic vegetation like Giant Salvinia (Salvinia molesta), Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillate),
and Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) can cause water quality and habitat degradation by
outgrowing and replacing native plants that provide food and habitat for the Covered Species of
turtles and host fish for the Covered Species of mussels. The Covered Parties use a variety of
methods, including the application of approved herbicides, to control and eradicate these
aquatic plants. The Covered Parties commit to continue funding eradication and control
measures to address invasive aquatic plants in the Covered Parties infested reservoirs during
the timeframe of this agreement at a level of effort of$20,000 per year, $500,000 for the 25-
year term of the agreement.
30
Table 8-2. Table summarizing the Conservation Measures.
Threat Category Conservation Measure Threats Addressed Zones
Altered Hydrology Mainstem Environmental Flows Dewatering All
Protections
Scour, streambank failures,and
Stream Restoration Activities B, C, E
sedimentation
USGS Flow and Water Quality
Dewatering, scientific data gaps All
Monitoring
Hydraulic and Hydrologic
Scientific data gaps B,C
Monitoring
Water Quality WWTP Effluent Discharge Limits Toxicity B, C
Caged mussel studies Scientific data gaps B, C
Long-term Monitoring for Scientific data gaps and feedback
Mussels for adaptive management B, C, E
Modeling Scientific data gaps B, C
Instream Water Quality Toxicity, scientific data gaps, B C
Monitoring habitat degradation
Degradation, Loss, Instream Flow Protections
Avoid and Minimize Site- Dewatering,temperature limits B, C, D, E
Fragmentation of Habitat Disturbance of Occupied Habitat
Direct Mortality,
Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Public Education and Outreach Bycatch, poaching All
Scientific,or Educational
Purposes
Signage and Online Public
Bycatch, poaching All
Reporting Tool
Exotic Species Zebra Mussel Monitoring Direct mortality, habitat All
degradation
Invasive Aquatic Plant Habitat degradation A, B, C, D
Eradication
Use adaptive management to Allows for new threats to be
implement voluntary managed as they are identified
ALL Reasonable Risk Minimization by evolving science through All
Measures implementation of additional
conservation
31
8.4.2 Measures to Address Altered Hydrology
8.4.2.1 Environmental Flows Protection
As discussed in Section 5.1, dewatering is not considered a threat within the timeframe of this
agreement (TRA, 2017). The Covered Parties will continue to support TCEQ's instream flow
requirements and continue environmental flow research. Texas Senate Bill (SB) 2 (2001) tasked
TPWD,TCEQ, and TWDB jointly to "establish and continuously maintain an instream flow data
collection and evaluation program ... [and] conduct studies and analyses to determine
appropriate methodologies for determining flow conditions in the state rivers and streams
necessary to support a sound ecological environment (TWDB, 2021)." SB3 (2007) is an ongoing
process designed to study instream and bay inflow requirements that are needed to sustain a
sound ecological environment, identify strategies to ensure this water is set aside for the
environment, and balance the ecological and human needs for water(TWDB, 2021). While the
SB2 report is still in progress for the Trinity basin, the initial SB3 process was completed in 2010
with environmental baseflow standards adopted by TCEQ in 2011 and codified into the state's
Water Availability Model (WAM) (Table 8-3).
All water rights issued after adoption of these standards must satisfy these flow values before a
permit is issued and contain specific limitations on how and when water may be diverted. No
further water supply projects may diminish in-stream flows below those deemed necessary to
maintain a sound ecological environment. Currently, the Covered Parties serve in one position
on the Basin and Bay Stakeholder Committee (BBASC) and two positions on the Basin and Bay
Expert Science Team (BBEST) and actively coordinate with the Texas Instream Flow Program$
(TIFP) on in-stream environmental flow validation studies. The Covered Parties commit to
ensuring that models and modeling results are provided to the BBASC and BBEST to inform the
adaptive management phases of SB3. The Covered Parties will continue to support
environmental flow requirements codified by the TCEQ9 and incorporated into the WAM. The
Covered Parties will also continue to work on environmental flow projects and research in
conjunction with the BBASC and BBEST.
Additionally, the Covered Parties, excluding TRWD which has no wastewater operations,
commit to continuing the decades-old agreement which requires that at least 30%of all in-
basin wastewater return flows be allowed to flow downstream to Lake Livingston, thus keeping
the channel wetted and protecting TRA and the City of Houston's water rights. Additionally,
TRA commits to continuing the voluntary releases from Lake Livingston as described in Section
8.4.4.1. These environmental flow efforts directly benefit the Covered Species by providing
water to a system that would otherwise be dry during periods of low rainfall due to changes to
the natural hydrology over the latter half of the 20' century.
8 The Texas Instream Flow Program is made up of the Texas Water Development Board,Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and is designed to study environmental flows
in a holistic manner.
9 The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is the entity in charge of water rights permitting in Texas.
32
Table 8-3. Table showing the seasonal SB3 Environmental Baseflow Standards codified into the
TCEQ Water Availability Model (TRA, 2017).
USGS Gage 08049500 USGS Gage 08057000 USGS Gage 08065000 USGS Gage 08066500
West Fork Trinity Trinity River at Dallas,
Trinity River near Trinity River at
River at Grand Prairie, TX Oakwood Romayor, TX
TX
Conservation Conservation Conservation Conservation
Zone B Zone B Zone C Zone E
SB3
Base 45 45 35 35 50 70 40 50 340 450 250 260 875 1150 1159 230
Flow
(cfs)
L L L L
L W L L W L W
C L (6 C L f6 C L f6 C L (6
(D Q n Q Q
V Ln � Ln m § L
V) Ln V) Ln
8.4.2.2 Restoration Activities
Stream and streambank restoration projects, riparian habitat protection and restoration, and
upland BMPs can improve both the quality and quantity of habitat available for the Covered
Species. While the Covered Parties have no permitting or regulatory authority and only own a
de minimis amount of property along the Trinity River, the Covered Parties commit to working
with stakeholders and state and federal agencies to identify locations and funding
opportunities for restoration projects and BMP implementation in CPAs. The Covered Parties
commit to a level of funding effort of$450,000 ($10,000 per year for the first five years of the
project, then $100,000 every 5 years thereafter) for the 25-year term of this CCAA. These funds
may be used to directly support restoration activities or reduce threats to benefit Covered
Species, or they may be used as matching funding in support of applications for natural
resource grants (i.e., used as leverage to garner additional external funding for restoration).
The Covered Parties have a long track record of partnership and cooperation with federal and
state agencies, and they have successfully completed, or are currently working on, Clean Water
Act Section 319(h) Watershed Protection Plans in Zones B and C, which require intensive
cooperation with the public and landowners. The restoration activities associated with these
Watershed Protection Plans could directly benefit the Covered Species by stabilizing habitat
and improving water quality.
Natural channel design is a field of engineering which incorporates natural stream
characteristics into instream construction projects. For example, TRA recently completed a
streambank stabilization project in Zone B which incorporated the use of underwater timber to
provide habitat for fish, planted native vegetation to stabilize the bank, and sloped the bank to
33
decrease shear stress. While new construction is outside of this agreement, the Covered
Parties commit to considering incorporating natural channel design elements during
construction projects permitted under Section 7 of the ESA whenever feasible, which could
prevent erosion of instream mussel habitat, provide refugia for mussel host fish during
spawning season, and provide habitat for the turtles covered by the CCAA.
8.4.2.3 USGS Flow and Water Quality Monitoring
The Covered Parties will continue to fund near real-time USGS stream gages throughout the
Trinity River Basin. Currently, the Covered Parties sponsor all or part of more than 27 real-time
stream discharge gages which provide valuable baseline flow data used extensively during
mussel research projects (among other uses), investing over$500,000 annually to collect these
data. In addition, at several of these stations the USGS collects automated, near real-time
water quality measurements for parameters like total suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, pH,
and specific conductance. The Covered Parties anticipate that this level of USGS gage support
will continue through the term of this agreement, however, should a reduction in funding occur
in the future, the Covered Parties commit to maintaining at least 50% of the funding needed to
continue this effort throughout the term of this agreement. Gages provide several benefits to
the Covered Species by allowing monitoring and early detection of conditions that may be
problematic to the Covered Species. For instance, flow data would alert the Covered Parties if
areas within the system are at risk of dewatering. The gages also provide data to calibrate
models and study trends in water quality and quantity through time, allowing researchers and
water managers both inside and outside of this CCAA to better understand threats to the
Covered Species and refine conservation strategies accordingly.
8.4.2.4 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Modeling
One of the questions surrounding the tolerance limits of the Covered Species of mussels is
shear stress. Shear stress is that force which is applied to the bed and banks of a river system.
When shear and the sediment are in equilibrium, the channel is stable. When shear is too high,
or too low, the river will degrade and dislodge mussels, or aggrade and potentially smother
mussels, respectively. Hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H), water availability, overland runoff,
habitat, and sediment transport modeling can be important components of environmental
studies and help resource managers better understand the tolerance ranges for mussels. These
models can also provide a tool that can help prioritize areas of the system for potential mussel
recolonization efforts.
To determine the correct model, or suite of models, the Covered Parties will work with the
USFWS, TPWD, and other stakeholders to design a modeling project within the level of effort
budgeted for this task($70,000 in the first three years of the project) that can best address the
current data gaps for shear tolerances for mussels in all or portions of Conservation Zones B
and C. The Covered Parties and USFWS will consider the results of the model to identify and
prioritize potential recolonization efforts for mussels in the Trinity River Basin. If USFWS,
TPWD, or the Covered Parties identify significant negative H&H trends within CPAs that are
34
expected to cause harm to the Covered Species, and those threats are within the control of the
Covered Parties or can be influenced by their actions, the Covered Parties will review their
operations to determine if RRMMs can be made to improve the water quality conditions.
8.4.3 Measures to Address Water Quality
8.4.3.1 Caged mussel studies
Caged mussel studies are a form of in-situ biological monitoring where live adult or juvenile
mussels are placed in cages at specific steam sites to assess whether ambient conditions
facilitate mussel growth and survival. This tool can be helpful in distinguishing if, and when,
water quality or water quantity conditions in specific stream reaches may be limiting for
mussels. This information can not only be used to determine if a site is appropriate to sustain a
mussel population or re-introduce a new population, but overtime it can help increase our
understanding of forces at play across the range of the species that may be impacting mussel
viability. Caged mussel studies will be planned in coordination with stakeholders, USFWS, and
TPWD, and will be completed at a minimum of two sites in Reach B and two sites in Zone C
within the first five years of this agreement implementation with a level of effort of$100,000.
8.4.3.2 Long-term Monitoring for Mussels
Long-term monitoring for the Covered Species of mussels are an important feedback loop on
the status and trends of mussel populations in the basin over time. Long-term monitoring at
four sites within Zones B, C, and/or E will take place where the species are known to occur.
Long-term monitoring will be closely coordinated with USFWS and TPWD using standard
methods designed to avoid harming sensitive populations. Means and methods for these
studies will be decided within the first year of the plan and monitoring will continue at an effort
level of$50,000 every two years. These efforts may inform any potential USFWS and TPWD
future relocation efforts, as well as help researchers understand population trends within the
Trinity River Basin. Monitoring funded by the Covered Parties will be coordinated with other
entities engaged in monitoring in the basin to reduce redundancy of effort, conserve funding,
and minimize survey related stress to the mussels.
8.4.3.3 Water Quality Modeling
Water quality models can predict system responses based on flow, weather, local inputs, and
upstream water quality boundary conditions. In-turn, these modes can be used to run future
condition scenarios and better understand potential system responses.
The Covered Parties will work with the USFWS,TPWD, and other stakeholders to create a water
quality model project within the level of effort budgeted for this task($50,000 in the first two
years of the project) that can be used to better understand the expected water quality
responses from up to three potential future flow conditions in all or portions of Conservation
Zones B, C, and E10. The predicted responses can be used to inform possible protective
measures implemented by the Covered Parties or by the USFWS and TPWD for recolonization
10 TRA has recently competed a Water Quality model for temperature and dissolved oxygen in Zone C under
contract for the Texas Water Development Board.
35
efforts. The water quality model, used in conjunction with information from the silo studies,
will help inform our understanding of freshwater mussel population tolerances, which will
assist conservation managers throughout the state of Texas.
8.4.3.4 Instream Water Quality Monitoring
Protecting water quality for the benefit of people and the environment is viewed as a high
priority and is a mutual goal of the Covered Parties and the USFWS. The Covered Parties all
complete ambient water quality monitoring throughout their service area, but each also
voluntarily participates in the Texas Clean Rivers Program (CRP), which has been administered
in the Trinity River Basin by TRA under a grant from the TCEQ since 1991. The TRA CRP is
responsible for maintaining an instream water quality sampling program throughout the basin
through in-house stream sampling and data management for a network of partners that
voluntarily submit their data to the program. The benefit of the CRP program is that all data,
regardless of the collection entity, is collected with standard methods and under a Quality
Assurance Project Plan.
The TRA CRP is responsible for submitting quality assured data to the Statewide Surface Water
Quality Monitoring Information System (SWAMIS), which is used to inform biannual statewide
water quality assessments, discharge permitting, and scientific investigations of all types, to
include ongoing studies for the Covered Species. TRA's CRP has built an extensive network of
over 250 monitoring stations, and since 1991, has been responsible for over 39,000 unique
sampling events and 604,400 individual parameter results that have been added to the
SWAMIS database. Additionally,TRA completes a minimum of two biological sampling events
per year, 24-hour data sonde deployments (water quality probes), and targeted water quality
special studies"
Grant funding for this program is provided by TCEQ on a two-year rotating contract period and
is in excess of$700,000. This program is very important to water quality permitting operations
at TCEQ and funding is expected to continue through the term of this agreement. Should TCEQ
discontinue funding the CRP during the term of the agreement, the Covered Parties are
committed to continuing water quality monitoring and reporting for the Trinity basin to the
mutual benefit of the Covered Parties and the Covered Species at a level of effort not less than
$350,000 for each two-year period. The guaranteed continuation of this water quality
monitoring project will benefit all of the Covered Species by ensuring the continued collection
of data that support a water quality trend assessment every five years, the results of which
could help identify potential future threats to the Covered Species. If USFWS, TPWD, or the
Covered Parties identify significant negative water quality trends within CPAs that are expected
to cause harm to the Covered Species, and those threats are within the control of the Covered
Parties or can be influenced by their actions, the Covered Parties will review their operations to
determine if RRMMs can be made to improve the water quality conditions. Should USFWS and
11 A full review of TRA's CRP is outside the scope of this CCAA. Detailed information can be found at TRA's CRP
program website.
36
TPWD determine that negative water quality trends in the reaches described above are not
expected to improve and the animals may be better off being relocated to a less impacted area,
the Covered Parties will assist USFWS and TPWD with the relocation efforts.
8.4.4 Measures to Address Degradation, Loss, Fragmentation of Habitat
8.4.4.1 Instream Flow Protections in Zone E
TRA owns and operates Lake Livingston, a large multipurpose reservoir in the middle Trinity
River Basin. In order to protect instream flows and water rights in Lake Livingston, the Covered
Parties are committed to continuing to let 30% of in-basin generated effluent discharged from
all TRA owned wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in the upper basin to pass downstream
to Lake Livingston. Additionally,TRA is committed to continuing an existing agreement with
TPWD to release 250 cfs from Lake Livingston for environmental flows12. Furthermore, TRA
commits to providing an additional 500 cfs (7-day average) of flow between the Lake Livingston
dam (River Mile 116.5) and the Coastal Water Authority canal (River Mile 30) which will ensure
that the channel is wet during drought. If instream flows are negatively impacting a CPA
occupied by a Covered Species, and those flows are determined to be outside the tolerance
limits of the Covered Species, TRA will work with the USFWS, TPWD, and other partners to find
solutions to reduce the threat, so long as those actions are not detrimental to the operations of
the Covered Parties or their customers.
8.4.5 Measures to Address Direct Mortality, Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
8.4.5.1 Public Education and Outreach
The Covered Parties all currently participate in public outreach and education efforts
throughout their respective jurisdictions. Each entity will increase the awareness of the
Covered Species by adding species-specific information to existing conservation messaging,
materials, and curriculum. Topics to be covered in the messaging will include: general
awareness and life-cycle needs, ecosystem services, threats to persistence, poaching
awareness, water quality, water conservation, and riparian restoration.
The TRA, NTMWD, and TRWD recently started an Alligator Snapping Turtle signage project at
several reservoirs in the Trinity basin. This signage is designed to educate the public about the
protected status of Alligator Snapping Turtles and includes a method of citizen-based science
for reporting illegal activity or sightings of this imperiled turtle by submitting an image along
with location information. The first six months of this project have proved successful and the
program is currently being expanded to other river access points and reservoirs. Additionally, a
new crowd sourced ArcGIS Online map reporting tool was developed and deployed on TRA's
website.
12 Due to water supply contracts,the release from Lake Livingston is not expected to go below 1,000 cfs for the
period of this CCAA.
37
These efforts are designed to provide a net conservation benefit to the Covered Species by
increasing our understanding or where the species occurs, reducing threats posed by willful,
negligent or unintended actions that may harm the species, and increasing public awareness.
The Covered Parties commit to a level of effort for this task of at least $5,000 per year for the
next 25 years for signage, labor, and materials.
8.4.5.2 Reintroduction of Mussels
Should the USFWS and TPWD authorize the reintroduction of the Covered Species of
freshwater mussels in the Covered Area, the Authority will work the appropriate agency to
facilitate reintroduction efforts within CPAs. The Covered Parties commit to in-kind (labor and
materials) support for these efforts. The in-kind assistance may include mapping, field
assistance, landowner coordination, site selection assistance, and bathymetric and topographic
surveying.
8.4.5.3 Reintroduction of Turtles
Should the USFWS and TPWD locate individuals of the Covered Species of turtles that were
removed from the Trinity River Basin, or that are available to be introduced to the basin to
augment existing populations,TRA will work the appropriate agency to facilitate reintroduction
efforts. The Covered Parties commit to in-kind (labor and materials) support for these efforts.
The in-kind assistance may include, mapping, field assistance, landowner coordination, site
selection assistance, and bathymetric and topographic surveying.
8.4.6 Measures to Address Exotic Species
8.4.6.1 Zebra Mussel Monitoring
Eleven reservoirs in the covered area are impacted to some level by zebra mussels. The
Covered Parties commit to continue funding zebra mussel monitoring programs throughout the
Covered Area during the timeframe of this agreement at a level of effort of$40,000 per year,
$1,000,000 for the 25-year term of the agreement. The Covered Parties currently contract with
the USGS to monitor for veligers, eDNA, and adult zebra mussels at multiple reservoirs, stream
sites, and transfer pipelines within the covered area. This monitoring is an early warning
system for unimpacted sites and long-term monitoring for impacted sites; the data feeds into
TPWD's Zebra Mussel Lake Status Assessment. Should TPWD and USFWS identify means and
methods that could eradicate zebra mussels, the Covered Parties will provide in-kind (labor and
materials) assistance.
Although zebra mussels have not been identified as a significant threat to the Covered Species,
they are highly invasive and can quickly become established in waterbodies, particularly lentic
systems, and may directly or indirectly threaten ecosystems that support the Covered Species
in ways not fully understood at this time. Continued monitoring by the Covered Parties will
improve the understanding of potential impacts from zebra mussels and other invasive species
and help inform adaptive management over the life of the agreement.
38
9 Implementation Timeline
The Covered Parties commit to the implementation and funding of the Conservation Measures
described above in Section 8.4 on the timeline set forth below in Table 9-1. TRA will meet with
USFWS (and TPWD if they desire) on an annual basis, or more frequently if requested, to
discuss the Conservation Measures that were implemented the prior year.This meeting will
also be used to discuss planned activities for the coming year and to adjust the implementation
schedule as needed based upon monitoring results, Adaptive Management review, and any
input regarding timing, scoping, and prioritization of the Conservation Measures in Section 8.4.
The total estimated cost to the Covered Parties for implementing this CCAA is estimated to be
$24,420,000. Additionally, TRA commits to actively pursue federal, state, and private grant
funds in order to maximize and augment, to extent possible, the Conservation Measures
identified in Section 8.4. The USFWS commits to assisting the TRA in acquiring grant funds
whenever possible.
39
S
-
/ , R R R \
\\\_ \
!±}
-
\ ! -$
52« ;tl :! ! 7lZ = =
)
Z; } �
\{: 3:2 ): ;!! Z2 2 - - -
\ ! `
e /:2; Z
10 Adaptive Management
10.1 Strategy
Adaptive Management relies on an iterative cycle of monitoring, assessment, and decision
making to clarify the relationships between the conservation measures being implemented and
the response of habitat and, ultimately, the Covered Species themselves as indicated by their
general health and abundance. This CCAA will incorporate adaptive manage on two time
horizons designed to provide an annual, tactical review of the specific Conservation Measures
and a 5-year, more in-depth strategic review of the program as a whole. TRA will work with
USFWS and TPWD to implement adaptive management strategies as needed that are within the
effort level described in Table 8-2; any increases needed beyond the overall level of effort
agreed to in this CCAA will be voluntary and at the sole discretion of the Covered Parties.
Because Adaptive Management is designed to incorporate and act on information that
currently does not exist, this section provides only examples of the Adaptive Management
options that may be considered or implemented.
Annually, within one month of the TRA's submittal of an annual CCAA Highlights Report
(Section 14.1), TRA will meet with USFWS and TPWD to discuss the results of the previous
year's projects and lessons learned. Every 5 years, within one month of the TRA's submittal of a
5-year CCAA Summary Report (Section 14.2),TRA will meet with USFWS and TPWD to review
the conservation measures at a strategic level to ensure that the overall goals of the project are
being met, are still relevant, and are being accomplished as efficiently as possible. A conceptual
diagram for the Adaptive Management strategy is shown in Figure 7.
41
Table 10-1. Table describing potential Adaptive Management considerations for the annual and
5-year timeframes.
Conservation Measure Tasks
Potential Annual Adaptive Management Potential 5-Year Adaptive Management
Considerations Considerations
Are existing avoidance and minimization
measures working and have new
avoidance and minimization opportunities
Overall Avoidance and been developed that should be
Minimization implemented?
Site-level If Covered Species are being harmed,
Disturbances consider the creation of new BMPs.
Should funds and efforts be shifted from
research to restoration in the next 5-yr
CCAA Summary Review timeframe?
If flows are being reduced more than
expected and are approaching the
Environmental Environmental Flow subsistence flows,
Flows Protection bring the matter to the BBASC for
consideration.
Evaluate and quantify effectiveness of
restoration in terms of number of
Altered Hydrology Restoration Do outreach methods need to be adjusted landowners contacted,number of acres
Activities to get more landowner support?
where BMPs have been implemented,or
acres/river miles restored.
USGS Flow and Do sites need to be added,removed(and Evaluate flow data to identify if tolerances
Water Quality resources allotted to other tasks),or of Covered Species are being exceeded in
Monitoring adjusted? occupied areas,and if so,what can be
done to reduce threat.
Hydraulic and Do models need to be refined,or are there
Hydrologic new areas that should be studied? Did
Modeling models provide actionable information?
As a whole,are the funds allotted for
Water Quality efforts being well utilized
and are conditions stable? If not,should
efforts be shifted to another Conservation
priority or should strategy be changed?
Evaluate water quality data to identify if
tolerances of Covered Species are being
exceeded in occupied areas,and if so,
what can be done to reduce threat.
Caged mussel Are the sites installed correctly and Are caged studies producing actionable
Water Quality studies operating as required? information? Does this work need to
continue?
Long-term Does the frequency of sampling need Evaluate the overall status and trends of
Monitoring for adjustment? Are there better methods mussel populations in the basin. Are
Mussels than current sampling approach? conservation measures stabilizing or
improving conditions?
Water Quality Do models need to be refined,or are there
Modeling new areas that should be studied? Did
they provide actionable information?
Instream Water Do the sites and parameters need to be
Quality adjusted?
Monitoring
Have the initial conditions changed from
when the project started?Are there new
Degradation,Loss, opportunities to improve habitat?
Fragmentation of Habitat Review of the USGS gage data to
Instream Flow determine if targets were met. Have there
Protections
been significant operational changes in
water supply and wastewater operations
in the basin?
42
Conservation Measure Tasks
Potential Annual Adaptive Management Potential 5-Year Adaptive Management
Considerations Considerations
Are new technologies and methods
available to satisfy this goal without direct
contact with the Covered Species?
Direct Mortality,
Overutilization for
Commercial, Public Education Are efforts maximized and does the
Recreational,Scientific, and Outreach message need to be adjusted?
or Educational Purposes
Reintroduction of Is there a need and are there new
Mussels opportunities to reintroduce mussels?
Reintroduction of Is there a need and are there new
Turtles opportunities to reintroduce turtles?
Are there new exotic species to consider
or new eradication technologies available?
Exotic Species
Are there new infestations,or can funds
Zebra Mussel be shifted to new areas for sampling as
Monitoring zebra mussels spread through Texas
reservoirs?
43
Outreach, Research,
and Planning Reconnaissance
rAfter-Action Review Funding
prioritization
Optimization
CCAA summary Report
- CCAA Highlight Report
Year Year
5 1 Protect
Reporting 71 Implementation
Data
Analysis/Modeling Year Year Data Collection
CCAA HighlightRepart 4 2 1
CCAA Highlight Report
Year
3
Data Collection; [7ata Collectlo
corrt: cant.
CCAA Highlight Report
Figure 7. Adaptive Management conceptual diagram.
11 Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances
In the case of changed or unforeseen circumstances, assurances listed in this document apply
to the Covered Parties when the CCAA is being properly implemented.
USFWS regulations define Changed Circumstances as "changes in circumstances affecting a
species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that can reasonably be anticipated
by plan developers and the [USFWS] and that can be planned for (e.g., the listing of new
species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events)" (50 CFR
§17.3).
"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 and the [USFWS] at the time of the conservation plan's development, and that
result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species." (50 CFR §17.3)
Changed Circumstances provided for in this CCAA. If additional Conservation Measures or
Avoidance and Minimization Measures are necessary to respond to Changed Circumstances and
the measures were set forth in this CCAA, the Covered Parties will implement the measures
specified herein and remain eligible for the regulatory assurances provided herein.
44
Changed Circumstances not provided for in this CCAA. If additional Conservation Measures or
Avoidance and Minimization Measures not provided for in the CCAA are necessary to respond
to Changed Circumstances, USFWS will not require any Conservation Measures or Avoidance
and Minimization Measures for the Covered Species.
11.1 Changed Circumstances
The Covered Parties identify the following Changed Circumstances that may occur over the
term of the CCAA and the responsive actions the Covered Parties will implement to address
each Changed Circumstance. Changed Circumstances require written acknowledgement by TRA
and USFWS to trigger the responses prescribed below.
11.1.1 New Listing or Critical Habitat Designation within the Covered Area
USFWS occasionally adds new species to the federal list of threatened and endangered species
or designates new or revised areas of critical habitat associated with listed species. This
Changed Circumstance will have occurred when USFWS publishes a Proposed Rule in the
Federal Register that would create a new listed freshwater mussel or other aquatic species that
occurs within the Covered Area or that creates or expands areas of critical habitat for Covered
Species or such newly proposed species within the Covered Area. USFWS will notify TRA of the
occurrence of this Changed Circumstance.
Within 120 days of notification, the Covered Parties will evaluate the Covered Activities within
the Conservation Zones and its Conservation Measures or Avoidance and Minimization
Measures to assess the Covered Parties' potential impact on the newly proposed species or
critical habitat designation and whether the existing Conservation Measures and Avoidance and
Minimization Measures and zones adequately address the new species. With this assessment,
TRA will also notify USFWS if it intends to seek an amendment (following the process in Section
15.9) to address the new proposed species or new proposed critical habitat. USFWS may
provide technical guidance to the Covered Parties as it considers whether an amendment is
warranted. Regardless of this Changed Circumstance, TRA reserves the discretion to seek an
amendment to add a Covered Species or add conservation or avoidance and minimization
measures that avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat to the CCAA,
Enhancement of Survival Permit, and related documents. Any amendment will be focused
solely on new conservation measures and avoidance and minimization measures or revisions to
existing Conservation Measures and Avoidance and Minimization Measures to specifically
address the new species or critical habitat and will not affect any other Conservation Measures
or Avoidance and Minimization Measures or Conservation Zones that are not affected by the
new species or critical habitat. For new critical habitat, TRA will seek amendments to update
the zones to include such critical habitat.
11.1.2 Adding a Covered Species
TRA may seek to amend the CCAA, Enhancement of Survival Permit, and related documents to
add new species to the list of Covered Species, either because of the Changed Circumstance or
45
for other reasons. A notice from TRA to USFWS indicating the intent to seek such an
amendment will trigger this Changed Circumstance. Under this Changed Circumstance, TRA,
and USFWS agree to streamline the addition of new Covered Species by adopting, to the
maximum extent practicable, the metrics for estimating take and basics of the Conservation
Strategy already specified in the CCAA for species that use similar ecological niches.
11.1.3 Louisiana Pigtoe Re-discovered in the Trinity Basin
The Louisiana Pigtoe is believed extirpated from the Trinity River basin, however, should the
species be re-discovered within the basin, individuals could be similarly affected by the Covered
Activities. If this Changed Circumstance occurs, TRA will coordinate with USFWS to change the
CCAA, Enhancement of Survival Permit, and related documents using one or more of the
processes in Section 15, as appropriate, to update the Conservation Zones and CPAs, adjust
assessment of potential impacts, and clarify how Conservation Measures and Avoidance and
Minimization Measures already in place address the needs of Louisiana Pigtoe because the
Conservation Measures were designed to incorporate protections for this species.
Should the USFWS and TPWD decide that Louisiana Pigtoe should be reintroduced, TRA will
provide in-kind (labor and materials) support for these efforts. The in-kind assistance may
include, mapping, field assistance, landowner coordination, site selection assistance, and
bathymetric and topographic surveying.
11.1.4 New Science on the Impacts of WWTP Effluent to the Covered Species
Municipal wastewater effluents are dynamic and complex mixtures that may contain a variety
of constituents that are potentially harmful to aquatic organisms. The effects of effluents on
fish, freshwater mussels, and other aquatic dependent biota is an area of interest to the USFWS
and Covered Parties, and is an area of focused research by academia, state, and federal
researchers. The information in this CCAA is based on the potential effects of municipal
effluents to the Covered Species based on our current understanding and best available
information. Over the 25-year agreement, new science may become available indicating
impacts to Covered Species are likely occurring at levels not considered during the
development of this CCAA. In fact, a component of this agreement includes a partnership
between the Covered Parties and the USFWS to conduct in-situ silo studies to better
understand the potential impacts of municipal effluents on mussel growth and survival. As
stated previously in the agreement, if new information comes to light that indicates a Covered
Species is being impacted by a constituent found in wastewater effluents at levels not
previously considered, whether that information is generated by studies covered by this
agreement or by new information from the broader scientific community, the Covered Parties
agree to work with the USFWS and other stakeholders to explore what, if any, actions within
their control can be taken to reduce the newly identified threat. These actions, if implemented,
would be equivalent to the RRMMS described in Section 8.4 of this agreement. The Covered
Parties agree to discuss the new science with USFWS, TPWD, and other interested stakeholders,
and will consider adjusting operational procedures to benefit the Covered Species, to the
46
extent they are able to do so while also meeting the requirements of their charter, contracts,
permits, and customers.
11.1.5 Delisting of a Covered Species
USFWS may delist a listed Covered Species during the CCAA Term due to recovery, extinction,
or error. This Changed Circumstance will have occurred when USFWS publishes a Final Rule in
the Federal Register that delists a Covered Species. USFWS will notify TRA of the occurrence of
this Changed Circumstance.
In response to this Changed Circumstance, USFWS agrees that TRA may, in its discretion, amend
the CCAA and related documents to remove the delisted species from the list of Covered
Species and strike some or all the provisions of these documents that pertain to the delisted
species. USFWS rationale for delisting, as published in the Final Rule, will determine the extent
to which the Covered Parties may retire its obligations related to the delisted species through
this Changed Circumstance:
• In all delisting cases,TRA may, at its discretion, amend the CCAA, Enhancement of
Survival Permit, and related documents to remove obligations to address the
delisted species for Covered Activities.
• In the case of delisting due to recovery, where the Covered Parties previously
completed Conservation Measures and Avoidance and Minimization Measures
contributed to the delisting decision, the Covered Parties will not be relieved of any
obligations under this CCAA related to those previously completed Conservation
Measures and Avoidance and Minimization Measures actions without USFWS's
expressed consent. This commitment applies only to Conservation Measures and
Avoidance and Minimization Measures directly implemented by the Covered Parties.
• In the case of delisting due to error or extinction, the USFWS will no longer require
the Covered Parties to maintain any Conservation Measures or Avoidance and
Minimization Measures established specifically for the delisted species directly
implemented by the Covered Parties.
The Covered Parties and USFWS agree that changes to the CCAA, Enhancement of Survival
Permit, and related documents that pertain to delisting of a listed Covered Species may be
completed as an informal amendment without additional public comment, NEPA analysis, or
ESA analysis. However, USFWS may publish public notice of the amendment on its website
and/or in the Federal Register.
In some cases, the Covered Parties may prefer to maintain the delisted species as a Covered
Species or to continue to implement Conservation Measures and Avoidance and Minimization
Measures to protect against future re-listing of the species. If the Covered Parties desire
continued coverage of the delisted species, it will request a clarification from USFWS that
updates the listing status of the delisted species.
47
11.1.6 Taxonomic Changes
The taxonomic classification of one or more of the Covered Species may change over the CCAA
and Enhancement of Survival Permit Term. It is possible that new science will emerge that
indicates one or more of the Covered Species is not a valid taxon or that it belongs to a
different taxon. It is also possible that a currently unlisted species that is not a Covered Species
will be synonymized with a Covered Species. Such taxonomic changes may alter the known
range, distribution, or abundance of a Covered Species in ways that change the impact of the
Covered Parties Covered Activities under the CCAA and Enhancement of Survival Permit.
Delisting of a listed Covered Species due to taxonomic changes, which would likely be
categorized as a delisting due to error, are addressed in Section 11.1.5. This Changed
Circumstance will have occurred if researchers publish new scientific information involving any
Covered Species in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that changes the taxonomic classification
and USFWS formally accepts the taxonomic change in writing. USFWS will notify TRA of the
occurrence of this Changed Circumstance.
If this Changed Circumstance occurs, TRA will coordinate with USFWS to change the CCAA,
Enhancement of Survival Permit, and related documents using one or more of the processes in
Section 15, as appropriate, to update the names of the Covered Species, adjust assessment of
impacts necessary to conform to the new species designations, and clarify the extent to which
Conservation Measures and Avoidance and Minimization Measures already in place address the
updated taxonomy of the Covered Species. If the taxonomic change does not alter how take is
authorized by the CCAA and Enhancement of Survival Permit, then a Formal Amendment may
not be necessary. If the taxonomic change expands the range of a Covered Species in ways not
currently considered by the CCAA,TRA may coordinate with USFWS to determine if the revision
warrants a Formal Amendment.
11.1.7 Unforeseen Catastrophic Event
Catastrophic events such as wild fires, hurricanes, floods, prolonged periods of drought, dam
failure, toxicant or contaminant spill, wastewater treatment plant failure, or other similar
events could temporarily(i.e., where the adverse effects would be expected to last for a period
of no more than approximately 15 years) reduce or degrade suitable habitat for the Covered
Species within the Covered Area for this CCAA. Some of these acute and catastrophic events
result from human error or mechanical failure, others occur naturally and are a normal or at
least occasional occurrence.
If such an event occurs within the Covered Area, USFWS will hold the Covered Parties harmless
for those impacts that are not a result of the Covered Parties' gross negligence. However,
consistent with the Covered Parties' intent to provide a meaningful net conservation benefit to
the Covered Species, TRA will coordinate with TPWD and USFWS and assist those agencies in
taking reasonable and appropriate steps to reduce event-related harm to the Covered Species,
including habitat and population restoration efforts to facilitate recovery of impacted
populations.
48
11.1.8 Lack of Self-Sustaining Population within Suitable Habitat
It is possible that a self-sustaining population of the Covered Species within Zone B will no
longer be capable of being self-sustaining within the timeframe of this agreement, and efforts
to promote a self-sustaining population within portions of a CPA within Zone B could be
unsuccessful. A large chemical spill, for example, could wipe out a population that cannot be re-
established. If this occurs,TRA will coordinate with USFWS to change the CCAA, Enhancement
of Survival Permit, and related documents using one or more of the processes in Section 15, as
appropriate, to reclassify the affected portions of a CPA. And if the threats that led to the
demise of the population are resolved or can be resolved through feasible means then TRA will
work with USFWS and TPWD to consider reintroduction into the same reach.
11.1.9 Environmental Flow Standards Substantially Revised or Abolished
TCEQ may substantially revise or abolish the environmental flow standards for the Trinity River
Basin. In such case, TRA will coordinate with USFWS to evaluate whether such changes have the
potential to adversely affect the Covered Species and whether revisions to the Conservation
Measures and Avoidance and Minimization Measures are necessary and feasible.
11.1.10 Invasive Species Threaten Covered Species in Covered Area
It is possible that invasive species, such as the zebra mussel, could threaten the persistence of
Covered Species in the Covered Area. In that case, the Covered Parties will work with USFWS
and TPWD to conduct research or investigate potential removal and control efforts. Further,
the Covered Parties will implement invasive species removal and control efforts that would not
exceed $2,000 per year(in-kind and/or financial contribution). TRA will seek to cost share or
secure matching grants if costs exceed the $2,000 per year spending cap for this Changed
Circumstance. TPWD and USFWS may contribute funds or in-kind support for invasive species
control efforts, at their sole discretion at the time and depending on availability of funds and
other resources.
11.1.11 Change in Covered Parties Service Area
A change in a Covered Parties service area will be determined to have occurred if, through
legislative mandate, customer request, eminent domain, or other means, one or more of the
Covered Parties become responsible for a part of the basin for which they are currently not
responsible. If a change in covered parties service area occurs, the TRA will notify and work
with the USFWS to complete a minor amendment to change the Covered Area, so long as the
operations within the new area fit within the Covered Activities and Conservation and
Avoidance and Minimization Measures can be implemented as described in this CCAA.
11.1.12 Change in Anticipated Grant Funding
Grant funding for the CRP is provided by TCEQ on a two-year rotating contract period and is in
excess of$700,000. This program is very important to water quality permitting operations at
TCEQ and funding is expected to continue through the term of this agreement. Should TCEQ
discontinue funding the CRP, the Covered Parties are committed to continuing water quality
49
monitoring and reporting for the Trinity basin to the mutual benefit of the Covered Parties and
the Covered Species at a level of effort not less than $350,000 for each two-year period.
If the grant funding is decreased or no longer available for either of these programs,TRA will
notify USFWS of such reduction and provide its assessment of how such reductions will affect
TRA's ability to implement certain Conservation Measures in this CCAA. TRA will work with
USFWS to identify potential sources of alternative funding for these programs and to prioritize
the activities under these programs that TRA is able to continue with available funds that
provide a benefit to the Covered Species and ongoing Conservation Measures.
11.1 .13 Significant Degradation in Water Quality in CPAs
A significant degradation in water quality will be determined to have occurred if there is a loss
of over half of a known population of one or more of the Covered Species that can be directly
linked to a change in water quality within a CPA and the water quality degradation is not
expected to improve. If a significant degradation in water quality within a CPA is identified
through water quality monitoring data analysis or other applied research, and the USFWS and
TPWD determine that the relocation of one or more of the Covered Species would improve
their chance of survival,TRA will provide manpower, equipment, and logistical support to
USFWS and TPWD during these relocation efforts.
11.1.14 Environmental Flows Alteration
TCEQ may substantially revise or abolish the environmental flow standards for the Trinity River.
In such case, TRA will coordinate with USFWS,TPWD, TCEQ, Trinity and San Jacinto BBASC, and
the Trinity and San Jacinto BBEST, to evaluate whether such changes have the potential to
adversely affect the Covered Species and whether revisions to the Conservation Measures and
Avoidance and Minimization Measures are necessary and feasible.
11.1.15 Change in Covered Parties
Should one or more of the Covered Parties leave this CCAA, they will no longer have the
Regulatory Assurances provided by this agreement. If this changed circumstance occurs, TRA
will meet with USFWS to modify the workplan. The Covered Parties may reduce the
Conservation Measures by the percentage of the parties that leave the CCAA, or the other
Covered Parties may, at their sole discretion, decide to maintain current levels of funding and
effort.
11.2 Unforeseen Circumstances
There are no requirements for a CCAA permittee to respond to Changed Circumstances of any
kind. Responding to unforeseen circumstances is entirely voluntary. Additional conservation
measures will not involve the commitment of additional resources on behalf of the Covered
Parties beyond those described in the original CCAA without the consent of the Covered
Parties.
50
The USFWS will demonstrate that unforeseen circumstances exist, using the best scientific and
commercial data available. These findings must be clearly documented and based upon reliable
technical information regarding the status and habitat requirements of the affected species.
The USFWS may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors:
• Size of the current range of the affected species;
Percentage of range adversely affected by Covered Activities;
• Percentage of range conserved by the CCAA;
• Ecological significance of that portion of the range affected by the CCAA;
• Level of knowledge about the affected species and the degree of specificity of the
species' conservation program under the CCAA; and
• Whether failure to adopt additional conservation measures would appreciably
reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the affected species in the wild.
After approval of the CCAA, the USFWS may not impose any new requirements or conditions
on, or modify any existing requirements or conditions applicable to, the Covered Parties or
successor, to compensate for changes in the conditions or circumstances of any species or
ecosystem, natural community, or habitat covered by the CCAA except as stipulated in 50 CFR
17.22(d)(5) and 17.32(d)(5).
In the unlikely situation in which an unforeseen circumstance results in likely jeopardy to a
species covered by this CCAA and Enhancement of Survival Permit, the USFWS could revoke this
CCAA and permit as a last resort. However, the USFWS and its cooperators would first exercise
all possible means to remedy the situation through other means (50 CFR § 17.22(d)(7)).
12 Effects and Incidental Take
As part of this agreement, a variety of voluntary measures will be implemented by the Covered
Parties to reduce threats to Covered Species and benefit their conservation in the Trinity River
Basin. Population monitoring will be conducted to examine trends in the distribution and
status of Covered Species through time to help gauge the success of conservation efforts.
Activities covered by this agreement also include a variety of water and wastewater operations
conducted by the Covered Parties. Both conservation and water/wastewater activities could
result in incidental take of the Covered Species. Take of Covered Species is considered
incidental when it is not intentional, but is caused by otherwise lawful activities. The USFWS
will issue an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) enhancement-of-survival permit to TRA providing
incidental take coverage for the Covered Activities described in this CCAA, in the event one or
more of the Covered Species is subsequently listed as threatened or endangered. Although
incidental take could occur as a result of activities in this agreement, implementation of this
CCAA and subsequent conservation measures will provide beneficial effects to the Covered
Species that are expected to result in a net conservation benefit overall. Any take will be
incidental to otherwise lawful activities described in this CCAA. Further, the Covered Parties do
not expect that the Covered Activities and conservation measures will result in significant
51
damage to habitats for the Covered Species based on current conditions and existing
operations in the basin, despite projected growth in the region.
Incidental take could occur as a result of Covered Activities conducted by the Covered Parties
that involve operation and maintenance of its existing water and wastewater treatment
facilities, water supply and delivery infrastructure (including reservoirs), and from
implementation of conservation, management, and monitoring programs designed to benefit
the Covered Species. For example, the Covered Species may be inadvertently harmed by the
downstream effects of 1) constituents in municipal wastewater effluents discharged to the
Trinity River, 2) water releases from reservoirs or storage basins at flow rates that disturb
mussel habitat (e.g., shear stress or erosion) or alter water quality (e.g., water temperatures
too high or dissolved oxygen too low), 3) fluctuations in reservoir pool elevations, 4) treatment
of invasive plants with aquatic-approved herbicides, or 5) movement of sediments transported
downstream by operation and maintenance activities of reservoirs or other infrastructure. The
Covered Species may also be inadvertently killed or injured during population surveys and other
long-term monitoring activities, or habitat manipulations in the short-term. The extent to which
these activities may impact Covered Species will depend on numerous site-specific factors that
may change over time, and in some cases will be difficult to detect or measure. Considered
altogether, incidental take associated with the Covered Activities is not expected to be great
enough to compromise the viability of populations of any of the Covered Species in the Trinity
River basin.
The Covered Species may naturally increase in population numbers and the extent of occupied
areas following implementation of the conservation measures. If that were to occur, there may
be an associated increase in the likelihood of injury or death of individuals as a result of ongoing
water and wastewater management or conservation activities conducted by the Covered
Parties. For example, Texas Heelsplitter,Trinity Pigtoe, or Texas Fawnsfoot may be
inadvertently killed or injured during population surveys and other long-term monitoring
activities. Individuals of the Covered Species may experience reproductive failure or reduced
growth rates associated with being handled during surveys or relocation events, or from
environmental stress associated with changes in habitat conditions in the short-term. Sub-adult
life stages including glochidia and juveniles may be especially sensitive. Covered Species may
be killed or injured due to infrastructure maintenance or upgrades associated with the Covered
Parties' surface water supply and delivery, wastewater treatment, or catastrophic failure of
these operations. Although considered unlikely, Texas Heelsplitter,Trinity Pigtoe, or Texas
Fawnsfoot may also be killed or injured during routine water or wastewater management
activities (e.g., delivering water from reservoirs managed by the Covered Parties to
downstream customers via the bed and banks of the Trinity River).
The USFWS anticipates that incidental take of Covered Species will be difficult to detect for the
following reasons:juveniles of the Covered Species (particularly mussels) have a small body size
and finding dead or impaired glochidia or juvenile mussels is unlikely; losses may be masked by
52
seasonal fluctuations in population size (and detectability) or by losses associated with actions
or events outside of the Covered Parties control (i.e., caused by other environmental stressors
not attributable to the Covered Parties); losses may be sub-lethal with delayed onset of
pathology and therefore difficult to measure or observe. Larger, more mature individuals will
be easier to detect due to size, and in the case of Trinity Pigtoe and Texas Fawnsfoot, mussels
occur in aggregations known as mussel beds that are easier to monitor over time. Although this
agreement does not anticipate activities by the Covered Parties will result in large scale
dewatering events leading to stranding of adult mussels, it is still possible that, in combination
with factors outside of the Covered Parties control, the death of mature individuals could be
visibly detectable if entire riffles or bank habitats are persistently dewatered. The level of
monitoring identified in this agreement would detect this level of take, especially because the
Covered Parties will have knowledge of flow conditions in occupied stream reaches. Larger
individuals are also more likely to be encountered during monitoring activities and take
associated with such encounters is relatively easy to quantify, track, and report. Sub-adult life
stages and sub-lethal effects are not likely to be detected. Nevertheless, TRA will notify USFWS
as soon as possible in the event that they become aware of any take occurring or expected to
occur resulting from Covered Activities or implementation of conservation measures.
The purpose of the agreement is to benefit the Covered Species while providing assurances to
the Covered Parties, which includes reducing threats to facilitate expansion of occupied areas;
therefore, USFWS expects that the conservation activities covered by the CCAA and permit will
increase the amount and quality of suitable habitat. There may be minimal, short-term negative
effects to habitat features associated with some of the Covered Activities, but generally the
effects are expected to be beneficial and result in a net conservation benefit for the Covered
Species over the 25-year term of the agreement.
12.1 Level and Type of Take
Incidental take should be expressed in terms that are measurable and enforceable in the CCAA
and in the incidental take permit. The unit of take must be practicable, which means it can be
monitored and the results of monitoring can be applied to adaptive management decisions.
However, incidental take of the Covered Species will be difficult to definitively quantify for the
following reasons: finding a dead or impaired specimen is unlikely; and losses may be masked
by seasonal fluctuations in environmental conditions and/or numbers of each species, as well
as mortality unrelated to Covered Activities. Therefore, it is not possible to provide precise
numbers of Covered Species that will be harassed, harmed, or killed during implementation of
this CCAA. In such instances where take is difficult to detect or otherwise quantify, take may be
quantified in terms of some aspect of the species' habitat that may be diminished or removed
by the action. In this section, estimates of take are provided for the Covered Species that may
result from activities covered by this agreement. Negative effects to the species and their
habitat associated with Covered Activities will be minimized or avoided to the extent possible,
and the magnitude of those effects is expected to vary from year to year.Through
implementation of the CCAA, temporary habitat disturbance is possible, but is expected to
53
naturally recover with time. The following estimates of take are based on what is currently
known about the potential impacts of Covered Activities and distribution and abundance of the
Covered Species, including their life history traits, and their proximity to areas that could be
impacted by the Covered Activities.
12.2 Take of Turtles
The WCT is rare throughout its range and only 9 individuals have been documented in the
Trinity River basin (pers. comm., Mandi Gordon, University of Houston). The WCT utilizes
habitat that is largely outside the operational areas managed as part of this agreement, namely
ephemeral wetlands and other temporary waterbodies that are used seasonally for
reproduction. When not engaged in breeding activity, the WCT spends most of the year
underground, estivating in upland areas. Nests are constructed in uplands also outside the
operating area of the Covered Activities, therefore, no nests or eggs are expected to be
impacted. Based on these species-specific factors, the potential for take of this species is
believed to be highly unlikely, however, since the WCT does occur in the basin, a minimal level
of risk should be assumed no matter how unlikely, therefore take of 1 WCT may occur due to
Covered Activities during the 25-year life of the CCAA.
The AST is more common than the WCT and is found in a variety of riverine and lacustrine
environments across its range, including east Texas. Estimates of abundance vary, but ASTs are
thought to number in the thousands in the Trinity River basin alone (pers. comm., Jan
Culbertson, USFWS). Relative to freshwater mussels, the AST (and WCT) are generally less
vulnerable to disturbance or modification of habitats associated with the Covered Activities due
to their motility and use of upland areas for nesting. Individuals would likely leave the
immediate area when conservation or maintenance projects involve in-stream activity. The AST
occurs in higher numbers than the WCT, but the vast majority of activities conducted by the
Covered Parties will be in previously disturbed areas, thereby lowering the potential for
impacts. Additionally, the AST prefers deeper water habitats available within the river system.
Projects that require disturbance in new areas will likely have a small, quantifiable footprint
(e.g., mussel surveys or riparian restoration). Therefore, potential take of ASTs would be rare
and up to 1 AST per year may occur due to Covered Activities during the life of the CCAA.
12.3 Take of Musser
In some cases, estimates of impacted stream miles or a percentage of the stream miles per
Conservation Zone that may be affected by Covered Activities are used as a habitat surrogate
measure to quantify estimates of take or identify when take has been exceeded. The causal link
between using stream miles of riverine habitat as a surrogate (50 CFR 402.14(i)(1)(i)) to
estimate potential take of individual mussels is a practical approach given that mussels spend
the majority of their life cycle relatively immobile with most of their bodies buried in the
sediment of the stream bed. Covered Activities include physical disturbance of stream beds as
well as possible changes to water quality, water levels, and flow rates. Activities that disturb
stream beds or alter water quality, water levels, and flow rates could injure or kill adult
54
mussels,juveniles, or larval glochidia, or displace mussels or their host fish to unsuitable
habitats (possibly disrupting reproduction). Low water levels could expose mussels to
desiccation, heat stress, and predation; high water levels could dislodge mussels from
sediments or contribute to sedimentation, erosion, or bank collapse (possibly suffocating
mussels). Water quality degradation could result in direct mortality or sub-lethal effects, such
as excessive valve closure, which can negatively affect mussel health and reproduction (through
increased energy costs and reduced feeding rates; Haney et al. 2019, p. 13). Estimates of take
based on impacts to habitat can inform possible levels of injury or death to individuals of the
Covered Species due to Covered Activities, and set targets that can be monitored and reported
annually. The Covered Parties can monitor and document the river miles or percentage of
stream miles in each zone affected by their actions (and possibly others) through a variety of
measures including remote sensing and habitat monitoring. Additionally, dead shells and
recently dead individuals may be detected during routine or contemporaneous monitoring
visits, and reported to the USFWS.
Freshwater mussels are sedentary filter feeding organisms that rely on suitable substrates, and
sufficient water quality and flows to meet their life history needs, and those of their host fishes.
The Trinity River basin today is highly modified compared to conditions prior to the industrial
revolution. On average, baseflows in upper and middle basin are substantially higher due to
municipal wastewater effluent return flows. Although wastewater flows comprise less than 1%
of total flows (combination of effluent, rainfall and stormwater) in the upper and middle basins,
when dry weather conditions persist, portions of the upper and middle basin can become
effluent dominated (-75-95% wastewater). These effluent dominated conditions can occur in
the winter or summer and may last for months between rain events. Wastewater effluents,
along with stormwater, can scour the riverbed, dislodge mussels, and degrade water quality,
though it is important to note that reservoirs have altered the natural hydrology in the basin
and without wastewater effluent in these reaches, the river would likely be dry or disconnected
pools during drought conditions. Covered activities may impact both water quality and
quantity, cause erosion and sedimentation, or modify substrates, all of which can affect mussel
growth, survival, and reproduction.
The Louisiana Pigtoe is believed extirpated from the Trinity River basin and is therefore unlikely
to be affected by Covered Activities (i.e., no take is anticipated). However, should the species
be re-discovered within the basin, individuals could be similarly affected by the Covered
Activities. If Louisiana Pigtoe are once again found in the Trinity River basin in the future, the
potential for Covered Activities to impact the species will be reevaluated under the Changed
Circumstances clause (Section 11.1.3) along with revised estimates of take. For the remaining
mussels, estimates of take are based on a combination of basic life history traits, abundance,
and the proximity of occupied areas to wastewater outflows, water supply(e.g., reservoirs), or
other Covered Activities that could impact mussels. These activities and potential impacts to
Covered Species were also viewed in the context of habitat conditions that are prevalent in the
basin today, which in most cases have been shaped by these same activities for decades. To
55
help quantify potential impacts, Covered Activities were placed into one of four categories, 1)
conservation, 2) facilities maintenance, 3) water quality, and 4) hydrology (including reservoir
and river impacts). While there is some overlap between these categories, such as wastewater
effluent flows that can affect both water quality and flows (i.e., hydrology), they provide a
reasonable approach to evaluate impacts systematically.
The majority of conservation related activity conducted as part of the CCAA, such as monitoring
or relocation of Covered Species, will be carried out by researchers or contractors who possess
their own 10(a)(1)(A) scientific collection permit; those activities are not covered by this CCAA
and do not require estimates of take. The Covered Parties may, however, assist or engage
directly in conservation work on occasion, but their involvement will impact less than 1% of
areas currently occupied by the species over the life of the agreement, and any short-term
impacts will result in long-term conservation benefits to the species. Similarly, the Covered
Parties estimate that facilities maintenance activities will occur in less than 1% of the entire
basin over the 25-year agreement, primarily in previously disturbed areas that are not occupied
by the Covered Species. Both conservation and facilities maintenance projects will be easily
quantifiable and reported annually based on river miles or acres impacted. There are a total of
595 river miles in Conservation Zones A to E that are occupied by the Covered Species,
therefore up to 12 river miles (2% of 595) could be impacted by either conservation work or
maintenance projects over the life of the agreement. Since 12 miles of impacted river
represents a very small portion of the basin, conservation work will benefit species in the long-
term, facilities maintenance projects will primarily occur outside of areas occupied by the
Covered Species, and projects will be spread out spatially and temporally over a 25-year period,
take associated with conservation and facilities maintenance will have little to no effect on the
viability of populations of any of the Covered Species. Given these assumptions and
stipulations regarding conservation and facilities maintenance, estimates of take for mussels
will focus primarily on the remaining two categories, water quality and hydrology.
Based on mussel surveys conducted to date, the Trinity pigtoe occupies a total of approximately
210 miles of the Trinity River in Conservation Zones A, B, C, and E. Mussel abundance can be
used as a biological indicator of habitat condition, that is, higher abundance generally equals
higher quality habitat. Abundance data indicate the highest quality habitat for Trinity Pigtoe
occurs along 30 miles of the Elm Fork located near downtown Dallas and Fort Worth (Zone B).
The other occupied Zones have either low abundance (indicating poor habitat quality) or have
so few individuals the species is believed functionally extirpated. Several scientific studies
evaluated the impacts of municipal wastewater effluents on mussels, concluding that mussel
growth and survival could be impacted up to 3.8 km (-2.5 miles) downstream of wastewater
outfalls (Nobles and Zhang, 2015, Goudreau et al. 1993). To be conservative, the distance
potentially impacted by effluents was doubled and the percent habitat occupied by the Covered
Species within 5 miles of wastewater outfalls was calculated to estimate potential take related
to degraded water quality (Note: areas within 5 miles of an outfall that overlapped with areas
impacted by another outfall were not discounted (i.e., the full 5 miles was counted for both
56
outfalls, not a lessor amount). Of the 210 miles occupied by the Trinity Pigtoe within the basin,
about 32 miles fall within 5 miles of a wastewater outfall. Mussels within these 30 miles of
impacted river could be adversely affected by wastewater discharges over the term of the
CCAA, resulting in take of up to 14% of habitat occupied by the Trinity Pigtoe over 25 years.
Only about 15 miles or 7% of areas impacted by wastewater are considered high quality habitat
(located in the Elm Fork). Should future scientific studies indicate wastewater effluents can
impact mussel health beyond 3.8 km during the 25-year agreement, USFWS and the Covered
Parties will reevaluate the potential for take at that time under Changed Circumstances.
The Texas Fawnsfoot occupies a total of 181.5 miles in Conservation Zones B, C, and E of the
Trinity basin. Abundance is very low in all occupied areas (Randklev et al., 2017). Of the 181.5
occupied miles, approximately 10 miles fall within 5 miles of a wastewater treatment facility
capable of causing take, therefore up to 5.5% of habitat occupied by the Texas Fawnsfoot could
be adversely affected by constituents in wastewater effluents.
The Texas Heelsplitter occupies a total of 203.5 miles in Conservation Zone C of the Trinity
basin, and is historically known to two reservoirs in the basin, Lakes Grapevine (Zone A) and
Livingston (Zone D). Abundance for this species is very low in all occupied areas (Randklev et
al., 2017). Of the 203.5 occupied miles, none occur within 5 miles of a wastewater treatment
facility. In the last 22 years (since 2000), only 5 Texas Heelsplitter have been found in Lake
Livingston and none have been found in Lake Grapevine. Given the low abundance and lack of
wastewater facilities near occupied habitat, water quality related impacts to this species
associated with the Covered Activities are de minimis (i.e., having minimal effect not resulting
in take).
Although high flows and shear stress can occur throughout the basin due to a combination of
wastewater return flows and rainfall, estimates of take related to hydrology focused on
reservoir related impacts below dams. The Covered Parties own or operate seven reservoirs in
the Trinity River basin. Most of these lakes were constructed in the 1950's or 1960's, with the
most recent constructed in 1987 (Richland Chambers reservoir). These impoundments have
permanently altered the hydrology of the basin, holding back flows until reservoirs reach
capacity and releasing water downstream once full pool elevation is achieved. The resulting
changes to flow and water quality (e.g., lower or higher temperatures compared to ambient
conditions) below dams subsequently influence habitat types and species diversity for some
distance downstream. These impacts continue to occur for the life of the reservoir and in the
case of the Trinity River basin, have been impacting mussel populations for decades. Reservoirs
in the Trinity River basin have been in place and affecting mussel abundance for a minimum of
35 years, and in most cases longer, therefore the populations present today represent areas
where mussels have either persisted despite changes to hydrology (e.g., Elm Fork), or they have
long since perished and are unlikely to return. Based on the timing, magnitude and severity of
past changes to hydrology, it is unlikely that novel hydrology-related impacts will result in take
57
of mussels beyond the areas affected by wastewater effluents, which are accounted for under
the water quality category.
In summary, four categories of take associated with this CCAA were evaluated, 1) conservation,
2) facilities maintenance, 3) water quality, and 4) hydrology. Estimates of take were based on a
combination of basic life history traits, abundance, and the proximity of occupied areas to
wastewater outflows, water supply, or other Covered Activities that could impact the Covered
Species. The potential impacts of Covered Activities were considered based on the best
available scientific information and as they relate to current habitat conditions that exist in the
basin today. Based on this review, in total, not more than 1 WCT and 25 ASTs are expected to
be harmed by Covered Activities cumulatively over 25 years. For mussels, out of a total of 595
river miles currently occupied by the three remaining mussels in the basin covered by the
agreement, not more than 54 occupied river miles are expected to be harmed by Covered
Activities cumulatively over 25 years. This impacted area represents less than 9%of the
currently occupied habitat. Because incidental take of these species will be difficult to detect
and monitor, the Covered Parties will track river miles impacted and notify the USFWS if they
expect their activities to affect more than a total of 54 miles of occupied mussel habitat,
cumulatively over the 25 years of this agreement. The Covered Parties will also notify the
Service if they expect their activities will result in take of more than 1 WCT or 25 AST,
cumulatively over 25 years.
13 Regulatory Assurances
If approved, the USFWS will provide regulatory assurances to the Covered Parties, so long as
the CCAA is implemented as agreed, and the USFWS will not require additional conservation
measures nor impose additional land, water, or resource-use restrictions, beyond those stated
and agreed to in this CCAA.These assurances are made consistent with the USFWS Candidate
Conservation Agreements with Assurances Policy (2016, 81 FR 95164) and will be authorized in
an ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement of Survival Permit that becomes effective when and if
any of the Covered Species is listed as threatened or endangered in the future. The
Enhancement of Survival Permit will authorize the incidental take of the species for the Covered
Parties under the permit as long as their actions are consistent with the CCAA, subject to the
terms and conditions described in 50 CFR 17.22(d)(1) and 50 CFR 17.32(d)(1).
14 Reporting
Annually, TRA will create a concise CCAA Highlights Report that will summarize the results of
the previous year's activities, discuss lessons learned, and provide a data review, except every
5t"year when a more in-depth CCAA Summary Report will be completed. Draft reports will be
due to USFWS and TPWD March 1 annually, and cover the previous calendar year. If the
USFWS and/or TPWD wish to submit comments, they will be due back to TRA by April 1. TRA
may incorporate or address these comments at its sole discretion and deliver a final report to
USFWS and TPWD by May 1.
58
14.1 Annual CCAA Highlights Report
Topics covered in this report will include, but are not limited to:
• Summary of the activities related to each of the measures described in Section 8.4
Conservation Measures and Monitoring;
• Results of any freshwater mussel surveys or relocations conducted on or behalf of
the Covered Parties;
• Summary of public outreach efforts;
• Annual hydrologic review of each Conservation Zone;
• Annual water quality data summary for each Conservation Zone;
• Summary of any mortality/injury(take) of Covered Species observed during the
preceding year;
• Summary of any relevant applied research or water quality, sediment, hydraulic
modeling; and
• Summary of the Adaptive Management review and lessons learned.
14.2 5-year CCAA Summary Report
Topics covered in this report will include, but are not limited to:
• Comparison of Covered Species data collection results across Conservation Zones
and across river basins;
• Long-term water quality trend analysis;
• Hydrologic trend analysis;
• Summarization of the previous 5-years of public outreach efforts;
• Summary of any mortality/injury(take) of Covered Species observed since the
implementation of this CCAA;
• Summary of any relevant applied research or water quality, sediment, hydraulic
modeling across Conservation Zones or across river basins; and
• Summary of the Programmatic-level Adaptive Management review.
• Recommendations for changes to Adaptive Management or conservation strategy
based on the analyses contained in the Summary Report.
15 Agreement Term, Responsibilities, Amendment, and Termination
15.1 Agreement Term
This CCAA will have a duration of 25 years from the date of signature. It can be renewed upon
application by TRA provided the USFWS determines that it still provides net conservation
benefit and still complies with applicable CCAA policy. Entities included under a Cl will be
subject to the same terms and responsibilities as the CCAA.
59
Should any of the Covered Species become listed as threatened or endangered, the
enhancement of survival permit will become effective and remain in effect through the
expiration of the CCAA.
15.2 Responsibilities of Each Party
TRA shall be responsible for:
• Funding, administering, and implementing this CCAA and the associated voluntary
conservation measures outlined in Section 8;
• Reporting as described in Section 14;
• Keeping state and federal resource protection entities updated at least annually about
research activities through meetings with the USFWS and Texas' Freshwater Mussel
Workgroup, or equivalent multi-stakeholder group, so long as they continue to exist;
• Notifying the Service of any transfer of lands subject to a CCAA;
• Giving the Service reasonable notice (generally at least 30 days) when TRA expects to
incidentally take any listed species covered by the permit. Such notice will provide the
Service with an opportunity to relocate affected individuals of the species, if possible or
appropriate.
• In coordination with the USFWS, evaluating the results of monitoring data and
conservation measures to assess if the actions of this CCAA are providing the desired net
conservation benefit.
The USFWS shall be responsible for:
• In coordination with the Covered Parties, evaluating the results of monitoring data and
conservation measures to assess if the actions of this CCAA are providing the desired net
conservation benefit;
• Reviewing and providing comments for reports submitted by TRA along with any
recommendations or suggested changes to conservation priorities to help inform
adaptive management moving forward;
• Issuing an enhancement-of-survival permit to TRA to allow for incidental take of the
Covered Species in accordance with 50 CFR 17.22(d) or 17.32(d) and the terms of this
CCAA should any of the Covered Species become listed as threatened or endangered in
the future. This permit would only authorize incidental take while conducting Covered
Activities within the Covered Area.
15.3 Modifications and Amendments
Any party to this CCAA may propose minor amendments to the agreement by providing written
notice to the other parties. This written notice will include a description of the proposed
amendment, the justification for the amendment, and the expected results or outcomes. Once
proposed, the other parties have 60 days to respond to the amendment request. Proposed
60
amendments will become effective upon reaching mutual consent of the other parties along
with written concurrence by all parties, and the CCAA document will be modified as
appropriate, unless there is a change in potential effects to Covered Species.
In the event that an amendment results in 1) a different level of take than that associated with
the original CCAA, 2) addition or removal of Covered Species, 3) an extreme unforeseen
circumstance, or 4) a change to the net conservation benefit such that the CCAA standard may
not be met, this would constitute a major amendment. A major amendment will be subject to
procedural requirements of Federal laws and regulations and a formal CCAA amendment
process. This process could include additional analysis by the USFWS, public notification in the
Federal Register, and NEPA analysis.
15.4 Dispute Resolution
The Parties agree to work together in good faith to resolve any disputes, using dispute
resolution procedures agreed upon by all parties.
15.5 Termination of CCAA, Suspension or Revocation of Permit
TRA may terminate the implementation of the CCAA's voluntary management actions at any
time for any cause prior to the CCAA's expiration date, even if the expected benefits have not
been realized. In such a case, if any of the Covered Species have been listed and an
Enhancement of Survival Permit has been issued,TRA would be required to surrender the
permit and thus relinquish all associated take authority and assurances.
If issued, the USFWS may suspend or revoke the Enhancement of Survival Permit for cause in
accordance with the laws and regulations in force at the time. Criteria for revocation are
identified in 50 CFR 17.22 (d)(1) for species that are subsequently listed as endangered and 50
CFR 17.32 (d)(1) for species that are subsequently listed as threatened.
61
16 Authorized Signatures
J. Kevin Ward
General Manager, Trinity River Authority of Texas
Amy Lueders
Regional Director, Region 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
62
17 References
Austin, D. (2006). Influence of cation exchange capacity in a tidal flow, flood and drain
wastewater treatment wetland. Ecological Engineering, 28(1), 35-43.
https:Hdoi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.03.010
Chen, A., Abramson, A., Becker, N, & Megdal, S.B. (2014). A tale of two rivers: Pathways for
improving water management in the Jordan and Colorado River basins. Journal of Arid
Environments. 112. 109-123. 10.1016/j.ja ride nv.2014.05.017
Bosman, B., B. Christie, M. Hart, J. Morton, & C.R. Randklev. (2015). Hosts confirmed for
Potamilus amphichaenus and Potamilus metnecktayi. Ellipsaria 17(1), 15-16.
Brandt, S.A. (2000). Classification of geomorphological effects downstream of dams. CATENA,
40(4), 375-401. https:Hdoi.org/10.1016/sO341-8162(00)00093-x
Brazos River Authority & US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2021). Candidate Conservation
Agreement with Assurances for the Balcones Spike and Texas Fawnsfoot in the Brazos River
Basin.
Buhlmann, K. A. (1995). Habitat Use, Terrestrial Movements, and Conservation of the Turtle,
Deirochelys reticularia in Virginia.Journal of Herpetology, 29(2), 173.
https:Hdoi.org/10.2307/1564554
Burlakova, A.L.E., Campbell, D. &Alexander, Y. (2019). Status of Rare Endemic Species:
Molecular Phylogeny, Distribution and Conservation of Freshwater Mollusks Truncilla macrodon
and Truncilla cognata in Texas. Malacologia, 62(2), 345. https:Hdoi.org/10.4002/040.062.0210
Carwardine, M. (2008).Animal Records. Sterling.
Clark, B., Mangham, W. (2019). Middle Trinity River Mussel Research, 2018.Trinity River
Authority of Texas &Zara Environmental, LLC.
Dixon, J.R., Hibbitts, T.J. (2013). Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas. Western Chicken Turtle,
Deirochelys reticularia miaria (3rd ed.). Texas A&M University Press.
McKnight, D.T. & Day B. L. (2020). Estivation Site Selection of Western Chicken Turtles,
Deirochelys reticularia miaria. The Southwestern Naturalist, 64(3-4), 187-194.
https:Hdoi.org/10.1894/0038-4909-64.3-4.187
Enge, K. M., T. M. Thomas, and E. Suarez. (2014). Population status, distribution, and
movements of the alligator snapping turtle in the Suwannee River, Florida. Final Report. Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Wildlife
Research Laboratory, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 47pp.
Ernst, C. H., Lovick, J. E., & Barbour, R.W. (1994). Turtles of the United States and Canada.
Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D. C.
63
Espey Consultants, Inc. (2001). Naturalized Streamflow Estimates in the Trinity, Trinity-San
Jacinto, and Neches-Trinity River Basins. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Ewert, M.A.,Jackson, D.R. & Nelson, C.E. (1994). Patterns of temperature-dependent sex
determination in turtles.Journal of Experimental Zoology, 270(1), 3-15.
https:Hdoi.org/10.1002/jez.1402700103
Haag, W.R. (2012). North American Freshwater Mussel: Natural History, Ecology, and
Conservation. Cambridge University Press.
Hastie, L., Cooksley, S., Scougall, F., Young, M., Boon, P., & Gaywood, M. (2003).
Characterization of freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) riverine habitat using
River Habitat Survey data. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 13(3),
213-224. https:Hdoi.org/10.1002/agc.560
Howells, R. G. (2014). Field Guide to Texas Freshwater Mussels of Texas. BioStudies.
Howells, R. G., Neck, R. W., & Murray, H.D. (1996). Freshwater Mussels of Texas. Texas Parks
and Wildlife Press.
Inoue, K., Hayes, D.M., Harris, J.L., Johnson, N.A., Morrison, C.L., Eackles, M.S., King,T.L.,Jones,
J.W., Hallerman, E.M., Christian, A.D., & Randklev, C.R. (2018). The Pleurobemini (Bivalvia:
Unionida) revisited: molecular species delineation using a mitochondrial DNA gene reveals
multiple conspecifics and undescribed species. Invertebrate Systematics, 32(3), 689.
https:Hdoi.org/10.1071/isl7059
Kleinsasser R, & Linam G. (1990). Water quality and fish assemblages in the Trinity River, Texas,
between Fort Worth and Lake Livingston. River Studies Report 7. Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, Austin,Texas.
Lane, E. W. (1954). The Importance of Fluvial Morphology in Hydraulic Engineering. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Commissioner's Office.
Leopold, L. B., Wolman, M.G., & Miller, J.P. (1964). Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San
Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co, 522p.
Mangham, W.M. (2018). Water Availability at the Mussel Bed near River Mile 295(RAS Station
294.62) Upstream of USGS Gage 08065000 Trinity River near Oakwood, TX [White Paper].
Trinity River Authority of Texas.
Marshall, N.T. (2014). Identification of Potential Fish Hosts from Wild Populations of State-
Threatened East Texas Freshwater Mussels Using a Molecular Identification Dataset. Biology
Theses, 11.
Moore, A. W. (1927). A Reconnaissance in Texas in 1846. Southwestern Historical Quarterly.
Texas State Historical Association, 252-271. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30234969
64
National Water-Quality Assessment Program (U. S.), & Land, L. F. (1998). Water Quality in the
Trinity River Basin, Texas, 1992-95. U.S. Geological Survey Circular, 1171. U S Geological Survey.
Pieri, A.M., Inoue, K., Johnson, N.A.., Smith C.H,J.L. Harris, J.L., Robertson, C., & Randklev, C.R.
(2018). Molecular and morphometric analyses reveal cryptic diversity with freshwater mussels
(Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the western Gulf coastal drainages of the USA. Biological Journal of the
Linnean Society, 124(1), 261-277. https:Hdoi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/bly046
Placer County Conservation Program. (2020). Western Placer County Habitat Conservation
Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan.
https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44657/Placer-County-Conservation-
Program---Volume-I-PDF
Plummer Associates, Inc. (2021). Upper Trinity Basin Water Quality Compact, Upper Trinity River
Nutrient Model Technical Memorandum January 2021, Upper Trinity River Water Quality
Compact Internal Report.
Poole, K. E. & Downing,J. (2004). Watershed Characteristics in an Agricultural Landscape.
Journal of North American Benthological Society, 23(1), 114-125.
Randklev, C. R., Lundeen, B. J., Howells, R. G., & Kennedy, J. H. (2010). First Account of a Living
Population of Texas Fawnsfoot, Truncilla macrodon (Bivalvia: Unionidae), in the Brazos River,
Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist, 55(2), 297-298. https:Hdoi.org/10.1894/js-31.1
Randklev, C. R. et al. (2014). Freshwater mussel(Family: Unionidae) data collection in the
middle and lower Brazos River. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
Randklev, C. R., Smith, C., & Wolf, C. (2017). Assessing the Conservation Status of Native
Freshwater Mussels (Family: Unionidae) in the Trinity River Basin. Final Report.Texas Parks and
Wildlife. College Station,TX.
Randklev, C. R, Ford N.B., Fisher, M., Anderson, R., Robertson, C.R., Hart, M., Khan, J., & Lopez,
R. (2020). Mussels of Texas Project Database, Version 1.0.
Rosgen, D. L. (2006). Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply. (2nd
edition). Wildland Hydrology. Fort Collins, CO.
Ryberg, W.A., Wolaver, B.D., Prestridge, H.L., Labay, B.J., Pierre,J.P., Costley, R.A., Adams, C.S.,
Bowers, B.C., & Hibbitts,T.J. (2016). Habitat Modeling and Conservation of the Western Chicken
Turtle (Deirochelys reticularia miaria) in Texas. Texas A&M University. College Station, Texas.
Smith, D. R., Allan, N. L., McGowan, C. P., Szymanski, J. A., Oetker, S. R., & Bell, H. M. (2018).
Development of a Species Status Assessment Process for Decisions under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act.Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, 9(1), 302-320.
https:Hdoi.org/10.3996/052017-jfwm-041
65
Strayer, D.L. (2008). Freshwater Mussel Ecology:A Multifactor Approach to Distribution and
Abundance. University of California Press.
Strayer, D.L. (2013). North American Freshwater Mussels: Natural History, Ecology and
Conservation W. H. Haag (2012). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 505 pp.
https:Hdoi.org/10.1111/fwb.12119
Texas State Department of Health. (1925). Trinity River Sanitary Survey. Austin, TX.
Texas Water Development Board. (2021, November). Environmental Flows.
https://www.twdb.texas.gov/surfacewater/flows/index.asp
Texas Parks and Wildlife. (2009). Unionids of Texas. Austin Texas
Texas Parks and Wildlife. (2021, August 9). Alligator snapping turtles seized in illegal trafficking
case are returned to natural habitat.
https:Htpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/?req=20210809a
Trinity River Authority of Texas. (2020) Basin Summary Report.
https:Hcros9files.revize.com/trinityriverauth/Documents%20Center/Basin%20PIanning/Report
s/Basin%20Summary%20and%20Highlight%20Reports/2020%20TRA%20Basin%20Summary%2
OReport%20reduced.pdf
Trinity River Authority of Texas &Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. (2014, February).
Supplemental Biological Data Collection, Middle Trinity River Priority Instream Flow Study.
Trinity River Authority of Texas. (2017, November). Evaluation of Adopted Flow Standards for
the Trinity River, Phase 2.
US Fish and Wildlife Service & National Marine Fisheries Service. (1998). Consultation
Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act [Final ed.]. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-
Iibrary/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf
US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2019). Species Status Assessment Report for the Central Texas
Mussels [Version 1.5]. Austin Ecological Services Field Office; FWS Southeast Regional Office.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2021a). Species Status Assessmentfor Alligator Snapping Turtle
(Macrochelys temminckii). Species Status Assessment Reports. Louisiana Ecological Services
Field Office; FWS Southeast Regional Office.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2021b). Species Status Assessment for Two East Texas Mussels
[Version 1.0]. Species Status Assessment Reports. Arlington Ecological Services Field Office;
FWS Southeast Regional Office.
66
Winemiller, K., Lujan, N., Snelgrove, R.W.R., Dube, A.M., Skow, K.L. & Snelgrove, A.G. (2010).
Status of freshwater mussels in Texas. Texas A&M Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Sciences and Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, pp.1-62.
Yolo Habitat Conservancy (2018). Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities
Conservation Plan.
https://www.yolohabitatconservancy.org/_files/ugd/8f4lbd_580015ec97794
67
CERTIFICATE OF INCLUSION
Certificate of Inclusion for the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances and associated
Enhancement of Survival Permit (Permit) for at-risk species of the Trinity River Basin, including the
Texas Fawnsfoot, Truncilla macrodon,Texas Heelsplitter, Potamilus amphichaenus,Trinity Pigtoe,
Fusconaia chunii, and Louisiana Pigtoe,Pleurobema ridellii;and two species of turtle,Alligator
snapping turtle,Macrochelys temminckii, and Western Chicken Turtle, Deirochelys reticularia miaria
(covered species)
This certifies that City of Fort Worth,TX (participating Entity),
which owns or manages the properties described below,will be included within the scope of the Permit
issued to the Trinity River Authority of Texas (TRA) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the
authority of Section 10(a)(1)(A)of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C.
1539(a)(1)(B).This Permit is effective upon signature and will become active if any of the covered species
become listed under the ESA. Such Permit will authorize incidental take of covered species as part of a
Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA).This incidental take will be allowed due to
the application of appropriate conservation measures outlined in the CCAA for the Trinity River basin
that will benefit the covered species and/or their habitats,wherever they occur within the CCAA
coverage area. Pursuant to the terms of the Permit and this Certificate of Inclusion (CI) signed by the
participating Entity (or their designee),the holder of this certificate will be authorized to engage in any
otherwise lawful activity on the properties they own or manage that may result in the incidental taking
of the covered species, as appropriate,subject to the terms and conditions of the Permit and the CCAA.
Permit authorization is subject to the participating Entity carrying out applicable conservation measures
described in the CCAA and the terms and conditions of the Permit and the CCAA. By signing this
Certification of Inclusion,the participating Entity agrees to implement the conservation measures and
other requirements described in the CCAA, and take steps as necessary to ensure personnel, agents, and
contractors under their purview comply with these requirements during their activities in the Trinity
River basin.
Participating Entity or Property Owner's Name and Address:
Citv of Fort Worth
Fort Worth Water Department
200 Texas Street
Fort Worth,Texas 76102
• Description of Service Area (attached).
• Brief Description of participation entity's primary function and operations (attached)
• Total acres of Service Area within the Trinity River basin (attached)
o Note: Map(s) must clearly show Service Area boundaries and major reservoirs.
• Duration of Certificate of Inclusion from date of last signature. Certificates of Inclusion will
expire with the term of the CCAA unless renewed (i.e.,a Cl will not provide assurance beyond
the duration of the 25 year agreement between TRA and USFWS)
The participating member agrees to give 60 days written notice to TRA of their intent to terminate this
Certificate of Inclusion.
Enrolled entities will notify TRA within 30 days following a major change in service area within the Trinity
River basin, change in entity name or legislative authority, or designation of operation responsibilities
from one entity to another. TRA will offer the new entity the option of receiving conservation coverage
by agreeing to implement all CCAA conservation measures and signing a new Cl.
By signing below,the participating Entity acknowledges that they have read and understand this Cl and
the CCAA in effect on the date of their signature.The participating Entity further commits to comply
with the terms and conditions of the CCAA and the Permit attached to this Cl. Finally,the participating
Entity acknowledges that this Cl and the CCAA may not be sufficient to prevent the listing of the covered
species.
Participating Entity
° Date Jul 20, 2022
--- Participant Signature(s)---
Trinity ive thorit f Texas
�L �2 Date
J.ain Ward—General Manager
` %%%IIIf11111,fl'
, `�,Pu T"O '.4 A
�� ,......••• �i
••••• •••i�� truer
11
•
i
/1 w
.c1v:•o ,:��
CITY OF FORT WORTH
Recommended By:
Cblfb,he,14,4 (Jul 14.2W2191/[OTI
Chris Harder, P.E.
Water Director
APMOVED AS TO FORM:
I
Mack(J 119,2022 15:52 CDT)
Douglas W. Black
Senior Assistant City Attorney
bay&e4hd2
Dana Btii ghdoff(M 20,20 216:15 CDT)
Dana Burghdoff
Assistant City Manager
ATTEST: CORPOIZATF. SEAL:
CLu t �5' �e�� �a�°FOR?,
J- ette S.Goodall(Ju120,202216: OT) o° °pOO
Jannette S. Goodall /.o °0-
City Secretary 0 04,
v o 0 X,
o o*�
�> °O p° cJ
(la °ODppoo° p
���EXAS•o�p
Contract Compliance Manager;
By signing, I acknowledge that I am the person responsible for the monitoring and administration
of this contract, including ensuring all performance and reporting requirements.
Sl��yl'lill illu�l.,Ia111015 CDT
Name of'Employce
Iteyulatory Environmental Administrator
Title
OfI01AL RECOM
CITY SECRE TARP
IFT.WCHKTH,TK
City of Fort Worth Certificate of Inclusion Attachment
The Village Creek Water Reclamation Facility(WRF) is located at 4500 Wilma Lane, in Fort Worth,
Tarrant County,Texas 76012. The retail route is from the plant site to Lower West Fork Trinity
River. The Village Creek WRF serves a wastewater population (est.) of 848,860. The wholesale
wastewater population served is 340,020. Fort Worth also maintains approximately 3,565 miles of
collector mains and the service area within the Trinity basin is 320,591 acres.
The Village Creek WRF is designed to treat an annual average flow of 166 MGD and a 2-hour peak flow
of 369 MGD. The treatment system routing carries in accordance with the flow rates. Normal to
moderately-high flows will be treated by an activated sludge process plant operated in the tapered
aeration mode. Under extreme wet weather conditions, flows exceeding 255 MGD will be routed to a
high-rate clarification system.
�dustin r
./1 Northlak
1J1111 / hI JJ{� /�1 ® �1 :JUI
o
-1-
-� A. . � . . <1;Roanoke TroP�y g
� �'
�� II � f t Club
_ 6
� ._ •.`•" '., i' :_-r� �t.,� �, j Westlake L �—
t !I r
Grapevine
Haslet
Southlake °
Keller
DFW
Azle r �� Colleyville Airport
C p `',S
�y SAGINAW i NORT
WATAUGA CHLA
C1 E i RIHLAND Euless .
BLUE ; , ''HILLS �•' Bedford 3
`E ss U a E : HURST
Ldkesidc - /
�� VIIdf2TH a
O RICHL�D
L I/�SANSOM f HALTOMQ HILInS�' 1.
PARK { iCITY/
WHI' E RIVER I, %, '� �;' Pr�'`ine
SETTCy-MENT OAKS j
F r WESTWORTHIil --- --
�' LkLAGE. 1lll` L
r------�.WE$TOUER —
� `'WILLS- -✓ � i I
�ANTEGO 1�
ledoft/M� - Dal orthington
i Gardens
i (BENBROOK ,� "--- .- FOREST
I WATER EDGE LE AILL
1 ;AUTHOR hT 'VILLAGEI
I4ENNEDALE
EVERMAVJ•`
1 �✓ �� �\
41 / I CROW LEY' �) ;' C� Legend
---------------
j BURLESON, TRA-e151n.
BETHESD'A
I WSC �'��
HIGHWAYS
cuss
,. w,
7aRFMzz
Trinity River Sewer Service FORTORTH_� /\
IHSL U ORE'SEO RA 1 C R E'I,A, Basin
i
!ITT RRA ti EAE ' EO5 AAPR�I
E74GINEEERI:.G Pt F—SES OR Sr A REGI S TEREO RRV"c 55 C:'I-. WATER N
SUR.TVCR TIE El ,FLIRT'.. -SURIHA YES:.1RESRO.IS/'
FOilR irC.E A—;RA I:FIAIGGITI en