HomeMy WebLinkAboutContract 61760CSC No. 61760
CAN DI DATE CONSERVATION
AG REEM ENT WITH ASSU RANCES
FOR SIX SPECI ES I N TH E
TRI N ITY RIVER BASI N
_ ,��1- ,
�:�:
{
1{
j•. • .''
_ -_--- �-: ���
r __.. .
_ ..�ti'�,-,��r. . �'
. ; �--.��_... _ �.s: , . —
�T- -Y'�.r-- . . Y ..��.x�M' "' . . �
Texas Heefsplitter
'�_` .�5��` .' �
Trinity Pigtve
. . :�� r�� �
_ .�� _ �
�
r �;:;::�.: � - - � �
YQ _
. -`•r .:.. . ,.� ,ti _ � :�..
� �� -_ �:�;, _
i _ . ., � ,.,_ _.
���^yw..��._ <�<._
Texas Fawnsfvvt
,� - ;� - _ _ w- .. �,.�
i. , , , �as y � • �� " `' � ��,y� _� V,�.
�z. < _. ,..�
�" � . . .. tr � �� �`��'�w,:- �
,. ..'� ..� 1�.k': �jl'
' '��, '�w _ .. ��
�:J'�'�: � �� . �- ti �
. ,�� . . f . -� .:: �
.�:�. �'` ;�.:T �. �a. , . . �: ` ...
�� - �R= �':��', `.` '"�`": `ti�iy..
� j ,f e�.� .
�+r"�;Y�-�;:;� , _'�.a�,-�� _ �? �w:;
'R k,. �, � ��. �.' 4 } $ � _ ¢_ �•a-:-; ,.-+Y�� ,� y
� �i. �� rl�l...• �.Y . �..
.I�d ..'_^___... �r�^.� l�'.
Alligator Sr�apping Turt�e
U S.
F15H & W1LriLIF'E
SERVICE
��
�
���� 2�ri��
Developed cooperatively by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service — Southwest Region, Trinity River Authority, and
partners included under Certificates of Inclusion:
North Texas Municipal Water District, Tarrant Regional
Water District, City of Dallas, and City of Fort Worth
2023 FINAL OFFICIALRECORD
CITY SECRETARY
FT. WORTH, TX
�
Louisiana PEgtoe
.i 'tiM'a.:� i �i� a� � � � . • ._ � .� a �
Weste�n Chicken TurtVe
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
AlligatorSnapping Turtle
Eric Munscher, SWCA Environmental Consultants
Contents
Listof Tables and Figures ................................................................................................................vi
...
List o Acronyms ............................................................................................................................viii
Glossaryof Terms ...........................................................................................................................ix
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 ................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Purpose of this Agreement ................................................................................................... 3
2 Authority .................................................................................................................................5
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 ................................................................................................................ 11
4.1 Basin Overview and Background ........................................................................................ 11
4.1.1 Complicated Operational Environment ....................................................................... 11
4.1.2 Historical Water Quality ............................................................................................... 14
4.1.3 Success of WastewaterTreatment Plant Regionalization ........................................... 14
4.1.4 Benefits of Regional Wastewater Treatment .............................................................. 18
4.1.5 Fish Consumption Bans and Advisories ....................................................................... 19
S Covered Area and Conservation Zone Descriptions ............................................................. 20
5.1 Upper Basin — Conservation Zones A and B ........................................................................ 23
5.1.1 Conservation Zone A .................................................................................................... 23
5.1.2 Conservation Zone B .................................................................................................... 25
5.2 Middle Basin — Conservation Zones C and D ...................................................................... 26
5.2.1 Conservation Zone C .................................................................................................... 27
m
5.3 Conservation Zone D ........................................................................................................... 28
5.4 Lower Basin — Conservation Zone E .................................................................................... 29
5.4.1 Conservation Zone E .................................................................................................... 30
6 Threats .................................................................................................................................. 31
6.1 Altered Hydrology ............................................................................................................... 31
6.2 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 32
6.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities ................................................................................. 32
6.2.2 Non-point Source ......................................................................................................... 37
6.3 Degradation, Loss, and Fragmentation of Habitat ............................................................. 38
6.4 Barriers to Dispersal ............................................................................................................ 39
6.5 Direct Mortality and Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
EducationalPurposes ................................................................................................................40
6.5.1 Freshwater Mussels ..................................................................................................... 40
6.5.2 Turtle Species ............................................................................................................... 41
6.6 Climate Change ................................................................................................................... 42
6.7 Invasive Species .................................................................................................................. 42
7 Covered Activities ................................................................................................................. 44
7.1 Conservation Activities ....................................................................................................... 44
7.2 Water Supply and Reservoir Operations ............................................................................ 44
7.3 Levee, Dams, Bulkheads, Boat Dock, Boat Ramps, and Instream Structures ..................... 45
7.4 Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants ...................................................................... 46
7.5 Pipelines ..............................................................................................................................46
7.6 Invasive Aquatic Plant Control ............................................................................................ 47
7.7 Boat Dock and Pier Permitting ............................................................................................ 47
8 Conservation Measures ........................................................................................................ 47
8.1 Non-point Source Watershed Protection ........................................................................... 50
8.2 Stream Restoration Activities ............................................................................................. 53
8.3 Participate in the USACE Sustainable Rivers Project .......................................................... 53
8.4 Regional and Large-scale Wastewater Treatment .............................................................. 54
8.5 Proactive Measures to Address Wastewater Overflows, Illicit Discharges into Treatment
Plants, and Emergency Repairs ................................................................................................. 55
�
8.6 Environmental Flows Protection ......................................................................................... 56
8.7 Instream Flow Protections in Zone E .................................................................................. 57
8.8 USGS Flow and Water Quality Monitoring ......................................................................... 58
8.9 Eradication and Control Measures to Address Invasive Aquatic Plants ............................. 58
8.10 Avoiding and Minimizing Site-level Disturbances ............................................................. 58
8.11 Public Education and Outreach ........................................................................................ 60
8.12 Reintroduction of Covered Species .................................................................................. 61
8.13 No New Permanent Dams on the Trinity River Mainstem ............................................... 62
8.14 Monitoring and Research ................................................................................................. 62
8.14.1 Instream Water Quality Monitoring .......................................................................... 62
8.14.2 Caged mussel studies ................................................................................................. 63
8.14.3 Long-term Monitoring for Mussels ............................................................................ 64
8.14.4 Water Quality Modeling ............................................................................................ 64
8.14.5 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Modeling .......................................................................... 65
8.14.6 Zebra Mussel Monitoring ........................................................................................... 65
9 Funding ................................................................................................................................. 65
10 Adaptive Management ......................................................................................................... 68
11 Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances ............................................................................. 68
11.1 Changed Circumstances .................................................................................................... 68
11.1.1 New Listing or Critical Habitat Designation within the Covered Area ....................... 69
11.1.2 Adding a Covered Species .......................................................................................... 69
11.1.3 Louisiana Pigtoe Re-discovered in the Trinity River Basin ......................................... 70
11.1.4 New Science on the Impacts of WWTP Effluent to the Covered Species .................. 70
11.1.5 Delisting of a Covered Species ................................................................................... 71
11.1.6 Taxonomic Changes ................................................................................................... 71
11.1.7 Unforeseen Catastrophic Event ................................................................................. 72
11.1.8 Lack of Self-Sustaining Population within Suitable Habitat ................
11.1.9 Environmental Flow Standards Substantially Revised or Abolished ..
11.1.10 Invasive Species Threaten Covered Species in Covered Area ..........
11.1.11 Change in Covered Parties' Service Area ..........................................
11.1.12 Change in Anticipated Grant Funding ...............................................
.................. 72
.................. 73
.................. 73
.................. 73
.................. 73
iv
11.1.13 Significant Degradation in Water Quality in CPAs ................................................... 74
11.1.14 Environmental Flows Alteration .............................................................................. 74
11.1.15 Change in Covered Parties ....................................................................................... 74
11.2 Unforeseen Circumstances ............................................................................................... 74
12 Effects and Incidental Take ................................................................................................... 75
12.1 Level and Type of Take ...................................................................................................... 77
12.2 Take of Turtles .................................................................................................................. 78
12.3 Take of Mussels ................................................................................................................. 78
13 Regulatory Assurances .......................................................................................................... 82
14 Reporting ...............................................................................................................................82
15 Agreement Term, Responsibilities, Amendment, and Termination ..................................... 83
15.1 Agreement Term ............................................................................................................... 83
15.2 Responsibilities of Each Party ........................................................................................... 83
15.3 Modifications and Amendments ...................................................................................... 84
15.4 Dispute Resolution ............................................................................................................ 84
15.5 Termination of CCAA, Suspension or Revocation of Permit ............................................. 84
16 Authorized Signatures ........................................................................................................... 86
17 References ............................................................................................................................ 87
Appendix A. Response to Public Comments ................................................................................ 92
Center for Biological Diversity .................................................................................................. 92
National Wildlife Federation, et al ............................................................................................ 98
Texas Parks and Wildlife ......................................................................................................... 106
Member of Public — Name Redacted ...................................................................................... 106
Appendix B. Compliance with Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)............ 107
Step 1: Does the Covered Activity occur within a known Historic Property? ........................ 107
Step 2: Does the conservation measure have the potential to affect a Historic Property? .. 108
Step 3: Formal Section 106 consultation for a Covered Activity that has the potential to affect
aHistoric Property .................................................................................................................. 109
►•�
List of Tables and Figures
TABLES
Table 6-1. This table shows the major (>1 MGD) WWTPs for the Covered Parties. The Map Label
column corresponds to the map shown above ............................................................................ 35
Table 7-1. Lakes Owned and Operated by the Compact or TRWD ............................................... 45
Table 8-1. Table summarizing the Conservation Measures . ........................................................ 48
Table 8-2. Issues and conservation goals identified in the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation
Society's National Strategy for the Conservation of Native Freshwater Mollusks (2016). .......... 49
Table 8-3. Table showing the seasonal SB3 Environmental Baseflow Standards (cfs) codified into
the TCEQ WAM (TRA, 2017) . ........................................................................................................ 57
Table 9-1. Table showing draft CCAA Implementation Workplan and associated budget.......... 67
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 is believed to be
extirpated from the Trinity Basin; the Alligator Snapping Turtle and Western Chicken Turtle
likely occur throughout the basin. Sources: Randklev et al. (2020) and USFWS Central Texas and
East Texas Mussels Species Status Assessments ............................................................................ 6
Figure 2. Map of the Trinity River Basin showing reservoir ownership in the Upper, Middle, and
LowerBasins . ................................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 3. Graph showing decrease in total ammonia nitrogen (mg/L as N) at State Highway 34
near Rosser, Texas in Ellis and Kaufman Counties. Data source is based on surface grab samples
from the TCEQ Surface Water Quality Database. Data was not collected between 1994 and
2000 . ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 4. Graph showing decrease in biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L) at State Highway 34
near Rosser, Texas in Ellis and Kaufman Counties. Data source is based on surface grab samples
from the USGS National Water Information System for gage number 08062500 ....................... 16
Figure S. Graph showing a significant increase in dissolved oxygen (mg/L) at State Highway 34
near Rosser, Texas in Ellis and Kaufman Counties. Pre-2015 data is based on surface grab
samples and post 2015 data is based on daily average near real-time data sonde readings from
the USGS National Water Information System for gage number 08062500 ................................ 17
Figure 6. Map showing Conservation Zones A through E and habitat currently occupied by
Covered Species of freshwater mussels (Louisiana Pigtoe is believed extirpated) ...................... 22
Figure 7. Map showing Conservation Zone A in the Upper Basin . .............................................. 24
Figure 8. Daily average reservoir surface elevation on Lake Grapevine 2010 through 2021...... 25
Figure 9. Map showing Conservation Zone B in the Upper Basin . .............................................. 26
vi
Figure 10. Hydrograph for USGS gage #08065000 Trinity River near Oakwood, TX showing long-
term elevated flows based on USACE reservoir releases of captured flood waters upstream of
theDFW area (Zone A) .................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 11. Map showing Conservation Zone C in the Middle Basin ............................................ 28
Figure 12. Map showing Conservation Zone D in the Middle Basin ............................................ 29
Figure 13. Map showing Conservation Zone E in the Lower Basin .............................................. 30
Figure 14. 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 over time ............................................................. 32
Figure 15. Map showing Covered Parties' WWTPs. Reference table below for additional WWTP
information. .................................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 16. Graph showing average total phosphorous and chlorophyll-a at selected locations
along the Trinity River between the Trinidad gage upstream and the headwaters of Lake
Livingston . ..................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 17. Status of zebra mussel infestation for reservoirs in the Trinity Basin ........................ 43
Figure 18. Alligator Snapping Turtle signage . ............................................................................... 61
vii
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
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
viii
Glossary of Terms
Glossary Term Definition
The process of monitoring the implementation of Conservation
Adaptive
Measures, then adjusting future Conservation Measures according to
Management
lessons learned and new information.
Applicant (and
Trinity River Authority of Texas (TRA)
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
species conservation.
Programs
Defined by regulations at SO 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 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)."
Upper Trinity River Water Quality Compact - Association of the major
Compact
wastewater dischargers in the Dallas and Fort Worth metro area.
Covered Parties' operations that include water quality monitoring,
Conservation
biological monitoring, riparian and instream data collection, and other
Activities
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.
Portions of the Conservation Zones that are currently occupied by the
Conservation
Covered Species and/or contain suitable habitat, and where restoration
Priority Areas
and reintroduction efforts will be focused over the life of the CCAA.
ix
Glossary Term Definition
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.
An activity, when performed in accordance with this CCAA, that may result
Covered Activities
in authorized incidental take of the Covered Species.
The entities covered by this CCAA by either signature or Certificate of
Inclusion (CI). (Signatory — Trinity River Authority, Cls — City of Dallas, City of
Covered Parties
Fort Worth, North Texas Municipal Water District, and Tarrant Regional
Water District).
Collectively, the set of six species whose conservation is the focus of this
Covered Species
CCAA.
Gate Operation Engineering documents describing reservoir gate operation procedures that
Procedures operators are required to follow to ensure public safety.
This is a specific permit issued by the USFWS under section 10(a) of the ESA
Incidental Take to private parties that are conducting otherwise lawful activities, but not for
Permit 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
Permit Holder
Trinity River Authority of Texas (TRA)
(and Applicant)
Suitable Habitat Areas that have the elements of habitat required by a Covered Species.
Defined by regulations at 50 CFR §17.3 as "changes in circumstances
affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan or
Unforeseen agreement that could not reasonably have been anticipated by plan or
Circumstances agreement developers and the USFWS at the time of the conservation plan's
or agreement's negotiation and development, and that result in a
substantial and adverse change in the status of the Covered Species."
Zone Conservation Zone
1 Introduction
1.1 Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances
This Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA, agreement) 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 Compact1 (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 Certificate of Inclusion (CI) 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 take2 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. If any of the 6 species (collectively
Covered Species) within this CCAA do become listed, parties who have already entered into this
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 this 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 Covered Species becomes listed, parties to the
agreement are covered for incidental take if they comply 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 riddellii); 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
designed to benefit these six species specifically, they should benefit a variety of aquatic
species, including amphibians, fish, and macroinvertebrates.
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.
1.2 Covered Parties and Certificates of Inclusion
The Upper Trinity River Water Quality Compact (Compact), a partnership consisting of North
Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD), TRA, City of Dallas, and the City of Fort Worth was
formally organized in 1975 to facilitate cooperation among the large wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) 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 Waste Load Allocation
(WLA) study, the first of which was adopted in 1974. The WLA, described in detail in Section
6.2.1.1, is a modeling project that 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 Compact recently funded freshwater mussel surveys along the mainstem and Elm Fork of
the 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. This study
was designed to fill spatial data gaps in freshwater mussel sampling and attempt to better
understand the population stressors in the Trinity River Basin (water quality vs. habitat). The
results and accompanying report were submitted to the USFWS Arlington Ecological Services
Field Office in 2019. The study suggested that the downcutting of the Trinity River bed since at
least 1939 has resulted in permanently degraded habitat in and immediately below the Dallas
Fort Worth Metropolitan Area (DFW) and that poor habitat may be more detrimental to
freshwater mussels than water quality, though further research is needed.
Though not a formal member of the Compact, TRWD is a regional raw water supplier for the
western portions of the 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 coverage and regulatory assurances under a CI.
Together, these entities are the Covered Parties3. Each of the Covered Parties commit to this
agreement, with the specific exclusion of all wastewater-related aspects for TRWD since they
do not conduct any wastewater operations. Should one or more of the Covered Parties decide
3 The term Covered Parties is used throughout this document to maintain consistency. However, when the term
Covered Parties is used in reference to wastewater treatment topics, the term only applies to the members of the
Compact (as described in Section 1.2) and does not include TRWD as they are the only participant in this
agreement with no wastewater operations.
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) are specifically designed to reduce threats and increase 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 10-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 the Covered Species 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 objectives:
1. Provide comprehensive, species-specific conservation in the Trinity River Basin.
2. Provide an ongoing, adaptively managed program that will monitor the status of the
Covered Species for the 10-year CCAA term, which will provide baseline status
information and long-term population monitoring.
3. Enhance and restore riparian and instream habitat to the benefit of the Covered Species
and all native aquatic life.
4. 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 for all native aquatic species.
5. Allow Covered Parties' operations to continue uninterrupted should a Covered Species
become listed under the ESA in the future.
6. Provide a roadmap and structure for when permitting of Covered Parties' activities will
fall under the coverage of the section 10 Permit (CCAA) or need additional section 7
consultation under the ESA.
7. 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 5 of CCAA) by identifying relevant
conservation requirements for Covered Activities.
3
An important goal of this CCAA is to provide a framework for ESA compliance for the Covered
Parties while ensuring conservation of Covered (at-risk) Species. Federal actions (i.e., projects
authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency) are subject to section 7 of the ESA.
Specifically, section 7(a)(1) of the ESA charges Federal agencies to aid in the conservation of
listed species, and section 7(a)(2) requires the agencies to ensure that their activities are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitats. Additionally, section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer
with the USFWS on actions which are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of proposed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Non-federal projects (those without a Federal nexus) are subject to the prohibitions (of "take")
under section 9 of the ESA, but the project proponents may apply for a permit (through section
10) if incidental take of a listed species is anticipated.
Whether an activity proposed by a Covered Party falls under section 7(e.g., new construction
with a Federal nexus) or 10 of the ESA (e.g., a Covered Activity in the CCAA), this CCAA will
facilitate future ESA compliance. The USFWS will issue an enhancement of survival permit
under section 10 of the ESA as part of this CCAA, which will cover incidental take should any of
the Covered Species be listed. Because permit issuance is a Federal action, the USFWS will
conduct a conference and issue a conference opinion under the section 7 process.
This CCAA is not intended to alter the obligation of a Federal agency to consult with the USFWS
pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. Should one of the Covered Species become listed under the
ESA, unless otherwise required by law or regulation, the USFWS will not impose additional
requirements on the Covered Parties for "take" related to Covered Actions under this CCAA in
excess of the Conservation Measures and commitments already contained in the CCAA. If a
project with a Federal nexus that is not covered by the CCAA is proposed by a Covered Party,
the USFWS agrees to meet with the Covered Party and the action agency that has jurisdiction
over the affected project to discuss the appropriate section 7 process for the project.
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' operations, which have potential negative effects on the Covered
Species while balancing the benefits that the Covered Parties' operations provide. Due to
historic 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 some measurable control to the Covered Parties within the Covered
Area such that the Covered Parties have some legislative authority, even though they do not
have full regulatory control of the water system in the basin.
C!
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 FR 32726)
and 2016 revisions to the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances Policy (81 FR
95164), which became effective on March 21, 2017 (82 FR 8540).
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. Although
regulatory and enforcement authorities 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 and is a logical and capable entity to hold the permit associated with this
agreement and oversee its implementation.
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 as the
occupied area for the Covered Species (Figure 1).
�
p r���ny k���� e�s��
— Texas Heelsplitter Range
� Triniry Pigtce Range
� TX Fawnsfoot & TX Heelsplit[er co-occur
� Texas Fawnsfoo[ and Trini[y Pig[oe co-occur
� All above spedes co-occur
�;�f TPWD Designated Mussel Sanc[uary
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 is believed to be
extirpated from the Trinity Basin; the Alligator Snapping Turtle and Western Chicken Turtle
�
0 25 50 Miles �
I i I i I
likely occur throughout the basin. Sources: Randklev et al. (2020) and USFWS Central Texas and
East Texas Mussels Species Status Assessments.
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 pseudocardinal (pseudo = false) teeth (two left, one right),
2 lateral teeth, and are generally unsculptured 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 et al., 1996). Recent genetic work
on mussels previously classified as Fawnsfoot (Truncilla donaciformis) from the Middle and
Lower East Fork of the Trinity River (Randklev, 2017) indicate that those mussels are actually
Texas Fawnsfoot (Inoue et al., 2018). This 2019 range expansion for the Texas Fawnsfoot
resulted in the Trinity River Basin (previously considered only as part of the USFWS' 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 USFWS 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 et al, 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 them
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
r�
are tan to chestnut brown or black. Nacre is white or bluish white with
purple or pink along the hinge line.
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 Texas Pigtoe
(Fusconaia askewi) and Triangle Pigtoe (Fusconaia lananensis), 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; Pieri et
al., 2018). The Trinity Pigtoe is morphologically difficult to distinguish between other types of
Pigtoe including the Wabash Pigtoe (Fusconaia flava), which is widely distributed throughout
the Eastern United States and 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; Inoue et al., 2018). The species is
currently classified as threatened by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) but is not
currently under review by the USFWS for potential listing under the ESA.
Most habitat, host, and reproduction characteristics are similar to other Pigtoe species 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 other Pigtoe 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).
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 (Randklev et al., 2020) 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). 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 (Randklev et al., 2020),
the 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 et al., 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 175 pounds or more with females weighing around
50 pounds. 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 (including other turtles), and amphibians, (Hibbitts, T.D and Hibbitts,
T. L., 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
E
Turtle likely occurs throughout the entire Trinity River Basin wherever suitable habitat is
present.
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, as it is 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 (Ernst and Lovich, 2009) 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 a cryptic species, and little is known about its 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 (personal
communication, Brandon Bowers, Texas A&M University).
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., 2017); 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
10
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
4.1 Basin Overview and Background
At over 18,000 mi2, 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. It is unique relative to other basins in Texas in that it contains a very large,
urbanized population (DFW) in the upper portions of the basin and, although not in-basin, is a
major drinking water source for another large metropolitan area (Houston), near the bottom of
the basin.
Water supply operations in the Trinity River Basin are complicated and nuanced due to the
number of regional entities, major cities, and counties 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. This atmosphere of cooperation has led to
drastic water quality improvements over the last half-century as described later in Sections
4.1.1,4.1.2,and4.1.3.
The Covered Parties' regionalization of wastewater service in the DFW area is the most
significant driver for water quality improvements in the Trinity River Basin. Together, the
Covered Parties spend over $397 million dollars annually to operate 18 major WWTPs, which as
of December of 2022, are permitted to convert up to 978.4 million gallons per day (MGD) of
raw sewage into high-quality effluent (see Section 6.2.1, Figure 15, and Table 6-1 for more
detail). This discharged effluent provides aquatic habitat for organisms including the Covered
Species and their host fish for the entirety of the 325 miles of the Trinity River from the DFW
area to Lake Livingston. During periods of drought, this water provides approximately 500 cubic
feet per second (cfs) of baseflow to a system that would otherwise be dry, or extremely low.
However, during wet periods, this water is only a fractional component of the flow.
4.1.1 Complicated Operational Environment
As explained in detail later in the document, the Covered Parties are regulated entities4, not
regulators, and only represent one piece of the overall operational environment within the
4 Generally, the TCEQ issues TPDES (Section 1.2) permits and the USACE issues 404 Clean Water Act permits.
11
Trinity River Basin. This fact complicates conservation efforts because the Covered Parties have
limited control over the chemistry of the water within the river.
From a water quality perspective, the Covered Parties discharge wastewater to the river
system, but there also are inputs from other sources, such as agricultural and urban runoff,
other municipal WWTPs, and flood releases from United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) reservoirs, which all combine into one "mixture" that is constantly changing over
distance and time. Under low-flow conditions in effluent-dominated reaches, water chemistry
is heavily dependent upon effluent quality (i.e., downstream of dischargers). However, under
high-flow conditions, non-point runoff can dominate water quality. In both cases, the overall
water chemistry results from the blending of multiple sources, each of varying quality and
composition that varies temporarily and spatially. This fact makes teasing out the specific
impacts of the Covered Parties' operations extremely difficult, especially considering impacts to
the species that can be both chronic and acute.
From a hydrologic perspective, the Covered Parties operate water supply reservoirs and flood
management systems (Figure 2), but do not have any flood storage capacity. While the Covered
Parties have some influence during normal and low flow periods, the USACE's eight major flood
control reservoirs (Figure 2) are the driver during wet periods and the Covered Parties do not
control their operations.
The Covered Parties' operations are only one piece of a larger, interconnected system and, as
such, represent only a portion of the stressors on the Covered Species. The Conservation
Measures put forth in this document are designed to provide a"net conservation benefit" to
the Covered Species for those factors that the Covered Parties can influence, which is difficult
to measure or quantify due to the cumulative effects of the entire system.
12
Municipality/Utility
� TRA
�` TRWD
� USACE
�
� E�m F �
"� AG CaKer �r� �<d
S��
R Roberts �r�,
�Bridgeport Lewisville lj� Lavon� I
T `a��i �
�Eagle M[n Grapevrne R Hubbard�
�Worth D� g :
C'j Weatlier/ord ^��Mtn Crk White
P� '�°t,.1.,,7;
� • . � Arlmgton �Rock
� Benbrook � Joe Pool
� � r:
��_,n��,_.;�: � �
. _.�i, i.�-.
Oklahoma Qty
�
Dallas
0
r-x�"` i���u
Austin
<> �0„5�01
0
sa�, a�,«�,�� ��
e
�;n�huahua
Torreon o
;Ilacan
I, HERE.Ga�ndn,
US6S,EPq.Esn,
USGS
N
0 25 50 Miles �
I i I i I
HouSton V�' Anahuac
Figure 2. Map of the Trinity River Basin showing reservoir ownership in the Upper, Middle,
and Lower Basins.
G,o
A��
�9
Sf2
Cedar Crk �
����
er
�ills
,Richland
Chambers
Hauston Co +
�'fo
�9
Sf2
��/
v�
��
9`rl
2
13
4.1.2 Historical 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
scarcely worthy the name of river" (Moore, 1927). In the early 1900s, 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 (1925) 1924-25 survey, the Trinity River below
Dallas was described as follows:
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 (sicJ 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.
4.1.3 Success of Wastewater Treatment Plant Regionalization
In the 1930s, secondary treatment of wastewater began, but water quality continued to remain
poor. Beginning in the 1970s, however, advances in wastewater treatment resulted in dramatic
improvements. In 1971, implementation of the Upper Trinity River Basin Comprehensive Sewer
Plan resulted in the "regionalization" of WWTPs. Regionalization resulted in the elimination of
many small, independently operated municipal and industrial WWTPs 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.
Water quality improvements in the Trinity River Basin are tied to technological advances that
were possible because of the operation of the Covered Parties' regionalized WWTPs. Long-term
water quality data has been collected at the TCEQ Surface Water Quality Monitoring (SWQM)
site 10925 in Ellis and Kaufman Countiess for decades. A review of historical total ammonia
nitrogen from this site, which can be harmful to aquatic organisms at some level, has fallen
dramatically since 1985. Between 1972 and 1985, total ammonia nitrogen averaged 3.4
milligrams per liter (mg/L); from 1985 to present, average ammonia nitrogen levels have
decreased 95% and now hold steady averaging 0.16 mg/L (Figure 3).
Simply, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is a measure of the amount of organic and inorganic
material in the water. The Covered Parties' Regional WWTPs use an activated sludge treatment
5 TCEQ Surface Water Quality Monitoring Station number 10925 is located at the Trinity River and State Highway
34 just below the confluence of the East Fork Trinity River. This has been used for decades to represent the water
quality for the entire DFW area since it captures all of the urban runoff and effluent from all of the major WWTPs
in the DFW area, including the Covered Parties' WWTPs.
14
process for the major plants which is very efficient in the removal of BOD. A review of historical
BOD data at SWQM site 10925 shows a dramatic decrease in average BOD since 1985. Between
1968 and 1985, BOD averaged 13.4 mg/L; since then, BOD has decreased by 81% to 2.5 mg/L
(Figure 4). Overwhelmingly, these water quality improvements are due to the Covered Parties'
efforts since the early 1970s to convert onsite septic systems and small, dysfunctional package
plants to large, sophisticated Regional WWTPs.
15
zs
zo
Total Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L as N� at SH 34 near Rosser, TX in Kaufman and Ellis Counties
is
�
io '
s
Figure 3. Graph showing decrease in total ammonia nitrogen (mg/L as N) at State Highway 34
near Rosser, Texas in Ellis and Kaufman Counties. Data source is based on surface grab samples
from the TCEQ Surface Water Quality Database. Data was not collected between 1994 and
2000.
Biochemicaf Oxygen Demand (5-day) at SH 34 Near Rosser, TX in Kauffman and
Ellis Caunties
60
•
50
40 •
• �
E 30 �
• �
� • •
• � '_ •
20 • � • � •� 'tg� �� • •
•������s�i ��i~� �S• �
�. :i • s � _' � •�• .�►.
lo : ��� �•� r`'= � '��•
Y;� � ��M •• � • � � � � •
!. . � .. • : v ��; �•,,����{1���.�s�.:.�.�e�,.�.�.�'
0
1/17/1968 1/15/1973 1/14/1975 1/13/1983 1/12/1988 1/10/1993 1/9/1998 1/8/20�3 1/7/2008 1/5/2013
Figure 4. Graph showing decrease in biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L) at State Highway 34
near Rosser, Texas in Ellis and Kaufman Counties. Data source is based on surface grab samples
from the USGS National Water Information System for gage number 08062500.
16
0
3/8/1972 8/23/1977 2/19/1983 8/11/1988 2/1/1994 7/25/1999 1/14/2005 7/7/2010 12/28/2015
As ammonia and BOD have decreased, unsurprisingly, dissolved oxygen has shown a significant
increase indicating improved water quality. Between 1968 and 1985, 39% of the USGS data
collected show values of less than the TCEQ water quality screening level of 3.5 mg/L indicating
degraded water quality. Since 1986, no values below 3.5 mg/L have been recorded (Figure 5).
Dissolved Oxygen at SH 34 Near Rosser, TX in Kaufman and Ellis Counties
14
• i
.•
iz • . � 3 .
• . .
• '
!' . .
• • • • � t
� � • � • � �
. . .
1D • • �• �� • • � � �/ �� • � • ,
• • � • � • � � • � � • •
♦ •
g � � • • • �� �• • �•• � • •s�•
• • • • � • �� • • • _ •
• • • • • • • • • •
�no • �j � � • � • • • � M • � � • • • � • • S � �
E • / � � • • • � s � � � • • • _ � • 1 �
• � • t •! • � �
6 �'� =S �I��� • �� �'•• ��• • �' • � • • 2 =•
• � • • • � • •
! • • •• ♦ • • • i
• . • • •
4 • •� • �.�••� .i• ' •
• w • _• •
�� � � � • � : •
� � �� •
Z � i�• • s � � • �
• �� ��• {
♦ +
1 •� � •
0 �_� • �
1/1/1965 1/1/1959 1/1/1973 1/1/1977 1/1/1981 1/1/1985 1/1/1989 1/1/1993 1/1/1997 1/1/2001 1/1/2W5 1/1/2009 1/1/2013 1/1/2017 1/1/2021
• �O(mg�L� -TCEQScreeningLevel
Figure S. Graph showing a significant increase in dissolved oxygen (mg/L) at State Highway 34
near Rosser, Texas in Ellis and Kaufman Counties. Pre-2015 data is based on surface grab
samples and post 2015 data is based on daily average near real-time data sonde readings from
the USGS National Water Information System for gage number 08062500.
Before the 1980s, prior to regionalized WWTP operations and the technological advances in
wastewater treatment processes put in place by the Covered Parties, regular fish kills occurred
in the mainstem Trinity River. These fish kills were caused, in part, by the anoxic conditions
created by under-treated wastewater, or "point sources." These fish kills no longer occur, and
the Trinity River has seen a remarkable comeback of fish species. In 1974, prior to regionalized
WWTP operations, only four species of fish were found in the Trinity River in and around the
DFW area. That increased to 11 in 1987, 25 in 1995, and 38 in 2012 (TRA and TPWD, 2014;
USGS, 1999). Additionally, intolerant species like the Dusky Darter (Percina sciera) and Bigscale
Logperch (Percina macrolepida) are now regularly found in these reaches. Perkins and Bonner
(2016) performed a detailed comparison of historical fish assemblage data to water quality and
noted that point source pollution reductions caused an increase in species richness and guild
composition between 1968 and 2008.
Due in part to the Covered Parties' regional wastewater operations, the water quality
improvements discussed above are important in their own right, but it is also important to note
that these improvements took place in the same timeframe (generally 1980 — present) that the
17
population in the DFW area increased 160% from 2.5 million people in 1980 to 6.5 million
people in 20226. The Texas Legislature recognizes the importance of regionalized WWTPs like
the ones that the Covered Parties operate and requires TCEQ to consider regionalization during
the review of new wastewater permits. Texas Water Code section 26.081 provides Texas'
regionalization policy for wastewater treatment and part (a) of that code states that:
"The legislature finds and declares that it is necessary to the health, safety, and
welfare of the people of this state to implement the state policy to encourage
and promote the development and use of regional and area-wide waste
collection, treatment, and disposal systems to serve the waste disposal needs of
the citizens of the state and to prevent pollution and maintain and enhance the
quality of the water in the state."
In 2008, the Trinity River, San Jacinto River, and Galveston Bay Stakeholder Committee and
Expert Science Team (comprised of a diverse group of basin experts assembled to recommend
environmental flow regimes to TCEQ) declared that the Trinity River system was a sound
ecological environment. 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.
4.1.4 Benefits of Regional Wastewater Treatment
As stated above, efficient, high-quality sewage treatment is essential for the Trinity River to
meet the water quality standards set forth by the TCEQ in and below the DFW area, and
regionalized WWTPs are the preferred option. It is important to understand the extent to which
regional WWTP operations by the Covered Parties reduce the amount of pollutants that would
otherwise enter the Trinity watershed. To illustrate the high level of protection the WWTPs
afford to the river in terms of waste removal, let's briefly examine what the system would look
like without a regionalized WWTP system.
First, wastewater would not stop flowing to the plants, as the Covered Parties have limited
control as to what actually enters the plant'. While the Covered Parties have industrial pre-
treatment programs,$ WWTPs have no real options to stop wastewater and/or illicit discharges
from reaching their plants9 aside from closing the influent gates. If these gates were to be
closed, it is important to note that the sewage does not stop flowing unless tens to hundreds of
thousands of people immediately stop washing clothes, taking showers, washing vegetables,
6 https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22966/dallas-fort-worth/population
' Except in rare cases, wastewater moves through the Covered Parties' pipelines in the DFW through gravity flow.
$ Pre-treatment programs require some industrial dischargers to "pre-treat" their wastewater to an agreed upon
limit prior to sending it through a wastewater pipeline and into the WWTP. These processes are regulated by
through a permitting process by one of the Covered Parties, or customer municipality, and regular inspections.
9 Illicit discharges can include actions like accidental of intended tapping of wastewater pipes from residences or
businesses, discharge of an unapproved constituent or volume from industry, or removal of manhole covers and
direct discharge into the pipeline. Identifying illicit discharges is a difficult process. Generally, if the Covered Parties
suspect illicit discharges are taking place, sampling is done along the main interceptor pipeline to identify
i�'j
utilizing restroom facilities, etc. In short order, the closed gates would back the system up and
cause sewage to backflow causing sanitary sewer overflows from manholes and backflow into
homes causing immediate, detrimental environmental and human health impacts. The
Conservation Measures designed to address these risks are discussed in Section 8.
Second, development would continue to occur, and wastewater treatment would be
implemented using small-scale treatment options, like package plants and septic systems,
which have historically been poorly maintained over time and caused degraded water quality in
densely populated areas. In the Greater Houston metro area, efforts are underway to convert
small systems to centralized WWTPs, but that conversion is difficult for a variety of reasons,
including the region's overall low elevation and minimal land slope make moving wastewater by
gravity difficult. Several reports summarized in a white paper published by the Houston-
Galveston Area Council (2009) suggested that in-stream water quality would be significantly
improved if this region were able to convert to larger, more efficient WWTPs.
Third, the high-quality effluent discharged from the Covered Parties' WWTPs is a significant
source of current and future water supplies, termed "reuse," for the Covered Species and
downstream users. The Region C Water Planning Group (2020) identified conservation and
reuse (to include effluent discharge from the Covered Parties' regional plants) as providing 31%
of the water needed to meet the projected 2070 demand. Not only does reuse of the Covered
Parties' discharges guarantee water remaining in the bed and banks of Trinity River mainstem,
but it also prevents the need to fill this demand through other measures like new in-basin or
out-of-basin reservoirs.
While regionalized WWTPs have been instrumental in restoring water quality in the Trinity
River Basin, they also present a risk to the Covered Species. As discussed above, modern
WWTPs are large, complex operations which rely on a variety of internal and external factors to
function properly, and permit violations occur from time to time. Some of these factors include
the following: 1) the quality of the wastewater received at the plant is not consistent, and
operational decisions must be made during the treatment process; 2) activated sludge is a
biological component, and many factors can affect microbial efficiency; 3) operations rely on a
consistent supply chain for components like chlorine gas10, fuel, and electricity; 4) unforeseen
human error; 5) equipment failure; and 6) weather. Risk potential to the Covered Species from
the Covered Parties' WWTP operations and the associated Conservation Measures are
discussed in greater detail in Sections 6 and 8, respectively.
4.1.5 Fish Consumption Bans and Advisories
The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) is the state agency responsible for
testing fish tissue across the state and issuing fish consumption bans and advisories11 when
10 Due to the risks of chlorine gas storage, WWTPs limit how much is stored onsite at one time.
11 A fish consumption advisory limits the recommended amount of a selected fish species a person should
consume (e.g., one meal per month) while a fish consumption ban recommends that a person does not eat any of
that species from that designated part of a waterbody.
19
appropriate to protect human health. The entire length of the Trinity River in the Covered Area
is covered under either a fish consumption advisory or a fish consumption ban due to elevated
levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins in fish tissue.
PCBs are a class of 209 manmade chemicals that were manufactured from about 1929 to 1979
when they were banned. Because they were very stable, they were considered to be ideal for
use in many products ranging from heat transfer fluids to carbonless copy paper. However, due
to the same properties that made them stable, they are persistent in the environment and do
not easily degrade. They can break down from more heavily chlorinated chemical compounds
to less chlorinated chemical compounds over time. They are also fat soluble, which leads to
bioaccumulation in animal tissues.
Dioxins are somewhat similar classes of chemicals. There are several hundred types of dioxins
as well, but there are 17 dioxins that are considered the most toxic. Unlike PCBs, dioxins and
furans are not intentionally produced; they are produced as byproduct contaminants of
processes ranging from simple wood burning to production of various chemicals.
Legacy sources of PCBs in the Trinity River Basin are hard to pinpoint because PCBs are
ubiquitous in the environment due to historical widespread use and accumulate in the
sediment. While the tolerances of the Covered Species to PCBs and dioxins is unknown, it is
important to recognize that these contaminated sediments provide habitat for freshwater
mussels. From the mid-1990s to the mid-2010s, TCEQ and other entities performed research
and attempted to identify remediation options for PCBs and dioxins but were unable to identify
any workable solutions other than the passage of time and entrainment by clean sediment.
5 Covered Area and Conservation Zone Descriptions
Because of its geographical, climatological, and political variability12, the Trinity Basin has
historically been categorized into three operationally different basins (Figure 2). For the
purposes of this agreement, the Upper and Middle Basins have been further subdivided into
Conservation Zones based on the status of the habitat and potential recovery opportunities and
the Lower Basin as a whole is one conservation zone (Figure 6). The basins and Conservation
Zones are listed below and discussed in detail throughout this section.
1. Upper Basin
a. Conservation Zone A(Zone A),
b. Conservation Zone B(Zone B),
2. Middle Basin
a. Conservation Zone C(Zone C),
b. Conservation Zone D(Zone D), and
3. Lower Basin
1Z Prominent political entities vary across the basin. Generally, major cities, regional entities, and the USACE are
heavily influential in the Upper Basin, counties and regional entities in the Middle Basin, and the City of Houston,
industry, and agriculture in the Lower Basin.
20
a. Conservation Zone E(Zone E)
In addition to the physical description of the basins and Conservation Zones, the locations
where the Covered Species of freshwater mussels are known to occur or have been identified in
the past are discussed below. For Alligator Snapping Turtle and Western Chicken Turtle, specific
occupied habitats are difficult to locate since the species are cryptic, mobile, and data is sparse.
The entire Trinity River Basin is considered part of these turtles' ranges, so for the purpose of
this CCAA, it is assumed that these species may be located throughout the basin.
The Covered Area for this agreement includes all existing infrastructure and the maintenance
and operation of future infrastructure13, owned property 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.
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 detail below.
13 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 so long as their operations fall
under the Covered Activities covered in this CCAA.
21
Texas Heelsplitter Range
� Trinity Pigtoe Range
TX fawnsfoot & Heelsplitter co-occur
� Texas Fawnsfoot and Trinity Pigtoe co-occur
� All above species co-occur
��� TPWD Designated Mussel Sanc[uary
_ , HUC_8_TRBASW
,; ,
, � , ,.,..
�
.� .: � �
....-:,,'C\ ` ^` _
f�. �
, _ .. � ,,�,t� f �.
. '--' � �;a �.
io' l
C � 1
7i l (.
�'�f,� /`1 Lake` ', o � _�
�y Grape��virzg ���,
a�
� -n ti
� , , ,
i
d,.-�� ���g.���, o .
� o , � __
� ,�,,..., �1 ',
d , ., � _
, ��
� ,
,; � . "��',., r���� ��� ,
� �`` \� � ` �. RiLP r`
' `J- � l�
�, _ ' �
=�
� r �
� `•
_, �
�Dallas
�EI-P_aso
'\_ TExAS
.` 1Aastin
� Houston
San Antonio
0
0
Ghihuahua
�ONAN [sii, HERE Gain�in.
Torre2m Mont����N. A. USGS, EPA, Esri,
� � USGS
uhaoan
V
0 25 50 Miles �
I i I i I
��; �; �
,, ,
,
� ��.��; � � `1 ' � , Lake'Livingston
..1�5 �U ..� \ \ � ,
I _ _'\ )d(
�E ;'
' y
,
Houston �
�,
Figure 6. Map showing Conservation Zones A through E and habitat currently occupied by
Covered Species of freshwater mussels (Louisiana Pigtoe is believed extirpated).
���
5.1 Upper Basin — Conservation Zones A and B
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 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 water supply
reservoirs in the Upper Basin that do not have flood storage capacity and are not authorized to
impound flood water. 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 flood storage, water is captured until the reservoir reaches conservation
pool elevation, then the remainder of the flow is released through tainter gates downstream.
Additionally, several of these reservoirs receive imported water from inside or outside of the
Trinity River Basin to supplement their natural yield.
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 WWTPs (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.
5.1.1 Conservation Zone A
Zone A(Figure 7) is defined as the controlled watersheds above the major reservoirs in the
DFW area14. All of the water that leaves this zone passes through a major dam. Above the
reservoirs, the flow in these tributaries is generally very low with intermittent baseflows in the
summer months, supplemented with large runoff events during wet periods. The major USACE
reservoirs in Zone A(Benbrook, Ray Roberts, Grapevine, Lewisville, and Lavon) were designed
to serve water supply, flood control, and recreational needs. As such, extreme water level
changes are common in these reservoirs and are by design. For example, Lake Grapevine,
where two Texas Heelsplitters were detected in 2014 near the headwaters, fluctuated almost
40 feet in a 9-month period in 2015. Annual water level fluctuations of 10-15 feet are common
(Figure 8).
14 The boundary of Zone A is the controlled watersheds above the following reservoirs: Worth, Grapevine,
Lewisville, Ray Hubbard, Mountain Creek, Joe Pool Lake, and Bridgeport.
23
� " 1v
Clay Co
I �
Texas Heelsplitter Range
� Trinity Pigtoe Range
TX Fawnsfoot & Heelsplitter co-occur
� Texas Fawnsfoot and Trinity Pigtoe co-occur
� All above species co-occur
Urban Development
� Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS
Figure 7. Map showing Conservation Zone A in the Upper Basin.
�z�
570
565
560
555
rn
r�
j 550
C7
Z
} 545
0
�
�° 540
a�
a�
w
535
530
525
520
J��o�o T��o7� 1��07� 1�2oT� 1��D�p
1-��'rs ZI��Ze TI��1� T'��J� t��Is ��a�a �i2�`�I
—�aily Average —Conservation Pool
Figure 8. Daily average reservoir surface elevation on Lake Grapevine 2010 through 2021.
5.1.2 Conservation Zone B
Zone B is defined as highly urbanized with highly modified stream reaches and levees in the
DFW area. This zone begins at the dams of the reservoirs mentioned in Zone A and ends
downstream of the East Fork confluence at the USGS gage #08062500 Trinity River near Rosser,
which is at the intersection of the Trinity River and State Highway 34 in Ellis and Kaufman
Counties. The downstream boundary of this zone was chosen because it is below the
confluence of the East Fork, captures all of the Covered Parties' WWTP effluent, and the gage
has long been used as a surrogate to represent the aggregation of the runoff from the DFW
area. Much of the Trinity River in this zone is within flood control levees through much of Fort
Worth and Dallas. Its hydrology is characterized by elevated baseflows from WWTPs (both from
the Covered Parties and other municipalities return flows), water supply deliveries, USACE flood
releases, and urban runoff. The Trinity Pigtoe is present on Denton Creek plus the Elm Fork, and
Mainstem Trinity Rivers, and the Texas Fawnsfoot is known to occur on portions of the East
Fork Trinity River (Figure 9).
25
Lake Grape�ine Ele�at�on
USGS Gage 08454544
Texas Heelsplitter Ranqe
� Texas Fawnsfoo[ and Trinity Pig[oe m-occur
� hinity Pigme Range
TX Fawnsfoot & Heeisplitter co-occur
� All above species co-ocau
Urban Area
Levee Protec[ed Area
Frisco
�/�
. .,.,� 'i�'
''i/�,,,s(-/�.�,, .
Fort Worth
Figure 9. Map showing Conservation Zone B in the Upper Basin.
5.2 Middle Basin — Conservation Zones C and D
The Middle Basin begins below the DFW area downstream of the East Fork confluence at the
USGS gage #08062500 Trinity River Near Rosser, which is at the intersection of the Trinity River
and State Highway 34 in Ellis and Kaufman Counties and ends at the Lake Livingston dam. This
basin is rural and exhibits more "natural" conditions, but the hydrology and water quality are
driven by the Upper Basin. Baseflows in the Middle Basin during times of drought are artificially
elevated by wastewater return flows15 . Flows can remain elevated for long periods of time due
to USACE controlled flood storage releases. One example is the period between April 2015 and
July 2016 when, except for a SO-day period in September and October of 2015, flow in this
reach did not go below 5,000 cfs and over half of that time was above 10,000 cfs (Figure 10).
The Middle Basin contains two relatively small USACE flood control reservoirs (Navarro Mills
and Bardwell) and three major water supply reservoirs (Cedar Creek, Richland Chambers in the
upper third of the Middle Basin and Lake Livingston at the bottommost portion). Richland
Chambers and Cedar Creek provide an important water supply to the DFW area. Water from
these two reservoirs is pumped from these reservoirs upstream through a series of pipelines to
supplement the natural yields of Lakes Arlington, Benbrook, Eagle Mountain, and Worth.
1s Summertime baseflows are regularly between 75 and 94% WWTP effluent (Plummer and Associates, 2021).
26
Ennis ES", NAsa rv�A us�s
Streamflow, ft3/s 8
5170 k3/s - Apr 28, 2017 08:45:00 PM CDT
M
�"�
Jan 2015 Jan 2016 Jan
Figure 10. Hydrograph for USGS gage #08065000 Trinity River near Oakwood, TX showing long-
term elevated flows based on USACE reservoir releases of captured flood waters upstream of
the DFW area (Zone A).
5.2.1 Conservation Zone C
Zone C begins just below the East Fork confluence at the USGS gage #08062500 Trinity River
Near Rosser, which is at the intersection of the Trinity River and State Highway 34 in Ellis and
Kaufman Counties, and it ends at the downstream boundary of the TPWD designated mussel
sanctuary in the headwaters of Lake Livingston (Figure 11). This Zone exhibits more "natural"
riverine conditions although it is highly modified hydrologically as described in Section 5.2
above. This zone is a mostly rural watershed where freshwater mussels are more common than
in other zones (Randklev et al., 2017). Summertime baseflows are regularly between 75-80%
WWTP effluent (Plummer and Associates, 2021). All of the covered species except for Louisiana
Pigtoe16 are known to occur in this reach. This zone has the highest mussel abundance of any
zone in the Trinity River, and high-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.
16 Assumed extirpated from the basin (Randklev et al., 2020).
f��l
�4, _
�`' n��-�,� i ,, . DFW ��
I7 n �n
�,l�v�rz_�. . ,
� . .
la
�� �
ZONE C`\
�
Texas Heelsplitter Range
� Trinity Pigtoe Range
TX Fawnsfoot & Heelsplitter co-occur
� Texas Fawnsfoot and Trinity Pigtoe co-occur
� All above species co-occur
�� TPWD Designated Mussel Sanctuary
Levee Protected Area
Urban Development
%�%
�,
;
,i��
'�///�/X,
Trinity Co
�
7
� Esn:CGIAR,USGS
Figure 11. Map showing Conservation Zone C in the Middle Basin.
5.3 Conservation Zone D
Zone D is defined as Lake Livingston and the surrounding direct watersheds from the bottom of
the TPWD freshwater mussel sanctuary to the Lake Livingston dam. This water supply and
recreational reservoir is a major water supply for Houston but is not designed to capture flood
waters. Lake Livingston regularly fluctuates 5 to 6 feet, as it draws down during periods of
drought, refills during wet periods, and passes flood waters. The Texas heelsplitter has been
documented in Lake Livingston.
..� �.,
j
��
:
5.4 Lower Basin — Conservation Zone E
Below Lake Livingston, the hydrology of this rural portion of the basin is driven largely by
reservoir releases for water supply delivered through the bed and banks, reservoir releases
during high flows, and tropical storm systems. The Trinity River in the Lower Basin is
characterized by wide, long meanders typical of a large coastal plain river system. Below
Highway 90 near Liberty, Texas, the river becomes tidally influenced. Near the mouth of the
river where the Trinity feeds Trinity 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, which prevents saltwater intrusion upstream that would otherwise
contaminate freshwater supplies.
29
Figure 12. Map showing Conservation Zone D in the Middle Basin.
5.4.1 Conservation Zone E
Zone E begins at the Lake Livingston dam and ends at Trinity Bay and is the most downstream
Conservation Zone. Trinity Pigtoe and Texas Fawnsfoot are known to occur in the upper reaches
of this Conservation Zone. Large, shifting sand bars and tall cut banks are common in this area.
The low flows in Zone E are dominated by a constant 1,000-1,400 cfs water supply delivery
from Lake Livingston at River Mile 116.5 to the Coastal Water Authority intake a River Mile at
30.5 and the Lower Neches Valley Authority Devers Canal intake at River Mile 24. High flows
consist of floodwater pass-throughs from Lake Livingston and local convective or cyclonic storm
systems. Water supply deliveries from Lake Livingston to Houston (by way of the Trinity River)
are forecasted to increase over the term of this agreement, which would continue to ensure
that there would be no dewatering and important riffle habitat would not fill with sediment but
may increase erosion.
� �
i���� r
(! -� �
/�� /
�� - �'���
�
r
Livingston
v
Houston
Trinity Bay
Texas Heelsplitter Range
� Trinity Pigtoe Range
TX Fawnsfoot & Heelsplitter co-occur
� Texas Fawnsfoot and Trinity Pigtoe co-occur
— All above species co-occur
'/� TPWD Designated Mussel Sanctuary
Urban Development
Figure 13. Map showing Conservation Zone E in the Lower Basin.
30
6 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, which could be further exacerbated by the effects of a changing climate though are
not likely measurable in the 10-year timeframe of this agreement. 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 7) designed to reduce or
eliminate these threats within the Covered Area, thus providing a net conservation benefit to
the Covered Species.
6.1 Altered Hydrology
While dewatering is not considered a threat in the Trinity Basin during the 10-year timeframe of
this agreement (as discussed in Section 4), 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 into the Upper Basin, contracted bed and
banks delivery of water, 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 14) (Land et al., 1998; Austin, 2006; TRA, 2017;
Mangham, 2018; Clark 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 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., water velocity and shear force), resulting in degraded habitat
that may no longer be suitable for freshwater mussels or other Covered Species in the Upper
Basin especially. While elevated baseflows could alter habitat, it is likely that other major
operations that are outside of the Covered Parties' control have far greater influence on habitat
quality. For example, the USACE operates six major flood control reservoirs and the Dallas
Floodway in the Upper Basin and two flood control 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 of the Trinity River is a threat to the Covered Species but is
31
largely outside of the ability of the Covered Parties to modify. These altered hydrologic
conditions have constituted the standard operational state in the Trinity Basin for decades.
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
2D0
150
100
50
a
1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019
Figure 14. 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 over time.
6.2 Water Quality
While water quality improvements in the Upper Basin over the last 50 years are a success story
(Section 4.1.2), 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. 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 (such as
nitrogen, ammonia, residual chlorine) can pose a threat to the Covered Species, though
species-specific tolerance limits are largely unknown. Legacy contamination, such as PCBs, are
also present in the river and may continue to negatively affect ecosystem health for decades.
6.2.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Together, the Covered Parties operate 18 major WWTPs in the Upper Trinity River Watershed
(Table 6-1 and Figure 15), which are currently permitted (as of December 2022) to discharge a
32
combined 978.4 MGD17. Of that total amount, 736 MGD is permitted to flow directly into the
Trinity River or major tributary. The remainder of the discharged effluent flows into and
through large reservoirs first, where it is diluted and becomes a fraction of the total volume. As
previously discussed in Sections 4.1.2, 4.1.3, and 8.4, these WWTPs have been extremely
important to the recovery of the water quality and fish communities that have taken place
since the 1980s and prevent dewatering in the system during times of drought. While WWTPs
provide significant benefits to the Covered Species, they also pose a water quality threat.
The threats posed by the Covered Parties' WWTPs are difficult to quantify for many reasons.
For instance, 1) each WWTP processes is different, 2) influent characteristics are different, and
3) the receiving streams are different. In addition, from an effects standpoint, the tolerance
limits for parameters like ammonia, temperature, and dissolved oxygen for the covered species
are largely unknown and are particularly difficult to determine because toxicity for many
parameters varies with the ambient environmental conditions and the various freshwater
mussel life stages, including host fish tolerances. For example, making a direct correlation
between total ammonia and species health is difficult because each freshwater mussel species
is unique, and both acute and chronic toxicity varies with, among other things, temperature,
and pH (Wang et al., 2007; Gates, Vaughn and Julian, 2015; Beggel et al., 2017).
It can be assumed that on some level WWTPs are a threat to the species because scientific
literature has shown that mussel beds are lacking for some distance downstream of major
WWTPs, though the persistence of several native mussels in the upper Trinity River basin and
recent caged mussel studies in the San Antonio River Basin suggest that some species of adult
freshwater mussels can survive and grow in effluent-dominated systems (Vaughn, 2020). As
discussed in Section 4.1.4, WWTP effluents pose an inherent risk due to the presence of
xenobiotics and because treatment quality relies on a variety of controllable and uncontrollable
factors:
1. The quality of the wastewater received at the plant is not consistent and
operational decisions must be made during the treatment process;
2. Activated sludge is a biological component and many factors can affect microbial
efficiency;
3. Operations rely on a consistent supply chain for components like chlorine gas18,
fuel, and electricity;
4. Unforeseen human error;
5. Equipment failure; and
17 WWTPs are regulated by the TCEQ's TPDES process described in Section 1.2. Generally, WWTPs do not discharge
at the max permitted amount. According to Texas Administrative Code Rule §305.126, any sewage treatment plant
facility in the state reaches 75% of the permitted average daily or annual average flow for 3 consecutive months,
the permittee must initiate engineering and financial planning for expansion and/or upgrading of the wastewater
treatment and/or collection facilities. By following these guidelines codified in law, the Covered Parties' WWTPs
are able to accommodate the increasing flows before that treatment capacity is needed.
18 Due to the risks of chlorine gas storage, WWTPs limit how much is stored onsite at one time.
33
6. Weather.
Each WWTP will not be discussed in this CCAA, but the threats posed by the plants in aggregate
will be discussed because each plant is one part of the combined effluent load that flows
through the Trinity Basin to Lake Livingston.
Figure 15. Map showing Covered Parties' WWTPs. Reference table below for additional WWTP
information.
34
Table 6-1. This table shows the major (>1 MGD) WWTPs for the Covered Parties. The Map Label
column corresponds to the map shown above.
Zo22
EPA ID No FACILITY NAME PERMITTEE COUNTY PERMITTED MAP LABEL
FLOWS
(MGD)
TX0047830 Dallas Central CITY OF DALLAS DALLAS 200 D1
TX0047848 Dallas Southside CITY OF DALLAS DALLAS 110 D2
TX0047295 Village Creek CITY OF FORT WORTH TARRANT 166 F1
TX0047431 South Mesquite Creek NTMWD DALLAS 41 N1
TX0023931 Floyd Branch NTMWD DALLAS 4.75 N2
TX0022241 Squabble Creek NTMWD ROCKWALL 1.2 N3
TX0047911 Rowlett Creek NTMWD COLLIN 24 N4
TX0078565 Buffalo Creek NTMWD ROCKWALL 2.25 N5
TX0088633 Wilson Creek NTMWD COLLIN 64 N6
TX0103501 Stewart Creek West NTMWD DENTON 15 N7
TX0123561 Muddy Creek NTMWD DALLAS 20 N8
TX0123901 Panther Creek NTMWD DENTON 25 N9
TX0138584 Sister Grove NTMWD (Online 2023) COLLIN 64 N10
TX0022802 Central Regional TRA DALLAS 189 T1
TX0025011 Mountain Creek TRA ELLIS
Regional 6.9 T2
TX0022811 Ten Mile Creek TRA DALLAS
Regional 24 T3
TX0104345 Red Oak Creek TRA ELLIS
Regional 6 T4
TX0104957 Denton Creek Regional TRA DENTON 15.3 T5
6.2.1.1 Waste Load Allocation Study
The WLA is the process that the Covered Parties use to calculate the Trinity River's assimilative
capacity for constituents (i.e., the river's ability to absorb nutrients or biochemical oxygen
demand loading without exceeding water quality standards), set discharge limits, and allocate
that load out among the Compact members. These loadings are then codified in TPDES permit
limits issued to the Covered Parties by TCEQ with overview by the EPA.
The WLA is updated19, if needed, when the Compact's WWTPs 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) using the EPA-approved modeling
software QUAL2K and excerpts are included below:
Two models were set up: one for 2013 and one for 2017 and were set up to
represent warm, effluent-dominated conditions in the Upper Trinity River. The
19 The original version of the WLA was completed in the 1970s and updated in 1986, 1998, 2011 and 2019-2021.
There are no current plans to update the model.
35
goal is to derive a consistent set of algal growth and nutrient reaction rates that
are representative of effluent-dominated conditions. The sequence by which
water quality constituents in the model were calibrated is as follows, 1) flow, 2)
temperature, 3) total suspended solids, and 4) nutrients (chlorophyll-a, total
phosphorous, and total nitrogenJ. Once an acceptable set of model parameters
was identified, that set of parameters was incorporated into a final nutrient
model. The final nutrient model was used to simulate instream conditions for
eight TP limit scenarios.
The model predicts that, within each discharge flow condition, none of the four
TP effluent concentrations assessed produces a significant difference in the algal
populations in the Upper Trinity River. The high turbidity of the river blocks a
significant portion of the light needed for algae to grow. However, with less algal
growth, less nutrients are assimilated; and the majority of the TP load discharged
by Metroplex WWTPs is carried downstream and into the Middle Trinity River.
The model also predicts that if the major WWTPs are discharging at the full flow
volumes authorized by their permits there are lower algal concentrations in the
Upper Trinity River than when the major WWTPs are discharging at their 2017
flows. This is due to the lower retention time in the river produced by the higher
permitted flows. With a lower retention time, less time is available for algal
growth. An associated result is that a larger residual TP load enters the Middle
Trinity River.
In summary, as WWTPs increase flows, loadings will increase, but model results show no
change in algal growth due to the brown, turbid waters preventing the light penetration that is
needed to support algal growth. Nutrients continue downstream and are assimilated in the
Middle Trinity River and headwaters of Lake Livingston. Models do not exist downstream of the
Trinidad gage, but a review of TCEQ Clean Rivers Program (CRP) data shows that chlorophyll-a
averages remain constant (no trend) between the Trinidad gage, where the WLA model ends,
and the headwaters of Lake Livingston, while average total phosphorous values slightly
decrease (R2=0.99) (Figure 16).
36
Summer Total Phosphorous (mg/L) and Chlorophyll-a (mg/L)
TCEQ CRP Surface Data 1987-2022 for June, July, August, and September
25
20 � �
15
10
5
=---------- ' R'=osas6
0 ---�-------------�-------------�
1Q9Z2 - RM 369 10919 - RM 291 13690 - RM 245 10914 - R(Vl 168
Upstream —
Ertd of WLA Model
� Downstream
Lake L€vingston Headwaters
• Chlorophyll-a Total Phosphorous --- Linear (Total Phosphorous)
Figure 16. Graph showing average total phosphorous and chlorophyll-a at selected locations
along the Trinity River between the Trinidad gage upstream and the headwaters of Lake
Livingston.
6.2.2 Non-point Source
Pollutants from human activities and natural processes can be grouped into two categories
based on their origin. Point source pollution is a discharge that can be traced back to a single
point of origin, such as a pipe, drain, or outfall that is discharged directly into a waterway. Non-
point source pollution cannot be traced back to a single point of origin and is therefore more
challenging to manage. Non-point source pollutants are dispersed over the land (either through
human activity or natural processes) and carried into waterways with runoff from storm events.
Several factors may influence the types and amounts of pollutants that end up in a waterway,
but they are primarily dependent on land use and land cover. Sources of pollutants stem from
urban, rural, wildlife, and agriculture activities. Impairments from the bacterium Escherichia coli
(E. coli) can stem from pet waste, livestock, wildlife, sanitary sewer overflows, and on-site
septic facilities (OSSFs) failures. Nutrient concerns can stem from overirrigation, residential
fertilization, pesticide application (that can suppress natural nitrogen cycles), and agricultural
practices.
Sedimentation and flooding can also be considered a non-point source. Future growth,
expansion, and development in a watershed can lead to increased impervious cover and
decreased riparian buffers, and in turn, speed up runoff velocities and increase high peak flow
that will increase erosion.
37
6.2.2.1 Urban Non-point Source
On-site septic facilities are used by residents for wastewater treatment. When not functioning
properly, OSSFs can become sources of pollution for E. coli, nutrients, and solids, both in
groundwater and surface water bodies. A variety of causes can be to blame for reduced
performance or malfunctions, including improper use, design/installation, lack of maintenance,
unsuitable soil types, age of the system, and proximity to other systems.
Feces from pets may also be a source of E. coli and nutrient loading to waterbodies via
stormwater runoff. This may include dogs as well as cats that defecate outdoors, such as feral
and barn cats. As with any non-point source, the severity of the contamination from an area is
heavily influenced by the presence of impermeable soils and increasing amounts of impervious
cover (e.g., buildings, parking lots) associated with ongoing development in the watershed.
Fertilizers used improperly are also of concern. Excessive nitrogen and phosphorus can enter
the waterbody from improper disposal of yard clippings and excessive application of fertilizer,
herbicide, or pesticides on residential, commercial, industrial, and agriculture lands. When
fertilizers are applied overabundantly on residential properties, the excess is not utilized by the
landscape and can cause eutrophication in water bodies if they run off during rain events or
irrigation.
Floatables (e.g., plastics), litter accumulation, and illegal dumping can also be deemed a non-
point pollutant source of E. coli, nutrients, and hazardous materials depending on the
composition of the waste (e.g., household or construction waste; animal carcasses or hunting
remains; or vehicle, furniture, and appliance disposal near or in water bodies). In addition, litter
accumulation can also cause stream flow obstruction or alteration of the stream system, which
would result in erosion of creek banks or impoundment of water.
6.2.2.2 Agricultural Non-point Source
Livestock that roam freely to graze can also be a contributor to non-point source E. coli loads,
especially if they have direct access to waterbodies where they can defecate directly into or
near a water body. However, poor land management practices can also affect the amount of
manure E. coli that reaches waterbodies from upland areas by stormwater flows. If pastures are
overgrazed, improperly tilled, or otherwise mismanaged for runoff potential, runoff will
increase, which can deliver larger loads of E. coli, nutrients, and pesticides/herbicides to water
bodies. In addition to E. coli and nutrient inputs from grazing livestock, production agriculture
may also contribute other types of non-point source pollution to waterways, including nutrients
from fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.
6.3 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 and smothering or scouring riffle 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).
Rivers and streams are a direct reflection of the hydrologic and geologic characteristics of their
watershed, which directly affects each river's pattern, plan, and profile (Lane, 1954; Leopold et
al., 1964; Brandt, 2000; Rosgen, 2006). According to Lane's Balance, if there is change or
disturbance of the watershed that 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 bank-full 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.
6.4 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).
39
The underlying geology of the Middle Basin may affect host fish migration under certain
circumstances, such as 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 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 meter 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.
6.5 Direct Mortality and Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
6.5.1 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; as of 2022, 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 Iicense20. The data for commercial and recreational 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 since 2012, 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 Basin, 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
20 2021-2022 TPWD fishing regulations.
��
annually to coordinate research efforts. All research implemented as part of this CCAA will be
coordinated with the above-mentioned workgroup.
6.5.2 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
TPWD expects this to be minimal because a scientific collection permit and annual reporting is
required (USFWS, 2021a). 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, 2021a). Estimates vary, but Alligator Snapping Turtles are
believed to number in the thousands in the Trinity River Basin (USFWS, 2021a).
In the Gus Engeling Wildlife Management Area near the Trinity River in the Middle Basin, 221
Western Chicken Turtles were captured between February 4 to July 6, 2015 (Ryberg et al.,
2017). Due to the difficulties in sampling these species, exact numbers of Western Chicken
Turtle are not known. Habitat modeling suggests that significant habitat is available in the
Trinity River Basin (Ryberg et al., 2017).
6.5.2.1 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
Western Chicken Turtle is considered rare and declining, though no systematic population
surveys have been completed. This species requires multiple, adjacent habitat types and, as
such, populations are very difficult to quantify. According to Ryberg et al. (2017), Western
Chicken Turtle habitat in Texas is currently threatened, and most likely will continue to be
threatened by wetland loss and fragmentation caused by urbanization. Ryberg et al. (2017)
surmise that there has been a significant loss of prime wetland habitat around the Greater
Houston area between 2001 and 2011, but that the urbanization in and around the DFW area
has not been as significant for the Western Chicken Turtle because less desirable habitat has
been urbanized.
6.5.2.2 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 (USFWS, 2021a), and rare or at-risk species are often highly sought after.
C�il
6.5.2.3 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 (USFWS, 2021a).
6.6 Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2022) has identified rising sea levels,
rising temperatures, and more frequent severe storms and droughts as threats from climate
change. While the threats from climate change may have negative effects on the Covered
Species, some of those threats may be mitigated due to the operational realities in the Covered
Area. As mentioned in Section 4, extended drought is expected to have minimal effects on
baseflows and temperature due to the Covered Parties' water supply operations. Because
increased baseflows can mitigate the temperature effects from increasing air temperatures,
within the 10-year timeframe of this agreement, water temperature is not expected to rise
measurably.
According to the IPCC 2022 Report, sea level is expected to rise between 1.5 — 2 feet by 2050 in
the Gulf of Mexico region. Assuming a linear trend over the 10-year term of this agreement, a
0.5 to 0.7-foot rise in sea level is not expected to impact the Covered Species due to the long
distance from the known location of the lowermost Covered Species of freshwater mussel to
the coast (Figure 13).
6.7 Invasive Species
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, 10 of the major reservoirs in the
Trinity River Basin have been designated as either suspected, positive, or infested for zebra
mussels. Though some minor colonization may occur in rivers, zebra mussels have historically
reached problematic densities in reservoirs. Zebra mussels compete with native mussels for
food and resources. They use byssal 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 and Wolcox, 1997; Baker and Levinton, 2003). Zebra mussels are
considered a threat to Texas Heelsplitter because both inhabit Lake Grapevine and Lake
Livingston.
C�►�
\
�
Zebra Mussel
Status
'3,
2
�
5 ��
♦7
23
�� DFW y
�� �o
�.�u,� �
12 �
f4 ��3
�
..1
16
� 17 ����i, r,
r� 15v,
ID Name Status
1 Nbuntain Creek Lake
2 Ray Roberts Infested
3 Amon G. Carter
4 &idgeport Infested
5 Lewisville Infested
6 Lavon Positive
7 Lake Grapevine Infested
8 Eagle Mountain Lake Infested
9 White Rodc
10 Worth Infested
il Lake Weatherford
12 Lake Arlington
13 Joe Pool
14 Benbrook Lake
15 CedarCreek lake
16 lake Waxahachie
17 Bardwell Lake
18 Richland-Chambers Infested
19 Navarro Mills Lake
20 Houston County Lake
21 Lake Livingston Infested
22 Lake Anahuac
23 Ray Hubbard Suspected
0 25 SO Miles
I � i � I i i i 1
� Infested
� Positive
Suspetted
Not Infested / Unknown
so
Houston
�
Figure 17. Status of zebra mussel infestation for reservoirs in the Trinity Basin.
43
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 conservation benefit over the life of this CCAA that far exceeds any
short-term impacts. Scientific research and methods that directly affect the Covered Species
will be coordinated with the USFWS and TPWD.
7.2 Water Supply and Reservoir Operations
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 5 years
that describes current and future water demand and how it will be met. The State Water 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 10-year Agreement, the TWDB expects the DFW and Houston areas to grow by
approximately 8% combined. This future demand will 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, as was described in Section 4.
This CCAA covers water supply operations including but not limited to 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
through the TCEQ permitting water rights appropriation process. These operations could cause
take of the Covered Species as described in Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4.
This CCAA does not cover new construction, including construction associated with new
diversions or imports, which would require separate section 7 consultation if there was a
Federal nexus and effects to listed species were anticipated. Future operation of the new
facilities, once constructed, would be covered by the CCAA, should they come to fruition within
the 10-year timeframe of this agreement.
C�!
Reservoirs in the basin are operated according to each reservoir's Gate Operations Procedures
and specific design specifications21. 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 River 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.
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 Richland and Chambers
Chambers TRWD Creeks WS, R
Livingston TRA Trinity River Mainstem WS, R, H
* F— Flood Management, WS — Water Supply, R— Recreation, H- Hydropower
7.3 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. "Repair and maintenance" of a structure means those activities that return
the structure to its original, as-built condition within the original footprint. Thus, this CCAA does
not include the installation of new structures or the expansion of existing structures outside
their original footprints. 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 (e.g., section 7 of
ESA) that may be required forsome of these activities. These routine operations are designed to
identify and prevent problems before they arise, thus protecting the environment, to include
the Covered Species. When undertaking these activities, the Covered Parties will follow the
Conservation Measures described in Section 8.10, Site-level Disturbances.
21 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).
�
7.4 Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants22
The benefits of high-quality WWTPs, especially the Covered Parties' Regional WWTPs, have
been discussed at length in Sections 4.1.2, 4.1.3, and 8.4. While municipal wastewater
discharges have been documented in scientific literature to show decreases in freshwater
mussels for some length downstream, they are also the reason that water quality has
rebounded substantially in the Trinity River above Lake Livingston since the 1980s (Section 4).
From a hydrologic perspective, the Covered Parties' WWTPs operations, contracts, and
agreements ensure that these systems are not dewatered during periods of drought. Section
6.1 describes the hydrology of the basin in detail.
The routine operation of permitted WWTPs and associated municipal wastewater discharges,
when conducted in accordance with applicable permits and regulatory requirements, are
covered by this agreement. New construction of WWTPs is not covered by this agreement.
Detailed descriptions of the Covered Parties' WWTPs have been outlined in Sections 4 and
6.2.1. Examples of these operations include routine plant and pipeline operations and
maintenance and the discharge of treated effluent.
Incremental expansion of existing WWTPs is also covered. Nothing in this agreement will
prevent the Covered Parties from seeking to expand operations through the appropriate
permitting processes. If this were to occur, TRA would meet with the Service and TPWD to
determine if the operation of the expanded facility is within the level of take provided for in the
CCAA, plus the margin of safety, described in this CCAA. If it is not, the Service and TRA will
determine if additional components could be added to the Workplan to provide for additional
incidental take protections, or whether a separate Section 7 consultation is necessary.
7.5 Pipelines
Pipeline operations, inspections, repairs, and maintenance activities are covered by this
agreement. The Covered Parties own and operate hundreds of miles of pipelines to move
treated water, raw water, and wastewater which are located primarily in Zones A, B, and C.
Although these pipelines are extensive, there are less than 15 locations, with each footprint
being <100 feet, where the pipelines cross the Trinity River or one of the major forks. Of those,
only four cross within known occupied mussel habitat (two in Zone B and two in Zone C).
Where they do, the Covered Parties commit to following the guidelines outlined in Section 8.10
Site-level Disturbances, including mussel surveys, avoidance of mussel beds when possible, and
mussel relocations, if there are any potential impacts to the habitat; however, routine
inspections and maintenance activities would generally consist of cleaning of siphons,
inspecting pumps, and CCTV internal pipeline inspections and would not be expected to disturb
habitat.
ZZ This section excludes TRWD as they do not operate wastewater treatment plants.
�,
For new construction, though not covered in this CCAA, the Covered Parties commit to routing
pipelines to avoid river crossings and/or using boring techniques to prevent disturbance of the
bed and banks whenever feasible. This agreement does not supersede any additional state or
Federal permitting requirements that may be required for some of these activities.
7.6 Invasive Aquatic Plant Control
Aquatic invasive plant species like Giant Salvinia (Salvinia molesta), Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes), and Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillate) are serious threats to aquatic ecosystems, primarily
affecting lentic systems (e.g., reservoirs). Although these invasive plants are not considered a
significant threat to the Covered Species, severe infestations can impact breeding, feeding, and
sheltering behavior of the Covered Species or the mussels' host fish. One effective measure to
control these invasive plants is chemical treatment. These treatments are applied according to
state and Federal laws, permits, best management practices (BMPs), and manufacturers'
recommendations. Both chemical and mechanical treatment of invasive plant species will be
covered by this agreement. These operations are discussed further in Conservation Measures in
Sections 8.9 and 8.10.
7.7 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 Measures
CCAAs are required to provide "net conservation benefit" to the Covered Species. Because the
Covered Parties operate within but do not own, control, or regulate the Covered Area
(described in detail in Section 4) and contribute to only a portion of the overall stressors to the
Covered Species (Section 4), the Conservation Measures described in this section cannot
address all of the threats to the Covered Species. Due to the inherent nature and function of the
Trinity River Basin, described in detail in Section 4, and the lifecycle of the Covered Species,
Conservation Measures outlined in this Section should be considered cumulatively. As such, they
provide the required "net conservation benefit" to the Covered Species by addressing the
threats that fall within the operational control of the Covered Parties. These Conservation
Measures are described in detail in the remainder of this section and are summarized below in
Table 8-1.
Cfl
Table 8-1. Table summarizing the Conservation Measures
Threat Category Conservation Measure Threats Addressed Priority Zones
Altered Hydrology Mainstem Environmental Dewatering All
Flows Protections
Altered Hydrology Stream Restoration Scour, streambank failures, g C, E
Activities and sedimentation
USGS Flow and Water Dewatering, scientific data
Altered Hydrology All
Quality Monitoring gaps
Altered Hydrology Hydraulic and Hydrologic Scientific data gaps B, C
Monitoring
Water Quality WWTP Effluent Discharge Toxicity B, C
Limits
Water Quality Caged mussel studies Scientific data gaps B, C
Long-term Monitoring for Scientific data gaps and
Water Quality Mussels feedback for Adaptive B, C, E
Management
Water Quality Modeling Scientific data gaps B, C
Water Quality Instream Water Quality Toxicity, scientific data gaps, B �
Monitoring habitat degradation
Water Quality Stream Restoration Sediment Reduction B, C, E
Degradation, Loss, Instream Flow Protections
Fragmentation of Avoid and Minimize Site- Dewatering, temperature g C, D, E
Habitat Disturbance of Occupied limits
Habitat
No construction of new
Barriers to Dispersal permanent dams on Trinity Barriers to Dispersal B, C, D, E
River mainstem
Direct Mortality,
Overutilization for Public Education and
Commercial, Outreach, Participate with Bycatch, poaching All
Recreational, Scientific, Freshwater Mussel Group
or Educational Purposes
Direct Mortality,
Overutilization for Signage and Online Public
Commercial, Bycatch, poaching All
Recreational, Scientific, Reporting Tool
or Educational Purposes
Climate Change Discharge of treated Dewatering, temperature A, B, C
effluent limits
Invasive Species Zebra Mussel Monitoring Direct mortality, habitat All
degradation
.•
Threat Category Conservation Measure Threats Addressed Priority Zones
Invasive Species Invasive Aquatic Plant Habitat degradation A, B, C, D
Eradication
Use Adaptive Management Allows for new threats to be
to implement voluntary managed as they are
ALL identified by evolving science All
Reasonable Risk through implementation of
Minimization Measures
additional conservation
Conservation measures 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 (2016) shown in Table 8-2
and detailed in the remainder of this section.
Table 8-2. Issues and conservation goals identified in the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation
Society's National Strategy for the Conservation of Native Freshwater Mollusks (2016).
Number Issues Goals
Increase knowledge of the distribution and
1 taxonomy of mollusks at multiple scales Understand the status and trends of mollusk
over time and make that information populations to better manage and conserve.
available.
Address the impacts of past, ongoing, and
2 newly emerging stressors on mollusks and Minimize threats to mollusks and their
their habitats. habitats.
Understand and conserve the quantity and Increase understanding of physical, chemical,
3 quality of suitable habitat for mollusks and biological characteristics of habitat to
over time. support sustainable assemblages of mollusks.
Understand the ecology of mollusks at the Increase fundamental knowledge of the
4 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 and
populations until they are self-sustaining. communities of mollusks.
Improve science-based consideration of the
6 Identify the ecosystem services provided social and economic values of mollusk
by mollusks and their habitats. communities and functioning aquatic
systems.
.•
Number Issues Goals
Strengthen advocacy and build support for Increase information sharing and
7 the conservation of mollusks and their
communication among citizens and decision-
habitats.
makers at multiple levels regarding
conserving mollusk resources.
Educate and train the conservation
community and future generations about
Provide a suite of training opportunities to
8 the importance of mollusks to ensure the greater conservation community and
inspire future generations to work on the
conservation efforts continue into the
future. conservation of mollusks.
Seek consistent, long-term funding to
9 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.
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 BMPs23 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. When more refined BMPs are developed
and recommended by the scientific community, the Covered Parties will review and implement
those BMPs during Covered 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.
The remainder of this section outlines the Conservation Measures the Covered Parties commit
to completion or continuing for the timeframe of this CCAA.
8.1 Non-point Source Watershed Protection
Threats addressed: Altered Hvdrolo�v, Water Qualitv, De�radation, Loss, and Fra�mentation of
Habitat
As described in Section 4.1.1, the Covered Parties represent only a fraction of the threats to
water quality in the basin because the water in the system is a mix of urban and agricultural
Z3 BMPs include avoiding, when possible, the removal of woody debris in the channel, typical construction BMPs
like erosion and sediment barriers, habitat restoration, etc.
50
non-point source runoff and WWTP effluent (discharges from the Covered Parties' WWTPs,
other municipal WWTPs, small package plants, and local OSSFs). To benefit the Covered
Species, both point and non-point sources of pollution need to be addressed (Section 6.2.2).
The Covered Parties currently manage or participate as stakeholders in five large-scale
watershed protection plans (WPPs), discussed later in this section, which are designed to
reduce pollution through planning, public outreach, and on-the-ground projects. The Covered
Parties are not required to create these programs but do so to help address water quality issues
that improve the quality of water supplies and the environment, to include the Covered
Species.
Some of the Covered Parties' WPPs are partially funded by the TCEQ Non-point Source
Program, which is a federally funded program usually requiring a 40% local match under Clean
Water Act section 319(h) to reduce and prevent water pollution caused by runoff from urban
and other non-agricultural non-point sources. Others are funded by an adjacent program within
the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB) which is a federally funded
program designed to reduce and prevent water pollution caused by runoff from agricultural
and silvicultural non-point sources. Other WPP efforts are funded entirely by the Covered
Parties' internal funds.
Unlike WWTPs, non-point source pollution is challenging to manage since it cannot be traced
back to a single point of origin. Pollutants are dispersed over the land (either through human
activity or natural processes) and carried into waterways with runoff from storm events.
Sources of pollutants may include excess agricultural or residential fertilizers; fluids from
leaking vehicles; pet waste from yards or urban public areas; leaking septic facilities; or waste
from wildlife, livestock, and feral hogs. Overall, water quality can be improved by reducing
sediment because excess and suspended sediment in waterbodies is known to harbor bacteria
and nutrients, decrease die-off of bacteria, impact dissolved oxygen levels, alter flow regimes,
and decrease water supply and flood control capacity. Future growth, expansion, and
development can lead to decreased riparian buffers, and in turn, speed up runoff velocities that
will increase erosion. Sedimentation in streams and lakes will increase and thus impact aquatic
life, harbor bacteria, and potentially impact water supply capacity.
Because these programs are designed to be driven by local stakeholders in each specific
subwatershed, the creation of new WPPs cannot be guaranteed. However, for the term of this
CCAA, the Covered Parties commit to:
1. Continuing to administer the implementation of existing WPPs (described later in this
section);
2. Actively seek opportunities to create new WPPs, or similar programs, within the basin;
and
3. TRA will work with local landowners, NRCS, USFWS, TPWD, and TWDB to create and
design a watershed prioritization tool to delineate, rank, and prioritize the
subwatersheds in Zone C(where enhancement potential is the highest) based on
51
characteristics like land use, riparian vegetation, soil type, slope, proximity to existing
occupied mussel beds, etc., so that WPP efforts can be targeted to the subwatersheds
that can provide the most benefit for the Covered Species within the first two years of
the Work Plan.
TRA's WPPs
The Covered Parties participate and fund several large-scale WPPs in the Trinity River Basin.
Specifically, the TRA has developed the Village Creek-Lake Arlington Watershed Protection Plan
(VCLA WPP) and the Joe Pool Lake Watershed Protection Plan (JPL WPP). VCLA WPP was
accepted by the EPA in 2019 and JPL WPP was accepted in 2022. The acceptance by EPA
provides local planning partners with access to state and Federal assistance programs that will
encourage sustainable development as the watershed continues to urbanize as well as funding
to implement strategies that mitigate non-point source pollution. In 2022, TRA received funding
from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation — Five Star and Urban Waters Restoration Grant
Program to implement a trash reduction management strategy identified in the VCLA WPP. The
implementation project focuses on reducing trash in the waterways of the City of Fort Worth
and within the VCLA watershed. TRA has also been awarded Clean Water Act section 319(h)
funding to implement an OSSFs program within both Joe Pool Lake and Village Creek-Lake
Arlington watersheds which will document the location of OSSFs and repair or replace up to 10
non-working OSSFs resulting in a direct benefit to aquatic species, to include the Covered
Species. This project will begin in the fall of 2023.
NTMWD WPPs
North Texas Municipal Water District developed the Lavon Lake WPP in 2017 and has begun
implementation of the plan in the watershed. NTMWD has implemented multiple management
strategies that mitigate non-point source pollution in the Lavon Lake watershed. To date,
NTMWD has funded a full—time Watershed Technician at the Collin County Soil and Water
Conservation District that works with agriculture producers to develop and implement water
quality management plans on agricultural lands in the watershed, water quality monitoring,
green stormwater installations, education and outreach workshops, tree plantings, and the
purchase of a stream hydrology demonstration trailer. In 2020, the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) identified Lake Lavon watershed as a priority watershed to
develop and implement projects geared towards reducing erosion and nutrients.
The NTMWD East Fork Water Reuse Project significantly mitigates non-point source pollution.
The wetland acts as a large-scale recycling project, diverting treated wastewater flows from the
East Fork of the Trinity River and filtering it naturally before it is returned to blend with other
water supplies for future treatment and use. This reuse project not only actively cleans water,
but it prevents the need to create other water supplies to fill basin needs.
52
Additionally, NTMWD recently completed the Bois d'Arc24 Lake WPP. It was accepted by the
EPA in 2022. While that WPP is outside of the Trinity River Basin, water from Bois d'Arc is
pumped into the Trinity River Basin. This additional water helps sustain flows for the benefit of
all aquatic animals, included the Covered Species.
TRWD WPPs
Tarrant Regional Water District developed the Lake Worth Vision Plan in partnership with the
City of Fort Worth in 2011. They also developed the Eagle Mountain Lake Watershed Protection
Plan in 2016. Currently, the Cedar Creek Lake and Richland Chambers Reservoir WPPs are in
development. TRWD and others assist local agencies, such as the Ellis-Prairies and Navarro
County Soil and Water Conservation Districts, in helping agricultural producers implement
conservation practices. These practices are designed to slow or capture runoff during storm
events which directly reduces pollution in Zone C. Additionally, they fund education and
outreach workshops.
8.2 Stream Restoration Activities
Stream and streambank restoration projects, riparian habitat protection and restoration, and
upland BMPs25 can improve both the quality and quantity of habitat available for the Covered
Species by reducing the sediment and pollutant loadings and slowing runoff, thereby reducing
shear stress which can decrease erosion. Because the Covered Parties have no permitting or
regulatory authority and only own an insignificant amount of property along the Trinity River,
the Covered Parties cannot commit to stream restoration. However, 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 A, B, and C, which require intensive cooperation with the
public and landowners. The Covered Parties commit to working with local stakeholders and
state and Federal agencies to identify locations, partners, funding opportunities, and project
management for habitat restoration projects and the implementation of BMPs within the
Covered Area.
8.3 Participate in the USACE Sustainable Rivers Project
Threats addressed: Altered Hvdrolo�v, Water Qualitv, De�radation, Loss, and Fra�mentation of
Habitat
The USACE Sustainable Rivers Program is designed to identify and implement environmental
strategies at the USACE's water infrastructure projects that are designed to restore and protect
ecosystems. This program is beginning at the USACE Fort Worth District in 2023, and the study
24 Bois d'Arc is not in the Trinity basin, but water from that lake is pumped into Lake Lavon in Zone A to
supplement water supplies.
ZS These BMPs include activities like restoration of riparian buffer zones, creation of bioswales, contour farming,
methods to reduce over fertilization of fields, implementing no-till farming practices, etc.
53
will last several years. The Covered Parties agree to participate in the USACE stakeholder
process and technical review to ensure that the Covered Species needs are considered during
the USACE review of their operations. This multi-year effort could result in the modification of
USACE reservoir operations in Zones A and C to, for example, provide flows, or modify existing
flow rates and durations that maintain or improve habitat for the Covered Species.
As discussed in Section 7.2, the Covered Parties' reservoirs are not designed to have flood
storage. They do have flood flowage easements to aid in operations but are not authorized to
store flood waters. As such, the Covered Parties are unable to minimize the impacts of high
flows through their reservoirs. The USACE is authorized to store flood waters and participation
in the Sustainable Rivers Program could identify strategies and operational changes the USACE
could make to reduce the threats to the Covered Species from high flows.
8.4 Regional and Large-scale Wastewater Treatment
Threats addressed: Altered Hvdrolo�v, Water Qualitv, De�radation, Loss, and Fra�mentation of
Habitat, Climate Chan�e
As discussed in Section 4.1.3, large-scale Regional WWTPs in the DFW area have been
instrumental in restoring water quality and fish assemblages to include the known or presumed
host fish for the Covered Species in the Upper and Middle Trinity River.
Simply, most of the Covered Parties' major regional WWTPs use "activated sludge" as one part
of the wastewater treatment process. This is a process whereby microorganisms are introduced
to the wastewater under controlled conditions within a highly oxygenated holding tank. The
microorganisms oxidize organic pollutants that produces a solid which is then removed. The
healthier the microorganism community, the better the quality of the wastewater. To protect
the treatment plants, the covered parties will continue to fund and implement industrial pre-
treatment programs, described in Section 4, to ensure that industrial facilities are meeting their
permit requirements, which helps the WWTP treatment process and ensure proper function of
the facility. When needed, the Covered Parties will continue to investigate illicit discharges,
discussed in Section 4, by deploying sampling equipment within the system and tracing
potential sources of illicit discharges. If located, the Covered Parties will work with stakeholders
to notify the appropriate regulatory agencies and stop the illicit discharges.
Where appropriate, the Covered Parties will continue to support the regionalization of WWTPs
through comments on new and renewing water quality permit applications to TCEQ and will
work with local development permitting entities like cities and counties to encourage and or
require new developments to tie into existing regional WWTPs when they are within an existing
service area or facilitate new ones when feasible. As stated before, the Covered Parties will
work with stakeholders and regulators to facilitate the regionalization of wastewater
infrastructure whenever feasible.
54
WWTPs are regulated by the TCEQ's TPDES process described in Section 1.2. Generally, WWTPs
do not discharge at the maximum permitted amount. According to Texas Administrative Code
Rule §305.126, if any sewage treatment plant facility in the state reaches 75% of the permitted
average daily or annual average flow for three consecutive months, the permittee must initiate
engineering and financial planning for expansion and/or upgrading of the wastewater
treatment and/or collection facilities. By following these guidelines codified in law, the Covered
Parties' WWTPs can accommodate the increasing flows before that treatment capacity is
needed.
The Covered Parties commit to continuing the WLA process (discussed in Section 4) for the
mainstem Trinity River and to use modeling and other highly technical methods to review and
validate the discharge limits that are protective of the aquatic environment, including the
Covered Species.
As described in detail in Section 4, it is impossible to discuss WWTP impacts to the Covered
Species without also identifying the benefits of the Covered Parties' WWTPs to the protection
of the aquatic environment, including the Covered Species. It is equally impossible to delineate
the chronic impacts of WWTP effluent from the impacts of urban and agriculture runoff, non-
Covered Parties' WWTPs, reservoir releases, and a litany of other sources that combine into an
intertwined mixture which is constantly changing in makeup and over time. Additionally, at low
flows these WWTPs provide water to a system that would be dry or extremely low. These
increased flows may also help to mitigate the impacts of climate change. As a whole, the
operation of the Covered Parties' WWTPs is a benefit to the Covered Species, and the Covered
Parties commit to continuing these operations through the timeframe of this agreement.
8.5 Proactive Measures to Address Wastewater Overflows, Illicit Discharges into
Treatment Plants, and Emergency Repairs
Threats addressed: Water Qualitv
The Covered Parties commit to continued proactive actions that protect the aquatic
environment, including the Covered Species, by preventing negative impacts before they occur.
These proactive measures include:
1. The continuation of the Capital Improvement Programs (CIP), or similar, for the
timeframe of this agreement. CIPs are studies of major wastewater, raw water, or
finished drinking water service areas to determine if and when the plants need to
expand. These are multi-year efforts and involve watershed and sewer system modeling
as well as population projections to ensure infrastructure is not overwhelmed and the
plants continue to function as designed.
2. The continuation of industrial pre-treatment programs (described in Section 8.4).
3. Routine infrastructure inspections to ensure proper system function and reduce the
chances of future pipeline breaks and identify small problems before they become big
problems.
55
4. Perform emergency repairs as quickly as possible to minimize any negative effects from
any infrastructure failure (leaking raw sewage pipe, raw water pump, etc.).
These proactive measures provide a direct benefit to the Covered Species.
8.6 Environmental Flows Protection
Threats addressed: Altered Hvdrolo�v, Water Qualitv, De�radation, Loss, and Fra�mentation of
Habitat, Barriers to Dispersal, Climate Chan�e
As discussed in Section 6.1, dewatering is not considered a threat within the timeframe of this
agreement (TRA, 2017) because of the increased baseflows from the Covered Parties' WWTPs
and constant downstream water supply deliveries through the bed and banks of the Trinity
River. Additionally, the artificially increased baseflows could help to minimize any climate
change impacts. The Covered Parties will continue to support TCEQ's environmental 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 River 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).
A water right for a new appropriation of water or an amendment to an existing water right that
increases the amount of water authorized to be stored, taken, or diverted 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 Program26 (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
Z6 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.
56
codified by the TCEQ27 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, as described in detail in Sections 4 and 8.4, the Covered Parties (excluding TRWD
which has no wastewater operations and NTMWD which has a separate Water Conservation
Program to reduce water usage and increase flows in the basin) commit to continuing the
decades-old settlement agreement28 that requires 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 8.7). 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.
Table 8-3. Table showing the seasonal SB3 Environmental Baseflow Standards (cfs) codified into
the TCEQ WAM (TRA, 2017).
a� '�^ a� u�i a� u�i a� u�i a� o d o a� o a� o a� o a� � a� � a� � a� � a� '^ y"' y"'
aa � aa a� aa a� aa a� aa i. aa i. aa � aa r� aa �n aa �^ aa �^ aa �^ aa �o aa �O oa � aa �
co � co � co � co � ca u� ca u� ca u� ca u� ca �o ca � ca � ca � ca �o co �° co �c ��c
C7 � C7 � C7 � C7 � C7 � C7 � C7 � C7 � C7 � C7 � C7 � C7 � C7 � C7 � C7 � C7 �
� O O o O O o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone
B B B B B B B B C C C C E E E E
45 45 35 35 50 70 40 50 340 450 250 260 875 1150 1159 230
W Sp Su F W Sp Su F W Sp Su F W Sp Su F
W— Winter, Sp — Spring, Su — Summer, F- Fall
8.7 Instream Flow Protections in Zone E
Trinity River Authority, one of the Covered Parties, owns and operates Lake Livingston, a large
multipurpose reservoir in the Middle Trinity River Basin. Trinity River Authority is committed to
continuing an existing agreement with TPWD to release 250 cfs from Lake Livingston for
environmental flows. 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
Z' The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is the entity in charge of water rights permitting in Texas.
Z$ This agreement was made during a contested water rights permit application process to satisfy downstream
water rights holders that their existing water rights would be protected.
57
actions are not detrimental to the operations of the Covered Parties or their customers.
Ensuring these flows is a direct benefit to the Covered Species.
8.8 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, in consultation with USFWS and TPWD, commit to maintaining
the gages that are determined to be important for continued monitoring of the health of the
Covered Species. At a minimum, the Covered Parties will support near real-time discharge
measurements at four existing sites: 08057000 Trinity River at Dallas, 08062500 Trinity River at
Rosser, 08065000 Trinity River near Oakwood, and 08065350 Trinity River near Crockett.
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 to better understand threats to the Covered
Species and refine conservation strategies.
8.9 Eradication and Control Measures to Address Invasive Aquatic Plants
Invasive aquatic vegetation like Giant Salvinia, Hydrilla, and Water Hyacinth 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 inethods, including the application of herbicides using
TPWD protocols, as needed, to control and eradicate these invasive aquatic plants. Only aquatic
approved herbicides are used and only when needed to prevent severe infestations. 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. Although impacts to wildlife are not anticipated, the Covered Parties will report
herbicide use to the Service as part of the annual reporting, including product name, volume
applied, areas treated, and any adverse effects to wildlife, if observed.
8.10 Avoiding and Minimizing Site-level Disturbances
Site-level disturbances are those operational and maintenance activities that may have a direct
detrimental effect on the covered species. Examples include stream bed and bank excavation,
pouring of new concrete, and runoff from ground-disturbing activities related to operation and
:
maintenance of existing infrastructure. Unless a particular measure is inapplicable or shown to
be infeasible for the specific activity, or unless implementing the measure would be
inconsistent with applicable 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, mussel surveys
and relocations will be conducted consistent with the latest USFWS and TPWD protocols
and requirements by qualified/certified biologists. If mussels are present, the main
priority will be to conduct the work in a manner that completely avoids disturbance to
mussels. Relocation will only occur if the disturbance cannot feasibly avoid mussels.
(Note that this CCAA does not cover mussel relocation. If mussel relocation is necessary,
then the relocation will be conducted by other parties, under their own 10(a)(1)(a)
scientific collection permits.)
2. Where possible, any Covered Activity requiring Clean Water Act section 404 permitting,
which requires consultation between USACE and the USFWS, will avoid all occupied
mussel beds, including 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. 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.
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, and complete
avoidance of mussels is not feasible, then relocation of freshwater mussels will follow
TPWD and USFWS protocols outlined in their Aquatic Resource Relocation Plan by
qualified biologists, under their own sectionl0(a)(1)(a) permit(s), and with prior
notification to USFWS.
Natural Channel Desi�n
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 on the Elm Fork Trinity which incorporated the use of
underwater timber to provide habitat for fish, planted native vegetation to stabilize the bank,
and sloped the bank to decrease shear stress. While new construction of water supply or
wastewater infrastructure is outside of this agreement, the Covered Parties commit to
59
incorporating natural channel design elements into construction projects permitted under a
separate section 7 consultation of the ESA whenever feasible. These techniques are designed
to protect infrastructure and minimize erosion while improving habitat for aquatic species,
including the Covered Species.
8.11 Public Education and Outreach
The Covered Parties all currently participate in public outreach and education efforts
throughout their respective jurisdictions. Each entity will work to increase public awareness of
the Covered Species by adding species-specific information to existing conservation messaging,
materials, and curriculum to be developed in the first year of the CCAA with input from TPWD
and USFWS. 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. For example, best management practices for Western
Chicken Turtles, such as riparian buffers to protect water quality, minimizing impacts to
wetland and riverine habitats, and maintenance of natural hydrology, will be promoted to
private landowners.
The TRA, NTMWD, and TRWD, three of the Covered Parties, recently started an Alligator
Snapping Turtle signage project in consultation with TPWD at several reservoirs in the Trinity
River 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 6 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 website29. The
reports from this website are verified and shared with turtle researchers at the University of
Houston Clear Lake and TPWD. This program will be further expanded within the basin and a
minimum of 20 additional signs will be installed each year for the first 2 years of the CCAA for a
total of over 80 signs in the basin. The sites will be selected based on the public's ability to
access the location (boat ramps and fishing piers) and the ability to gain permission for
installation. At the 3-year mark, the project will be assessed to determine success30 and the
project will either be continued, or funds will be allocated to other Conservation Measures.
These efforts are designed to provide a net conservation benefit to the Covered Species by
increasing the understanding of where the species occurs, reducing threats posed by willful,
negligent, or unintended actions that may harm the species, and increasing public awareness.
29 https://www.trinityra.or�/basin planning/turtles.php
3o Success parameters will be determined in the first year of the CCAA in consultation with USFWS and TPWD.
.1
Protect Our Alligator
Snapping Turtles
. � � �.---f
, ,�: . .,�..�. �� ::�-;
�;� , � _ • �
..� �4� �� l. .W{ ' ���tl
� y� �'r���M�
. . �a �., � � 'j�' Y 1'�rt1' +�
S .. . ,y ;�� �� � ^r.,'
Did you know that Alligator Snapping
Turtles are Protected under State Law?
What to do:
• Use Caution: Snapping turtles can be large
and aggressive - always keep your distance.
• Whenever possible, release it unharmed ;;;�;;
from fishing lines. ':'��C.j�;,:!'�, ��4::�
�
, �,,, �,;,i::,�s;
• For more info, or to re ort a ���: i+,�� ,�
p �❑ `':�,�:
sighting, scan the QR cade or visit: i���� �:' �',
www.trinityra.org/basin_planninglturtles.php
If you see ar are aware of people collecting or intentionally
harming Alligator Snapping Turtles,
tr please report to Operation Game Thief at I�I
� 1-800-792-GAME (4263) immediately. ���
I��I
�, ., ,� You may be eligible for up to $1000 in reward. we�� nene� o�c��ee:
Figure 18. Alligator Snapping Turtle signage.
8.12 Reintroduction of Covered Species
Should the USFWS and TPWD authorize the reintroduction of the Covered Species of
freshwater mussels in the Covered Area, TRA 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. 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 in-kind assistance may include, but is not limited to, mapping, field assistance, landowner
coordination, site selection assistance, and bathymetric and topographic surveying. The
Covered Parties have a long track record of providing high-quality data to TPWD, TCEQ, and the
TWDB, which has been used in the past for very detailed hydraulic models which can calculate
shear stress, velocities, water depths, and temperature.
61
These activities will support reintroduction efforts and provide a benefit to the species by giving
USFWS and TPWD more informed site selection information which may lead to better long-
term species recovery.
8.13 No New Permanent Dams on the Trinity River Mainstem
The Covered Parties commit to not building any new permanent dams on the Trinity River
mainstem during the timeframe of this agreement.
8.14 Monitoring and Research
The Monitoring and Research Conservation measures discussed below will be used to provide
data and information to the research community, USFWS, and TPWD, which is a direct benefit
to the Covered Species, to include informing potential reintroduction efforts. Additionally, the
Covered Parties commit to using this data to inform a biennial review of the Covered Activities
to determine if reasonable operational changes can be made to benefit the Covered Species.
The USFWS Arlington Field Office, state species experts, and TPWD will be informed no less
than 30 days prior to this meeting so that any relevant topics, comments, or new information
can be incorporated into the meeting agenda. On case-by-case basis and at the discretion of
the Covered Parties, staff from USFWS, TPWD, academia, and industry may be invited to attend
the biennial meetings.
The Covered Parties will provide a meeting summary report that will include a copy of the
agenda, the discussion points, new data not previously submitted to the USFWS, and any
relevant decisions used to inform these discussions will be provided to the USFWS Arlington
office and state species experts no more than 30 days after the meeting. Any operational
changes made will be at the sole discretion of the Covered Parties.
8.14.1 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 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 that is housed at the TCEQ. 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 (SWQMIS), 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. Trinity River Authority'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 SWQMIS database. Additionally, TRA completes biological sampling events, 24-
hour data sonde deployments (water quality probes), and targeted water quality special
studies31
Grant funding for this program is provided by TCEQ on a 2-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. This program is
the primary source of instream data that is used to perform the biennial state-wide water
quality stream assessment, or Integrated Report, and inform permitting decisions. As such,
funding is expected to continue through the term of this agreement. Should TCEQ unexpectedly
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. Should this unexpectedly occur,
it will not be possible for the Covered Parties to continue the program at the same basin-wide
level. Therefore, the Covered Parties commit to funding water quality sampling efforts at or
above the same level of effort as was in place when the funding was reduced, or eliminated, at
the sites along the mainstem and major tributaries that have a direct effect on the Covered
Species so that there will be no loss in data continuity.
The guaranteed continuation of this water quality monitoring project will benefit all the
Covered Species by ensuring the continued collection of data that support a water quality trend
assessment every 5 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 operational changes can be made
to improve the water quality conditions. Should USFWS and 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.
8.14.2 Caged mussel studies
Caged mussel studies are a form of in-situ biological monitoring where live hatchery-raised
mussels are placed in cages at specific steam sites to assess whether ambient water quality
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 over time it can help increase our
31 A full review of TRA's CRP is outside the scope of this CCAA. Detailed information can be found at TRA's CRP
�rogram website.
63
understanding of variables 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 Zone B and two sites in Zone C within the first 5 years of this
agreement.
8.14.3 Long-term Monitoring for Mussels
Long-term monitoring for the Covered Species of mussels is an important feedback loop on the
status and trends of mussel populations in the basin over time. The Covered Parties will fund
long-term monitoring (annually or biennially) at a total of four sites within Zones B, C, and/or E
place where the species are known to occur. Long-term monitoring will be closely coordinated
with USFWS and TPWD using qualified biologists and approved methods designed to avoid
harming sensitive populations. The take of listed species associated with long-term monitoring
is not covered under this CCAA; the potential take of mussels from monitoring will be covered
under a separate 10(a)(1)(a) permit, to be obtained by the biologists who conduct the
monitoring.
This data will be used during the biennial review meetings discussed at the beginning of Section
8. Additionally, 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.
8.14.4 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 models can be used to run future
condition scenarios and better understand potential system responses.
Within the first 5 years, the Covered Parties will work with the USFWS, TPWD, and other
stakeholders to create a water quality model or modify an existing model 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 E32. This effort will include the
collection of field data to calibrate and validate the water quality model. This data will be used
during the biennial review meetings discussed at the beginning of Section 8, in the selection of
future stream restoration sites and may be useful to the USFWS and TPWD for any
recolonization efforts in the Trinity River Basin. The water quality model used in conjunction
with information from the silo studies (caged juvenile mussels exposed to wastewater effluents
in-situ) will help inform the understanding of freshwater mussel population tolerances, which
will assist conservation managers throughout the state of Texas.
3Z TRA has recently competed a Water Quality model for temperature and dissolved oxygen in Zone C under
contract for the Texas Water Development Board.
.�
8.14.5 Hydraulic and Hydrologic Modeling
One of the questions surrounding the tolerance limits 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 and
future stream restoration efforts.
Within the first 4 years of the CCAA, the Covered Parties will work with the USFWS, TPWD, and
other stakeholders to design a modeling project that can best address the current data gaps for
shear tolerances for mussels in all or portions of Conservation Zones B and C. This data will be
used during the biennial review meetings discussed at the beginning of Section 8, in the
selection of future stream restoration sites and may be useful to the USFWS and TPWD for any
recolonization efforts in the Trinity Basin.
8.14.6 Zebra Mussel Monitoring
Ten reservoirs in the Covered Area are impacted at some level by zebra mussels (Figure 17). 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.
The Covered Parties currently contract with the USGS to monitor for larvae, 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
USFWS and/or TPWD 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
reservoirs, 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.
9 Funding
Continued Fundin� Commitments for Required Operations
The Conservation Measures described in detail in Section 8 provide a net conservation benefit
for the Covered Species. Annually, the Covered Parties spend:
[�
1. Hundreds of millions of dollars each year to fund wastewater treatment facilities that
take raw sewage and treat it to a point that it becomes habitat for aquatic species.
2. $350,000 per year on water quality monitoring.
Continued Fundin� Commitments for Conservation Related Activities Over and Above
Operational Requirements
The Conservation Measures described in detail in Section 8 provide a net conservation benefit
for the Covered Species. Annually, the Covered Parties spend:
1. Millions of dollars each year to fund staff, equipment, and travel for participation in
regional and statewide conservation programs, coordinate with Federal and state
entities on environmental flow research, and non-point source pollution prevention
projects.
2. $500,000 per year on USGS stream gage flow and near-real-time water quality
monitoring.
3. $40,000 per year on zebra mussel monitoring.
4. $20,000 per year on invasive aquatic plant eradication.
The Covered Parties commit to keeping this level of funding33 throughout the term of this
CCAA.
New Fundin� Commitments
Additionally, the Covered Parties commit to providing $750,000 in new funding for monitoring,
research, public education programs, and non-point source and restoration projects to the
benefit of the Covered Species during the term of this agreement. These funds will be used for
materials, equipment, and contractors and are exclusive of the significant internal costs to the
Covered Parties (staffing, travel, field work, contract management, internal analysis, and
reporting), which will be funded through the Covered Parties' normal operational budgets.
As described in detail in Section 8, these activities will provide indirect benefits to the Covered
Species by increasing the scientific understanding of the needs of the Covered Species within
the Covered Area. It will also directly benefit the Covered Species by supporting non-point
source projects and stream restoration efforts (Section 8.1), informing possible future
reintroduction efforts as well as informing a biennial review of the Covered Parties' operations
(Section 8.14) to determine if any operational changes to the Covered Parties' Covered
Activities could be modified to benefit the Covered Species.
The breakdown of the new funding will be determined during the first year of the CCAA and
reviewed annually as part of Adaptive Management. The initial CCAA Implementation Workplan
and budget is provided as an example (Table 9-1).
33 In the unlikely event that funding from TCEQ for the CRP is reduced, there will be no reduction in the sampling
effort at locations determined important for the Covered Species along the mainstem and major tributaries.
..
�
N
C�A
�
�
�
�
N
a--+
�
.�
O
�
cB
�
c
c�
C
CO
Q
Y
i
O
�
c
0
.�
C
Q1
�
QJ
Q
�
Q
Q
U
�
co
�
bA
C
.�
0
t
�
a�
�
CSS
�
c-I
Ql
v
�
�
�
� � o 0 0
a�i � X � � o � o � � o 0
} ,� o o ^
L � O O
y 01 X X X p � � � � O O
} � O ^
O O O
� pp X � � � � O � � O O
} � O O �
i � O O
y I� X X X p � � � � O O
} �j p N
O O O
� 1p X � � � � O � � O O
� �j O O ^
L O O
y i11 X X X p � � � � � O
} �rj ui
0
i � O O O O O �
�� X � � � O O O O O �
� � O O O O O M
N 111 r-I N M �
O O O
O
L � O O O �
y M X X X p O , O O � �
>- �j � O O �
ii
O
� N X � � p � O O � O �
if1
} �j O O O� �
� ei X X X p � � � � � O
} � �
�
Gl
v L o 0 0 0
Q� �° � c c o 0 0 � � o 0
X O 0 Y Y Y
O O O
W V� C C C O � � O O � V�1
� C — � r-I N � � N I�
�+
�
�
M
� � � �
Q1
� � � O
� O L
v Q � � O
'j d � � N h
� � v U O t� � � v a1 O
.�
� GJ Q � � � tvo vNi � dA O � ++
R L 4J � i 01 U L � � •L �,� p � t�
i y oC p O > � a-+ �� 0 (� a1 � v �
ia +� v o�c W�� � �� �. � �O
'^ � � � � � v � v ci o � ° 2 � a
C •
V c Q `� � r�a U � �� 'a '� co
Q O � a � �
� � L U '� �
.� — � � Q
41 � � 0
op O �, z
2
�
�
10 Adaptive Management
Adaptive Management relies on an iterative cycle of monitoring, assessment, and decision
making to clarify the relationships between the Conservation Measures being implemented, the
response of habitat and, ultimately, the Covered Species themselves, as indicated by their
general health and abundance. Ongoing and future scientific research may identify higher
priority research needs than were described in Section 8.14. If the Covered Parties, with input
from USFWS and TPWD, identify a higher priority and better use for monitoring and research
funding, then they will work together to reallocate the resources allocated for that task to
address these higher priorities. For example, if the USACE creates a hydraulic model that fulfills
the research need identified in Section 8.14.5, then the resources for that task are no longer
needed and can be reallocated to fund new monitoring and research priorities or supplement
the Conservation Measures outlined in Section 8. No Adaptive Management strategy will result
in a lower overall level of effort or funding or require the Covered Parties to provide increased
funding or effort, though the Covered Parties may choose to do so.
The effectiveness of the Conservation Measures and monitoring methods will be reviewed on a
biennial basis, as new science and technologies become available, or when results are available
from each research task identified in Section 8.14. Likewise, new research and survey data as
well as new information on threats to the Covered Species will aid in the evaluation of the
Conservation Measures' effectiveness. As a result, modifications to the Conservation
Measures, Covered Activities, or monitoring methods may be incorporated pursuant to Section
15.3 Modifications and Amendments of this document to further enhance the goals of this
CCAA.
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).
11.1 Changed Circumstances
If additional Conservation or Avoidance and Minimization Measures are necessary to respond
to Changed Circumstances and the measures needed are already set forth in this CCAA, the
.
Covered Parties will implement the additional measures and remain eligible for the regulatory
assurances provided in this agreement. If the additional Conservation or Avoidance and
Minimization Measures necessary to respond to Changed Circumstances are not provided for in
the CCAA, the USFWS will not require additional Conservation or Avoidance and Minimization
Measures for the Covered Species. The Covered Parties may, however, at their own discretion
voluntarily implement the additional measures.
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 via the Federal Register.
Within 120 days of the Federal Register listing notice, 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) 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 to the CCAA, Permit, and related documents that avoid
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 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, Permit, and related documents to add new species to the list
of Covered Species either because of the Changed Circumstance or 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 River 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, 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 are 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
10-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 caged mussel 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. 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 extent they are able to do so while also meeting the
requirements of their charter, contracts, permits, and customers.
70
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.
In response to this Changed Circumstance, USFWS agrees that TRA may, in its discretion,
request to 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 only
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:
1. In all delisting cases, TRA may, at its discretion, request to amend the CCAA, Permit, and
related documents to remove obligations to address the delisted species for Covered
Activities.
2. 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' expressed consent. This commitment
applies only to Conservation Measures and Avoidance and Minimization Measures
directly implemented by the Covered Parties.
3. 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, Permit, and related
documents that pertain to delisting of a listed Covered Species may be completed without
additional public comment, NEPA analysis, or ESA analysis only if applicable to regulations and
policy in place at the time.
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.
11.1.6 Taxonomic Changes
The taxonomic classification of one or more of the Covered Species may change over the CCAA
and 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
71
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 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 documents the taxonomic change and delisting by publishing it in the
Federal Register.
If this Changed Circumstance occurs, TRA will coordinate with USFWS to change the CCAA,
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 Permit, then an 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 will coordinate with USFWS to determine if an amendment is necessary.
11.1.7 Unforeseen Catastrophic Event
Catastrophic events such as wildfires, 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.
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-
rj�
established. If this occurs, TRA will coordinate with USFWS to change the CCAA, 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 an 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 2-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
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 2-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
73
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. TRA will work
with USFWS to prioritize those sites that are most relevant to the Covered Species to ensure
that data continues.
11.1.13 Significant Degradation in Water Quality in CPAs
If a significant degradation in water quality within a CPA occurs that was not anticipated or
planned for as part of this CCAA, TRA will coordinate with USFWS to evaluate the extent to
which degraded water quality may adversely affect the Covered Species and whether revisions
to the Conservation Measures and Avoidance and Minimization Measures are necessary and
feasible. If a significant degradation in water quality within a CPA is identified through water
quality monitoring, applied research, or a hazardous spill notification, 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 notify USFWS and 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 Unforeseen 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.
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:
rl�
1. Size of the current range of the affected species;
2. Percentage of range adversely affected by Covered Activities;
3
4
5
[�
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 SO 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 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 (excluding TRWD,
which has no wastewater operations) 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 damage to habitats for the
Covered Species based on current conditions and existing operations in the basin despite
projected growth in the region.
75
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 WWTPs, 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) 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 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 orjuvenile mussels is unlikely; losses may be masked by
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
76
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 10-year term of the agreement (Section 4.1).
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 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 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.
�fl
12.2 Take of Turtles
The Western Chicken Turtle is rare throughout its range, and only nine individuals have been
documented in the Trinity River Basin (personal communication, Mandi Gordon, University of
Houston). The Western Chicken Turtle 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 Western Chicken Turtle 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
Western Chicken Turtle does occur in the basin, a minimal level of risk should be assumed no
matter how unlikely. Therefore, take of one Western Chicken Turtle may occur due to Covered
Activities during the 10-year life of the CCAA.
The Alligator Snapping Turtle is more common than the Western Chicken Turtle and is found in
a variety of riverine and reservoir environments across its range, including East Texas. Estimates
of abundance vary, but Alligator Snapping Turtles are thought to number in the thousands in
the Trinity River Basin alone (personal communication, Jan Culbertson, USFWS). Relative to
freshwater mussels, the Alligator Snapping Turtle is 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 vast majority of activities conducted by
the Covered Parties will be in previously disturbed areas, thereby lowering the potential for
impacts. Additionally, the Alligator Snapping Turtle 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, invasive plant control, or riparian restoration).
Therefore, potential take of Alligator Snapping Turtles would be rare and up to one Alligator
Snapping Turtle per year may be taken due to Covered Activities during the life of the CCAA.
12.3 Take of Mussels
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 (SO 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
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). 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 ineasures
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 (approximately 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. However, 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 to be 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 provision in this CCAA (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 help quantify potential impacts, Covered Activities were placed into one of four
categories, 1) conservation, 2) facilities maintenance, 3) water quality, and 4) hydrology
79
(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 with
conservation work on occasion, under the oversight of a permitted researcher, contractor, or
TPWD or USFWS employee, 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 10-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. There is a total of 595 river miles in Conservation Zones
A to E that are occupied34 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. The Covered Activities would result in a limited amount of take, 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 10-year period. For this reason, take associated with conservation and facilities maintenance
is expected to 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 wetted river 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 (i.e., 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
34 Freshwater mussels require certain mesohabitat characteristics (riffle, run, pool, backwater, etc.), so it is
important to note that occupied area does not suggest that the species occupies the entire area, but that the
species could potentially occur if the specific mesohabitat is available at that particular location on the stream.
.�
habitat occupied by the Covered Species within S 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 outfalls, not a lesser 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 10 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 5 miles during the 10-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 WWTP 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 River
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 WWTP. In the last 22 years
(since 2000), only 5 Texas Heelsplitters 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 negligible.
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 1950s or 1960s 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
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 Western Chicken Turtle and 10
Alligator Snapping Turtles are expected to be harmed by Covered Activities cumulatively over
10 years. For mussels, out of a total of 595 wetted river miles currently occupied by the 3
remaining mussel species in the basin covered by the agreement, not more than 54 occupied
river miles are expected to be harmed by Covered Activities cumulatively over 10 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. The Covered Parties will cease work 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 10-year term of this agreement. The Covered Parties will also cease work and notify the
USFWS if they expect their activities will result in take of more than 1 Western Chicken Turtle or
10 Alligator Snapping Turtles, cumulatively over 10 years.
13 Regulatory Assurances
If approved, the USFWS will provide regulatory assurances to the Covered Parties, so long as
the CCAA is fully 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 without consent of the Covered Parties. 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 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 fully in compliance with the CCAA, subject to the terms and conditions described in SO CFR
17.22(d)(1) and 50 CFR 17.32(d)(1).
14 Reporting
The TRA will submit an Annual Report to the USFWS and TPWD by March 1 of each year for the
term of this agreement. 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
''�
(unless otherwise considered incomplete by USFWS) and deliver a final report to USFWS and
TPWD by May 1. The Annual Report will include information related to the Covered Parties'
Covered Activities for the previous calendar year.:
Topics covered in this report will include, but are not limited to:
1. Summary of the activities related to each of the Conservation Measures, including linear
stream miles and acreage of impact;
2. Results of any freshwater mussel surveys or relocations conducted on or behalf of the
Covered Parties;
3. Summary of public outreach efforts;
4. Annual hydrologic review of each Conservation Zone;
5. Annual water quality data summary for each Conservation Zone; and
6. Summary of any take observed since the implementation of this CCAA:
a. Number or turtles subjected to mortality/injury/disturbance
b. Number of river miles of habitat disturbance for mussels
15 Agreement Term, Responsibilities, Amendment, and Termination
15.1 Agreement Term
This CCAA will have a duration of 10 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 CI will be
subject to the same terms and responsibilities as in the CCAA.
Should any of the Covered Species become listed as threatened or endangered, the 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:
1. Funding, administering, and implementing this CCAA and the associated voluntary
Conservation Measures outlined in Section 8;
2. Reporting as described in Section 14;
3. Hosting a Work Plan kickoff ineeting with, at a minimum, USFWS and TPWD within the
first 6 months and then at a minimum of every two years after, to review the Work Plan
and develop specific strategies to accomplish the goals outlined in the Work Plan.
Keeping state and Federal resource protection entities updated at least annually about
research activities through meetings with the USFWS and Texas' Freshwater Mussel
Workgroup;
4. Notifying the USFWS of any transfer of lands subject to a CCAA;
5. Giving the USFWS 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
�
USFWS with an opportunity to relocate affected individuals of the species, if possible or
appropriate.
6. 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:
1. 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;
2. Reviewing and providing comments for reports submitted by TRA along with making
recommendations or suggested changes to conservation priorities to help inform
Adaptive Management moving forward;
3. Issuing a Permit to TRA to allow for incidental take of the Covered Species in accordance
with SO 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, and if the CCAA is
properly and fully implemented. 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 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 amendments will
become effective upon reaching mutual consent of the other parties along with written
concurrence by all parties, and the CCAA document may be modified as appropriate, in
accordance with SO CFR 13.23.
In the event that a proposed amendment would result 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, then the amendment process could include additional analysis by the
USFWS, public notification in the Federal Register, and NEPA analysis. Alternatively, USFWS
could deny the amendment.
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 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)(7), for species that are subsequently listed as endangered, and 50
CFR 17.32 (d)(7), for species that are subsequently listed as threatened.
�
16 Authorized Signatures
J. KEVIN DigitallysignedbyJ.
KEVIN WARD
WARD 1�4:t105Sz0600'1
J. Kevin Ward
General Manager, Trinity River Authority of Texas
JEFFREY M DEFFREYMFLEMING
FLEMING 07464020°00'
Jeffrey Flemming
Regional Director, , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region
Date
Date
.
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.
Baker, S., & J. Levinton. (2003). Selective feeding by three native North American freshwater
mussels implies food competition with zebra mussels. Hydrobiologia, 505, 97-105.
Beggel, S., M. Hinzmann, J. Machado, & J. Geist. (2017). Combined Impact of Acute Exposure to
Ammonia and Temperature Stress on the Freshwater Mussel Unio pictorum. Water, 9(7), 455.
Bertram, E.P., J. Placyk, M. Williams, & L. Williams. (2017). Verification of Two Cyprinid Host
Fishes for the Texas Pigtoe, Fusconaia Askewi. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation,
20(2), 65-70.
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.
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.
Burlakova, A., D. Campbell, & Y. Alexander (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.
Carwardine, M. (2008). Animal Records. Sterling.
Chen, A., A. Abramson, N. Becker, & S.B. Megdal (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.
Clark, B., & W. Mangham (2019). Middle Trinity River Mussel Research, 2018. Trinity River
Authority of Texas & Zara Environmental, LLC.
Dixon, J.R., & T.J. Hibbitts (2013). Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas. Western Chicken Turtle,
Deirochelys reticularia miaria (3rd ed.). Texas A&M University Press.
Dudding, J., M. Hart, J. Khan, C. Robertson, R. Lopes, & C. Randklev. (2019). Host Fish
Associations for Two Highly Imperiled Mussel Species from the Southwestern United States:
Cyclonaias necki (Guadalupe Orb) and Fusconaia mitchelli. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and
Conservation, 22(1), 12-19.
:
Ernst, Carl, J. Lovich, & R. Barbour. (2009). Turtles of the United States and Canada (2nd ed.).
Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D. C.
Enge, K. M., T. M. Thomas, & 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.
Espey Consultants, Inc. (2001). Naturalized Streamflow Estimates in the Trinity, Trinity-San
Jacinto, and Neches-Trinity River Basins. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society. (2016). National Strategy for the Conservation of
Native Freshwater Mollusks. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation, 19, 1-21.
Gates, K., C. Vaughn, & J. Julian. (2015). Developing environmental flow recommendations for
freshwater mussels using the biological traits of species guilds. Freshwater Biology, 60(4), 620-
635.
Dimock, R. V., & A.H. Wright. (1993). Sensitivity of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels to Hypoxic,
thermal and Acid Stress. Journal of the Elisha Mitche115cientific Society, 109(4), 183-192.
Houston Galveston Area Council. (2009). A Regional Approach to Wastewater Infrastructure
Planning. Technical White Paper. 25 pages.
Haag, W.R. (2012). North American Freshwater Mussel: Natural History, Ecology, and
Conservation. Cambridge University Press.
Haney, A., H. Abdelrahman, & J.A. Stoeckel. (2020). Effects of thermal and hypoxic stress on
respiratory patterns of three unionid species: implications for management and conservation.
Hydrobiologia, 847, 787-802.
Haponski, A. E., T. A. Marth, & C. A. Stepien. (2007). Genetic di-vergence across a low-head
dam: A preliminary analysis using Logperch and Greenside Darters. Journal of Great Lakes
Research, 33, 117-126.
Hastie, L., S. Cooksley, F. Scougall, M. Young, P. Boon, & M. Gaywood. (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.
Hibbitts, T.D., & T.L. Hibbitts. (2016). Texas Turtles & Crocodilians: A Field Guide. University of
Texas Press.
Howells, R. G. (2014). Field Guide to Texas Freshwater Mussels of Texas. BioStudies. Kerville,
TX.
Howells, R., R. Neck, & H. Murray. (1996). Freshwater Mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife
Press.
..
Inoue, K., D. Hayes, J. Harris, N. Johnson, C. Morrison, M. Eackles, T. King, J. Jones, E. Hallerman,
A. Christian, & C. Randklev. (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.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group 11 to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.
Kelly, M.W., & J. Rhymer. (2005). Population genetic structure of a rare unionid (Lampsilis
cariosa) in a recently glaciated landscape. Conservation Genetics, 6, 789-802.
Land, L.F., J. Moring, V. Peter, C. David, J. Barbara, A. Shipp, & R. Ulery. (1998). Water quality in
the Trinity River Basin, Texas, 1992-95. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1171. 44 pp.
Lane, E. W. (1954). The Importance of Fluvial Morphology in Hydraulic Engineering. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Commissioner's Office. Washington D.C.
Leopold, L. B., M. Wolman, & J. Miller. (1964). Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San
Francisco. W.H. Freeman and Company, 522p.
Mangham, W.M. (2018). WaterAvailability at the Mussel 8ed near River Mile 295 (RAS Station
294.62J Upstream of USGS Gage 08065000 Trinity River near Oakwood, TX. White Paper.
Trinity River Authority of Texas. Arlington, TX.
Marshall, N.T. (2014). Identification of Potential Fish Hosts from Wild Populations of State-
Threatened East Texas Freshwater Mussels Using a Molecular ldentification Dataset. Biology
Theses, 11.
McKnight, D., & B.L. Day. (2020). Estivation Site Selection of Western Chicken Turtles,
Deirochelys reticularia miaria. The Southwestern Naturalist, 64(3), 187-194.
Moore, A. W. (1927). A Reconnaissance in Texas in 1846. Southwestern Historical Quarterly.
Texas State Historical Association, 252-271.
Newton, T.J., D. Woolnough, & D. Strayer. (2008). Using landscape ecology to understand and
manage freshwater mussel populations. Journal of the North American eenthological Society,
27(2), 424-439.
Nichols, S., & D. Wilcox. (1997). Burrowing saves Lake Erie clams. Nature, 389, 921.
Nobles T., & Y Zhang. (2015). Survival, Growth and Condition of Freshwater Mussels: Effects of
Municipal Wastewater Effluent. Plos One 10(6), e0128488.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128488
..
Perkin, J. S., & T. Bonner. (2016). Historical changes in fish assemblage composition following
water quality improvement in the mainstream Trinity River of Texas. River Research and
Applications, 3, 85-99.
Pieri, A.M., K. Inoue, N. Johnson, C. Smith, J. Harris, C. Robertson, & C. Randklev. (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.
Plummer and 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. Trinity River Authority of Texas. Arlington, TX.
Poole, K., & J. Downing. (2004). Watershed Characteristics in an Agricultural Landscape. Journal
of North American Benthological Society, 23(1), 114-125.
Randklev, C. R., B. Lundeen, R. Howells, & J. Kennedy. (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.
Randklev, C., M. Cordova, J. Groce, E. Tsakiris, & B. Sowards. (2014). Freshwater mussel (Family:
UnionidaeJ data collection in the middle and lower Brazos River. Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department.
Randklev, C., K. Inoue, M. Hart, & A. Pieri. (2017). Assessing the Conservation Status of Native
Freshwater Mussels (Family: Unionidae) in the Trinity River Basin. Final Report. Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department.
Randklev, C. R, N. Ford, M. Fisher, R. Anderson, C. Robertson, M. Hart, J. Khan, & R. Lopez.
(2020). Mussels of Texas Project Database, Version 1.0.
Region C Water Planning Group. (2020). 2021 Region C Water Plan Volume I. Main Report.
Rosgen, D. L. (2006). Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (2nd ed.).
Wildland Hydrology. Fort Collins, CO.
Ryberg, W.A., B. Wolaver, H. Prestridge, B. Labay, J. Pierre, R. Costley, C. Adams, B. Bowers, & T.
Hibbitts. (2017). Habitat Modeling and Conservation of the Western Chicken Turtle (Deirochelys
reticularia miaria). Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 12, 307-320.
Rytwinski, T., D. Algera, J. Taylor, P. Harrison, & S. Cooke. (2017). What are the consequences of
fish entrainment and impingement associated with hydroelectric dams on fish productivity? A
systematic review protocol. Environmental Evidence, 6, 8.
Strayer, D.L. (2008). Freshwater Mussel Ecology: A MultifactorApproach to Distribution and
Abundance. University of California Press.
.�
Szumowski, S., S. Boyer, D. Hornbach, & M. Hove. (2012) Genetic Diversity of Two Common
Freshwater Mussel Species, Lampsilis cardium and Quadrula pustulosa (Bivalvia: Unionidae), in
a Large Federally Protected Waterway (St. Croix River, Minnesota/Wisconsin, U.S.A.). American
Malacological8ulletin, 30(1), 59-72.
Texas State Department of Health. (1925). Trinity River Sanitary Survey. Austin, TX.
Texas Water Development Board. (2021). Environmental Flows. Final Report. Austin, TX.
Texas Parks and Wildlife. (2021). Alligator snapping turtles seized in illegal trafficking case are
returned to natural habitat. Press Release. Austin, TX.
Trinity River Authority of Texas & Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. (2014). Supplemental
Biological Data Collection, Middle Trinity River Priority Instream Flow Study. Final Report.
Austin, TX.
Trinity River Authority of Texas. (2017). Evaluation of Adopted Flow Standards for the Trinity
River, Phase 2. Final Report. Arlington, TX.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2021a). Species Status Assessment forAlligator 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.
US Geological Survey. (1999). Circular 1171. Fish-Community Changes Reflect Water-Quality
Improvements in the Trinity River pownstream from Dallas.
Vaughn, Chris. (2020). Assessing the Feasibility of a Mussel Reintroduction into a Recently
Restored Portion of the Urban San Antonio River, San Antonio, Texas. Ellipsaria, 22(1), 33-34.
Wang, N., C. Ingersoll, I. Greer, D. Hardesty, C. Ivey, J. Kunz, W. Brumbaugh, F. Dwyer, A.
Roberts, T. Augspurger, C. Kane, R. Neves, & M. Barnhart. (2007). Chronic toxicity of copper and
ammonia to juvenile freshwater mussels (unionidae). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,
26, 2048-2056.
Watters, G.T. (1996). Small dams as barriers to freshwater mussels (Bivalvia, Unionoida) and
their hosts. Biological Conservation, 75(1), 79-85.
Winemiller, K., N. Lujan, R. Snelgrove, A. Dube, K. Skow, & A. Snelgrove. (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.
91
Appendix A. Response to Public Comments
Trinity River Authority and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Response to Comments for the
Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for Six Species in the Trinity River Basin
The Service published a notice in the Federal Register on June 26, 2023 (88 FR 41412) to
announce that a proposed draft CCAA with the Trinity River Authority of Texas was available for
public review and comment. The comment period lasted 30 days and closed on August 4, 2023.
We received four responses during the comment period. All substantive comments were taken
into consideration in this final version of the CCAA.
Note: Page references in this response document refer to the original document posted for
public comment and may have shifted slightly due to the incorporation changes within the text.
Center for Biological Diversity
The comments below were not referenced to specific sections. Comments below were distilled
from the overall comment letter.
CBD 1- No Conservation Measures will represent a tangible (much less certain) improvement
over current conditions.
The TRA and USFWS respectfully disagree that the Conservation Measures do not represent a
tangible improvement over current conditions. Due to the complex nature of the basin, the
authority and land ownership of multiple entities involved, and the cryptic nature of the mussel
species, a more precise description of specific conservation actions to be taken over the 10-year
agreement and quantification of the benefits to the species is not possible at this time. The
partnership between the TRA, USFWS, and TPWD that is the foundation of this agreement will
involve a collaborative, adaptive management process based on a progressive understanding of
the threats to covered species and needed conservation actions. As various conservation
projects and initiatives designed to benefit the species are implemented within the basin as
part of the CCAA, we anticipate that not only will benefits be realized, but a more precise
reporting of ineasurable benefits will be possible and included as part of the annual reporting
process. The benefits to covered species from the CCAA are derived by the cumulative effects
of conservation that will be attained over the 10-year agreement. The general approach that
will be used to conserve the Covered Species is described as Conservation Measures outlined in
Section 8 of the CCAA.
CBD 2- Permit will authorize Covered Parties to add WWTP facilities that are not yet built and
incorporate future take of listed species into the permit.
Per Section 7.4, the CCAA covers the operation of new facilities but does not cover new
construction. The Covered Parties do not have existing plans to build any additional WWTPs
that will discharge within occupied habitat within the 10-year timeframe of this agreement.
�
However, should the Covered Parties be asked to provide sewage treatment services requiring
the construction of a new facility, the Covered Parties will work through the ESA section 7
consultation process with the USFWS and NPDES permitting process with TCEQ. A new WWTP
would be required to follow all applicable rules and permitting requirements at the State and
Federal level. Once constructed, the operation of any new facility would be covered by this
CCAA and is desirable for two reasons.
First, the estimation of take downstream from a WWTP included approximately 100% increase
in linear river mileage as a margin of safety. Section 12.3 Take of Mussels reads: 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 outfalls, not a lesser amount).
Second, the alternative to the Covered Parties providing sewage treatment services would be to
shift the responsibility to smaller batch wastewater package treatment plants, not eliminate the
need for treatment services. These smaller batch treatment plants have historically been issued
much less stringent permit limits and there are numerous examples where these plants fail over
time due to mismanagement, lack of investment, and lack of a responsible party to hold to
account. Expansion of existing centralized WWTPs by the Covered Parties to meet demand is
more likely than construction of new facilities, providing a higher and more consistent level of
treatment. Existing state law requires WWTPs to improve treatment capabilities to ensure that
sewage is treated to comply with permit limits to protect public health and the environment.
The expansion of these facilities is also taken into account by the margin of safety already
included in our estimates of incidental take as in the CCAA, as mentioned above.
CBD 3- Permit will authorize herbicides for non-native species, which would create more
harm than the anticipated benefits.
The use of herbicides is covered in the CCAA, but in talking with the Covered Parties, the Service
understands that this treatment is rarely needed and only used in lacustrine environments.
Treatment is not needed or effective in the lotic (flowing) portions of the basin, where most of
the remaining mussel populations occur. Depending on the volume and location where
herbicides are applied within reservoirs, along with other variables such as ambient
temperature, herbicides may persist in treated waterbodies or in downstream areas. However,
the combination of using aquatic-approved herbicides that have generally lower toxicity to
aquatic organisms, limiting herbicide use to only when necessary (severe infestation), the high
dilution capacity of both reservoirs and riverine systems in the basin, and the rapid degradation
of herbicides by physical perturbation (e.g., wind action and flows) and photolysis, the potential
93
for any environmental impacts is expected to be very low. When herbicides are needed, they
are applied in accordance with state and Federal regulations and per manufacturer label
recommendations for the control of invasive aquatic species that could otherwise cause water
quality issues, including toxic algal blooms that can be harmful to wildlife.
Invasive aquatic plants can cover vast areas, making manual or mechanical removal impractical.
In some cases, mechanical removal of aquatic invasives can create additional problems for
plants that can reproduce from fragments, like hydrilla. Herbicides can also be applied over
larger areas, providing a more comprehensive approach to management. Use of herbicides in
some cases is the most effective method of control to protect the ecological health of aquatic
environment from invasive plant species. Given the limited use of herbicides only in lacustrine
environments, limited use of reservoirs by the Covered Species, high dilution capacity of
reservoirs, and generally low toxicity of herbicides, potential effects to the Covered Species or
fish that serve as hosts for mussels are unlikely and expected to be insignificant. Given the
potential for infestations of invasive plants to harm the Covered Species and wildlife in general,
the Service believes the benefits of herbicide use far outweigh the potential risks.
Nevertheless, to ensure that there is adequate oversight, we have added language to Section
8.9 of the agreement stipulating that the Covered Parties will monitor and report herbicide
usage to the Service annually, including product name, volume applied, areas treated, and any
adverse effects to wildlife, if observed.
CBD 4- The only tangible new benefit to the species — the 500 cfs — would occur at the
extreme downstream end of the Trinity River and can do nothing to help the populations of
the covered species within Zones A, B, C and D further upstream.
The Conservation Measures were designed to benefit the Covered Species across the basin in a
holistic manner and within the purview and authority of the Covered Parties. Section 8
discusses the Conservation Measures and includes basin-wide Conservation Measures like Non-
point Source Watershed Protection Plans, Public Education and Outreach, USGS monitoring,
Support of the Environmental Flow process, etc. In particular, planned research as part of the
CCAA involves in-situ testing of water quality (Section 8.14.2) using juvenile mussels to help
determine the level to which two major threats (changes to water quality and hydrology) may
be limiting the survival, growth and reproduction of rare species. The adaptive management
component of the CCAA (section 10) will allow the USFWS to work with the Covered Parties to
not only investigate this important data gap, but also work to implement strategic measures or
modifications to help ameliorate any effects to species that are documented. The extent to
which these minimization measures are needed and can be implemented without
compromising the primary mission and objectives of the Covered Parties is yet to be
determined, but we look forward to working with our partners to manage resources in the
Trinity River basin to the benefit of the public, businesses, and wildlife.
CBD 5- Development will reduce flow in the river.
.,
We respectfully disagree. As described in Section 6.1 of the CCAA, development has not been
shown to reduce flows in the Trinity River based on USGS gage data, and we do not anticipate
decreases in the foreseeable future. The table below shows an increase in base flows
compared to natural conditions, despite an increase in the human population of 160% from
3 [.i��y �i�r�:u,:Gl:'��;t}���;Ef f+Ilini�:'�;�r��
L��C� �age Trin �ty R rver a� R�sser #OS[lfi�5�0
sso
�ao
��o
�oo
��o
�oo
sso
soo
w a�o
U aao
�so
�oo
z.�o
zao
��o
�oo
�a
�
�.
I ;�
�
�' � �
�� �
�93� ��?4� 194� ��54 i959 14E�4 1'��9 I974 1979 1954 I989 19q4 S9'�� 2�04 20Q� �0�4 �019
Figure 74, Fndicst�rs of l�ydrauHc Altefation anajys�s af 3-�ay mEr►irr��m fEows 3r� #�e TrE�i�y
River at the EJSGS gage OS�6��00, �rir�ity River nea� Rosser, j�rst below the DFW rnetro area,
avl�er� �as�f:or,•,�s I�ave i�creased sigr�ificar�t€y avef ti�ne.
1980 through the present.
CBD 6- CCAA should not cover future facilities, and new facilities should undergo section 7
and section 10 evaluations.
We agree. This commitment is addressed in Comment CBD 2 above and several times in the
CCAA, as follows:
p. 21— "Coverage for future infrastructure does not include new construction, which will be
permitted outside of this agreement, but the operations of those facilities once constructed are
covered so long as their operations fall under the Covered Activities covered in this CCAA."
p. 51— "... new construction of water supply or wastewater infrastructure is outside of this
agreement ..."
�
p. 45 —"This agreement does not supersede any additional state or Federal permitting
requirements (e.g., section 7 of ESA) that may be required for some of these activities."
p. 46 —"For new construction, though not covered in this CCAA, the Covered Parties commit ..."
CBD 7- Removal of invasive aquatic species should be done by mechanical means, not
herbicides. Herbicides are likely to harm the covered species.
Addressed under Comment CBD 3 above. Herbicides are used only when necessary and
according to the manufacturer label. No impacts to Covered Species are expected.
CBD 8- On the basis of acreage alone, this CCAA should not be approved because the tangible
benefits (when they actually accrue as per to the voluntary pledge) would be exclusively
downstream whereas the harms would begin at the upper end of the watershed and extend
downstream. There is only a very limited area that would actually be conserved, yet
significant portions of river and terrestrial habitat would be degraded and even destroyed
through authorization of this CCAA.
This comment is addressed in the text of the CCAA. As described in detail in Section 8
Conservation Measures, the effects of the CCAA on the Covered Species should be considered
in a holistic manner. As described in Section 4 Existing Conditions, the Covered Activities are
only a fraction of the stressors on the covered species. Further, pp. 11 and 12 describe that the
"...Covered Parties' operations are only one piece of a larger, interconnected system and, as
such, represent only a portion of the stressors on the Covered Species. The Conservation
Measures put forth in this document are designed to provide a"net conservation benefit" to
the Covered Species for those factors that the Covered Parties can influence, which is difficult
to measure or quantify due to the cumulative activities and effects exerted on the entire
system." We disagree that benefits would be exclusively downstream, for example, planned
research to further examine water quality and quantity-related impacts to mussels, not only
has implications for improved conservation and recovery of freshwater mussels in the Trinity
basin, but those lessons learned can also be applied to improve conservation in other Texas
river basins, paying dividends on the investment by the Covered Parties beyond the scope of
the CCAA.
CBD 9- Categorical exclusion is not appropriate, needs an EIS.
We believe categorical exclusion is appropriate since the action of issuing an enhancement of
survival permit and voluntary conservation by the Covered Parties to benefit at-risk species in
the Trinity River basin will not have a significant effect on the human environment. The quality
of the human environment (including impacts/effects to vegetation, wildlife not covered by the
CCAA, soils, land use, socioeconomic environment, water resources, water quality, air quality,
and cultural resources) will be similar to conditions prior to the Federal action. The most recent
CCAA policy (81 FR 95164) states that "the Services expect that most CCAAs and associated
enhancement-of-survival permits will result in minor or negligible effects on the environment
.�
and will be categorically excluded from individual NEPA analysis" (p. 95173). Specifically, this
CCAA action is categorically excluded under 43 CFR 46.210 (e), as the proposed activities within
the CCAA consist of "Nondestructive data collection, inventory (including field, aerial, and
satellite surveying and mapping), study, research, and monitoring," and do not meet any of the
criteria for extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215.
Additionally, the proposed activities of this CCAA fall under two excluded categories in the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Department Manual Managing the NEPA Process:
• 516 DM 8.5 B(1). Research, inventory, and information collection activities directly
related to the conservation of fish and wildlife resources which involve negligible animal
mortality or habitat destruction, no introduction of contaminants, or no introduction of
organisms not indigenous to the affected ecosystem.
• 516DM 8.5 B(2). The operation, maintenance, and management of existing facilities and
routine recurring management activities and improvements, including renovations and
replacements which result in no or only minor changes in the use, and have no or negligible
environmental effects on-site or in the vicinity of the site.
97
National Wildlife Federation, et al.
NWF, et al. 1- Permit application was not available for review.
We provide the permit application upon request with personal identifiable information
redacted. We apologize for the confusion if this was not clear in the Federal Register Notice.
The permit application is still available for review upon request to erik_orsak@fws.gov.
NWF, et al. 2- Based on a review of the CCAA, many of the proposed covered activities and
conservation measures are only broadly described and often are unduly qualified.
The Covered Parties have very limited to no direct control over the majority of the occupied
habitat but have committed to conducting activities that they can to achieve a net conservation
benefit. Since the nature of the Covered Activities is generally broad, the Conservation
Measures are similarly broad. Section 8 page 47, "Due to the inherent nature and function of
the Trinity River Basin, described in detail in Section 4, and the lifecycle of the Covered Species,
Conservation Measures outlined in this section should be considered cumulatively." The
Workplan is not intended to be a prescription but is designed to create a framework that will
become more defined as the Work Plan is implemented in partnership with the Service, TPWD,
and the greater scientific community.
Language added to clarify in Section 15.2 Responsibilities of Each Party. Changed Language to
list item 3:
3. Hosting a Work Plan kickoff ineeting with, at a minimum, USFWS and TPWD within the first 6
months and then at a minimum of every two years after, to review the Work Plan and develop
specific strategies to accomplish the goals outlined in the Work Plan. Keeping state and Federal
resource protection entities updated at least annually about research activities through
meetings with the USFWS and Texas' Freshwater Mussel Workgroup;
NWF, et al. 3-1.2 pp. 2-3. The discussion of the withdrawal of one of the Covered Parties
and provision for automatic amendment to continue the CCAA without the withdrawing
party needs further elaboration. More detailed discussion is needed to provide a clear path
and approach for dealing with potential withdrawals from the CCAA in a manner that ensures
a net conservation benefit for the Covered Species will be achieved.
As stated on page 74, Section 11.1.15 Change in Covered Parties, "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." TRA is a signatory of the CCAA and the holder the enhancement of survival permit
while the other parties are covered under Certificates of Inclusion (CI). CCAAs are voluntary
agreements which the signatory authority and permit holders or parties covered by CI may
leave the agreement with 30 days written notice. If TRA withdraws from this agreement, then
no parties will receive incidental take protections provided under any section 10 permit issued
in relation to this CCAA. If any of the other Covered Parties leave the agreement, then the level
..
of effort and funding for this CCAA will be reduced by 1/5th for each party leaving the
agreement. In turn, those parties will no longer receive incidental take protections. Any
specific changes to the Work Plan or future implementation strategies will be made in
conjunction with the USFWS and TPWD.
NWF, et al. 4-1.4 pp. 3-4. The discussion on page 4 of permitting for non-federal projects is
somewhat inaccurate. Contrary to that discussion, "non-federal projects" must obtain a
permit for take of listed species through a mechanism other than the consultation process.
We have added clarifying language to the referenced discussion on page 4 and replaced the
third paragraph with the following language:
"An important goal of this CCAA is to provide a framework for ESA compliance for the Covered
Parties while ensuring conservation of Covered (at-risk) Species. Federal actions (i.e., projects
authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency) are subject to section 7 of the ESA.
Specifically, section 7(a)(1) of the ESA charges Federal agencies to aid in the conservation of
listed species, and section 7(a)(2) requires the agencies to ensure that their activities are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitats. Additionally, section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer
with the USFWS on actions which are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of proposed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Non-federal projects (those without a Federal nexus) are subject to the prohibitions (of "take")
under section 9 of the ESA but may apply for a permit (through section 10) if incidental take of
a listed species is anticipated.
Whether an activity proposed by a Covered Party falls under section 7(e.g., new construction
with a Federal nexus) or 10 of the ESA (e.g., a Covered Activity in the CCAA), this CCAA will
facilitate future ESA compliance. The USFWS will issue an enhancement of survival permit
under section 10 of the ESA as part of this CCAA, which will cover incidental take should any of
the Covered Species be listed. Because permit issuance is a Federal action, the USFWS will
conduct a conference and issue a conference opinion under the section 7 process.
This CCAA is not intended to alter the obligation of a Federal agency to consult with the USFWS
pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. Should one of the Covered Species become listed under the
ESA, unless otherwise required by law or regulation, the USFWS will not impose additional
requirements on the Covered Parties for "take" related to Covered Actions under this CCAA in
excess of the Conservation Measures and commitments already contained in the CCAA. If a
project with a Federal nexus that is not covered by the CCAA is proposed by a Covered Party,
the USFWS agrees to meet with the Covered Party and the action agency that has jurisdiction
over the affected project to discuss the appropriate section 7 process for the project."
..
NWF, et al. 5- 4.1.4 Conservation Benefits of Regional Wastewater Treatment, pages 18-20:
We understand and agree with comment. This information was included to provide
background information and context for readers to understand the unique hydrology,
challenges, and realities of the Trinity River basin.
Although it is certainly true that the referenced regional wastewater treatment operations
provide important benefits, the current discussion suggesting that the Covered Parties could
simply cease treating wastewater resulting in widescale discharge of untreated waste
overstates the benefits from the CCAA. There are many limitations on the discharge of
untreated waste and other commitments and requirements by the various Covered Parties to
continue those activities.
NWF, et al. 6- 5 Covered Area and Conservation Zone Descriptions, page 21: Footnote 15 on
page 21 indicates that although construction of new facilities is not covered in the CCAA,
operation of such new facilities would be covered. That proposed coverage is overbroad.
Operation of new diversion facilities or discharges could, depending on the location and
nature of such facilities, cause significant impacts beyond those evaluated in the approval of
the CCAA. The scope of any such new facilities that might be covered should be circumscribed
in the CCAA to ensure that adverse impacts to Covered Species would not be significant.
See Section 7 of the CCAA for a description of routine operation and maintenance activities.
Also see responses to:
1. CBD 6
2. NWF, et al. 8
3. NWF, et al. 9
NWF, et al. 7- 6.1 Altered Hydrology, p. 31: The statement at the bottom of page 31
describing altered hydrology as "part of the existing baseline conditions," is troubling.
Although it likely would be accurate, and fair, to describe various aspects of the altered
hydrology as being outside of the ability of the Covered Parties to affect, the reference to an
undefined baseline condition that somehow is outside of the scope of consideration is
inappropriate and should be deleted.
Language Change:
Original: "This altered hydrology is a threat to the Covered Species but is also considered a part
of existing baseline conditions for the Trinity Basin."
New: "This altered hydrology of the Trinity River is a threat to the Covered Species but is largely
outside of the ability of the Covered Parties to modify. These altered hydrologic conditions
have constituted the standard operational state in the Trinity Basin for decades."
100
NWF, et al. 8- Section 7.2 Water Supply and Reservoir Operations, page 44: The proposed
CCAA states that it covers future diversions and future water supply imports. That scope is
too broad and too undefined. If there are specific future projects for which coverage is
sought, they should be specifically identified, and potential impacts should be discussed.
Open-ended coverage of future undertakings of this sort, even within a defined time period,
cannot reasonably be authorized because potential impacts are too uncertain. The proposed
Agreement also states that it does not preclude Covered Parties from seeking new sources of
water and new permits. Accordingly, the CCAA also should make clear, particularly given the
current broad language about future activities, that the impacts from the development of
such new sources and new permits not discussed in the CCAA are not covered within take
authorization provided pursuant to the CCAA and associated Enhancement of Survival Permit.
See CBD 6. Additionally, as stated previously, the permitting of new construction is not covered
by this CCAA. The routine operation of new facilities, once constructed, will be covered, per
section 7 of the CCAA (Covered Activities) outlined in this CCAA.
Added Language is Underlined:
"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
through the TCEQ permitting water rights appropriation process. These operations could cause
take of the Covered Species as described in Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4.
This CCAA does not cover construction associated with new diversions or imports, but future
operation of new diversions or imports is covered. It is possible that, outside of this CCAA, the
Covered Parties could seek to introduce a new diversion or import in the Covered Area within
the 10-year timeframe of this agreement. If this action would involve new construction and
result in take, the Covered Parties would undergo a separate ESA section 7 consultation with
the USFWS. Once ESA consultation for the new construction was complete, future operation of
the diversion or import would be covered by the CCAA, so long as the level of take allotted for
in this CCAA was not exceeded.
NWF, et al. 9- Section 7.4, Wastewater Treatment, pages 45-46: (Text reformatted for clarity
of response)
A) It would be more accurate to note that wastewater discharges, rather than wastewater
treatment plants, have been shown to be associated with the absence or reduced presence of
101
mussels in downstream reaches. Improvements in wastewater treatment have improved
water quality in the river even with increases in overall discharges.
B) The discussion here of coverage for "routine operation of permitted water and WWTPs"
should be clarified. The intended reference may be to "permitted water treatment plants and
WWTPs," but clarification is needed.
C) More importantly, the discussion should be clarified to provide that routine operation of
such facilities, when done in compliance with applicable permits and regulatory
requirements, is covered by the CCAA. The discussion notes that nothing in the Agreement
precludes the Covered Parties from seeking new permits for expanded operations. The
discussion should also note that such expanded operations would not be covered by the
Agreement and associated Enhancement of Survival Permit because potential impacts have
not been evaluated. If coverage is sought for expanded operations, some discussion of the
allowable scope of what could be covered is needed. For example, incremental expansion of
treatment capacity at a wastewater treatment facility could have significantly different, and
more limited, impacts than expansion that results in a new discharge location, which should
not be covered without additional analysis of potential impacts.
A. Proposed Language Changes:
Old: "While WWTPs have been documented in scientific literature to show decreases in
freshwater mussels for some length downstream ..."
New: "While municipal wastewater dischar�es have been documented in scientific literature to
result in decreases to freshwater mussel abundance and diversity for some distance
downstream, they are also the reason that overall water quality ..."
B. Proposed Language Changes:
Old: "The routine operation of permitted water and WWTPs are covered by this agreement."
New: The routine operation of permitted water and WWTPs, when done in compliance with
applicable permits and re�ulatory requirements, are covered by this agreement.
C.
Regarding the operation of new facilities:
1. See CBD 2 Comment
2. Incremental expansion of existing facilities is covered within the scope of this
agreement. As described in the CCAA, the construction of new facilities is outside of
the scope of this CCAA, and the Covered Parties will work through the section 7
process and permitting through TCEQ, as well as following all applicable rules and
permitting requirements at the state and Federal level. NWF, et al. 10 - 7.5
Pipelines, page 46: The proposed CCAA indicates that pipeline operations,
102
inspections, repairs, and maintenance activities are covered by this agreement.
That scope seems reasonable but commitments as to how those activities will be
undertaken to minimize potential adverse impacts on Covered Species are needed.
This comment is specifically addressed in the text in Section 8.10 Site-level Disturbances
describing avoidance and minimization measures, including erosion and sediment control,
routing of crossings away from occupied mussel beds, and using natural channel design
whenever feasible.
NWF, et al. 11- 8.1 pp. 50-52. Non-point Source Watershed Protection, page 50-52:
Particularly for Covered Species of mussels, the potential for significant benefits from WPPs
will be highly dependent on the location and nature of such plans. The prioritization tool for
identifying locations for new WPPs, referenced on page 51, seems to have potential to
provide new benefits. The discussion in this section should be expanded to describe how that
prioritization tool, once developed, will be used to inform decisions about new WPPs
considered for implementation, as referenced in commitment number 2 listed on page 51.
Discussion of the timing of the development of the prioritization tool also should be added to
ensure that it will be available early enough in the CCAA timeline to inform decisions about
potential new WPPs. Presumably, that is the intention, but additional discussion should be
added, including some commitment to focus efforts to implement new WPPs in Zone C to
increase the potential to benefit Covered Species of mussels. As currently drafted,
commitment number 2 is so limited in scope and qualified in nature that it is not reasonably
construed as likely to provide actual benefit.
Existing text on page 51 denotes that the prioritization tool is to be developed for Zone C. The
text is limited in scope because the Covered parties do not own any property in these areas and
must work with local stakeholder through the Watershed Protection Planning process.
Added following underlined language to existing text:
"Because these programs are designed to be driven by local stakeholders in each specific
subwatershed, the creation of new WPPs cannot be guaranteed. However, for the term of this
CCAA, the Covered Parties commit to:
1. Continuing to administer the implementation of existing WPPs (described later in this
section);
2. Actively seek opportunities to create new WPPs, or similar programs, within the basin; and
3. TRA will work with local landowners, NRCS, USFWS, TPWD, and TWDB to create and design
a watershed prioritization tool to delineate, rank, and prioritize the subwatersheds in Zone
C(where enhancement potential is the highest) based on characteristics like land use,
riparian ve�etation, soil tvpe, slope, proximitv to existin� occupied mussel beds, etc., so that
WPP efforts can be targeted to the subwatersheds that can provide the most benefit for the
Covered Species within the first two vears of the Work Plan.
103
NWF, et al. 12 - 8.4 pp. 53-54: Do not include continuing WWTP operations as a conservation
measure since you are legally required to follow existing permits.
The Covered Parties, except TRWD, are legally required to follow existing permits, however, the
Covered Parties go above what is required by permits, routinely discharging constituents
covered by TPDES permits at concentrations many times lower than required by the associated
permit. In addition, Section 8.4 explains that the Covered Parties are committed to continuing
to provide opportunities for developers and cities to tie into regional or existing municipal
systems, as well as work with industry and academia to develop and incorporate new
technologies into the treatment process. The Covered Parties work with TCEQ through the
permitting process and have worked with developers, and when needed, protested the
issuance of permits for local package plants and cities, unless these parties agreed to move the
new discharges into centralized, better-equipped regional systems whenever possible. These
initiatives benefit the environment and result in higher overall water quality with the Trinity
River basin.
NWF, et al. 13 - 8.6 pp. 55-57. Continuing the settlement agreement and adhering to E Flow
requirements does not count as voluntary conservation measures.
We agree with this statement. However, the text also states that the Covered Parties "support"
and "continue to support," the E. Flow requirements developed during the SB3 process, not
simply "adhering to" them as the comment suggests. This section not only speaks to adherence
but explains how TRA voluntarily supports the E. Flows processes (both SB2 and SB3) by
continuing to execute data collection projects and studies that provide information for the
future adaptive management review of the E. Flows, as required by SB3. To date, TRA has led
six projects in direct support of the E. Flows process that have studied the biological, riparian,
sediment transport, water quality, and geomorphologic characteristics of the Trinity River
basin.
NWF, et al. 14 - 8.8 pp. 57-58. Future USGS gage monitoring support should be quantified or
more specific.
The following language was added on page 57: "At a minimum, the Covered Parties will support
near real-time discharge measurements at four existing sites: 08057000 Trinity River at Dallas,
08062500 Trinity River at Rosser, 08065000 Trinity River near Oakwood, and 08065350 Trinity
River near Crockett."
NWF, et al. 15 - 8.10 pp. 58-59. Site-level Disturbances, pages 58-59: This is an important
overarching commitment, but, as currently stated, it is unduly limited. The commitment could
be made more meaningful by rephrasing the qualifier language from "where applicable,
feasible, and consistent with other regulatory requirements, the Covered Parties will
implement the Covered Activities ..." to "unless a particular measure is inapplicable or shown
to be infeasible for the specific activity, or unless implementing the measure would be
104
inconsistent with applicable regulatory requirements, the Covered Parties will implement the
Covered Activities ...."
New language suggested by commentor added to CCAA as follows:
Old: Site-level disturbances are those construction and maintenance activities that may have a
direct detrimental effect on the covered species, examples include stream bed and bank
excavation, pouring of new concrete, and runoff from construction activities. 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.
N ew:
Site-level disturbances are those construction and maintenance activities that may have a
direct detrimental effect on the covered species, examples include stream bed and bank
excavation, pouring of new concrete, and runoff from construction activities. Unless a particular
measure is inapplicable or shown to be infeasible for the specific activitv, or unless
implementin� the measure would be inconsistent with applicable re�ulatory 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.
NWF, et al. 16 - 8.14 Monitoring and Research, p 61. Include USFWS or TPWD reps for the
biennial review meetings.
Added language: The Monitoring and Research Conservation measures discussed below will be
used to provide data and information to the research community, USFWS, and TPWD, which is
a direct benefit to the Covered Species, to include informing potential reintroduction efforts.
Additionally, the Covered Parties commit to using this data to inform a biennial review of the
Covered Activities to determine if reasonable operational changes can be made to benefit the
Covered Species. The USFWS Arlington Field Office, state species experts, and TPWD will be
informed no less than 30 days prior to this meeting so that any relevant topics, comments, or
new information can be incorporated into the meeting agenda.
Language added to the end of the first paragraph of 8.14 Monitoring and Research:
On case-by-case basis and at the discretion of the Covered Parties, staff from USFWS, TPWD,
academia, and industry may be invited to attend the biennial meetings.
NWF, et al. 17 - 8.14.1 Instream Water Quality Monitoring, pages 61-63: There is a typo in the
numbering of this section.
We were unable to find the typo referenced.
NWF, et al. 18 - 11.1.7 Unforeseen Catastrophic Event, page 72-73: The language purporting
to commit the Service to holding the Covered Parties harmless for catastrophic events,
105
including wastewater treatment plant failure, in the absence of their "gross negligence" is
overbroad. "Gross negligence" is an overly forgiving standard, generally indicating reckless
disregard for reasonable diligence or effort.
TRA and USFWS believe that gross negligence is the appropriate standard.
Texas Parks and Wildlife
TPWD 1- TPWD acknowledged that the final CCAA addressed TPWD's comments on the draft.
TPWD also looks forward to working with USFWS and TRA on this project.
TRA and the Service appreciate the review and input from TPWD through this process.
Member of Public — Name Redacted
Pub 1- Maxwell Creek is critical habitat for Alligator Snapping Turtle.
The USFWS proposed to list the alligator snapping turtle as federally threatened in 2021 but
stated that critical habitat "may be prudent but is not determinable at this time." Therefore,
Maxwell Creek is not designated Critical Habitat and to our knowledge, no Alligator Snapping
Turtle occurrence data is available for Maxwell Creek.
Pub 2- Member of public does not want a WWTP discharge into Maxwell Creek and the CCAA
should not serve as a conduit for allowing pristine Maxwell Creek to be used as a WW
discharge route.
The Covered Parties do not have regulatory control of discharge permitting. That capacity falls
to TCEQ in Texas.
Pub 3- Member of public states that wastewater treatment plants should tie into regional
systems.
TRA agrees that developers should tie into regional wastewater systems and will continue to
promote this initiative whenever possible, per Section 8.4 of the CCAA.
106
Appendix B. Compliance with Section 106 National Historic Preservation
Act ( N H PA)
Covered Activities described in this Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA)
are expected to provide a net conservation benefit for the Covered Species. This protocol
outlines the process for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) while conducting the Covered Activities.
Many of the Covered Activities that are unrelated to specific Conservation Measures involve the
maintenance and operation of existing infrastructure owned by the Trinity River Authority (TRA)
or their partners enrolled in the CCAA through Certificates of Inclusion, including the City of
Fort Worth, City of Dallas, North Texas Municipal Water District, and Tarrant Regional Water
District (Covered Parties). Since the lands where these facilities exist have been previously
disturbed, continued operation and maintenance of these facilities as a Covered Activity is
unlikely to have the potential to cause effects on any "Historic Property(ies)" as defined by the
NHPA and quoted below.
Further, several of the Conservation Measures implemented under this CCAA that involve
research, monitoring, and sampling activities or management of water supply or wastewater
treatment are unlikely to cause physical disturbance or otherwise cause effects on Historic
Properties as defined by the NHPA.
Historic Property (or historic resource) is defined as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for
inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts,
records and material remains related to such a property or resource (NHPA
54 U.S.C. § 300308). For the purposes of this protocol, Historic Property also
includes sites considered as traditional cultural properties (TCP).
This appendix specifies those Covered Activities that, for purposes of implementing the CCAA:
• Do not have the potential to affect Historic Properties, or
• Require consultation with the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO)
Step 1: Does the Covered Activity occur within a known Historic Property?
For Covered Activities that involve disturbance of land that is above the ordinary high-water
mark of the applicable waterbody, TRA, the Covered Parties, or their representatives (e.g.,
contracted workers) (as applicable) will make a recommendation to the SHPO regarding the
appropriate "area of potential effect" (APE). For purposes of compliance with Sections 101 and
106 of the NHPA for Federal undertakings, the APE will include any areas immediately adjacent
to Occupied Habitat or Suitable Unoccupied Habitat that will be disturbed as a result of the
Covered Activity.
107
Efforts to identify known Historic Properties may include walking over the entire APE, talking
with the landowner, THPOs and others, checking the SHPO's known sites/surveys database, and
reviewing historic documents, such as old plat maps and aerial photos. Sites may have been
identified as Historic Properties through prior consultations; through verbal or written
communications with Federal, Tribal, or SHPO; or through review of state and Federal cultural
resource databases within the SHPO and/or the THPO. TRA or the Covered Parties shall
determine whether the activity would occur in a known Historic Property or within 100 feet of
the boundary of a known Historic Property and shall create and maintain documentation of
their conclusions for their records. TRA or the Covered Parties will make the documentation
available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) upon request.
• If the Covered Activity does not occur within a known Historic Property or within 100
feet of the boundaries of a known Historic Property proceed to Step 2.
• If the Covered Activity occurs within a known Historic Property or cannot be modified to
avoid boundaries of a known Historic Property, the Covered Activity has potential to
affect Historic Properties and Section 106 consultation is required. Proceed to Step 3.
Step 2: Does the conservation measure have the potential to affect a Historic
Property?
The Service considers the activities listed below as having no potential to cause effects to a
Historic Property provided the activities a) do not occur within 100 feet of a known Historic
Property, and b) do not result in soil disturbance beyond the extent or depth of previously
disturbed land. If an activity will result in soil disturbance, then evidence of previous soil
disturbance must be documented and can include aerial imagery analysis, photographs and
maps of previous disturbance, or a signed affidavit from the landowner. The activities listed
below that meet these criteria are exempted from further Section 106 review consistent with
36 CFR Part 800.3(a)(1).
1. Any Covered Activities that occur below the ordinary high-water mark of the Trinity
River, its reservoirs, or its tributaries or at depths above and within areas that have
experienced significant prior ground disturbance.
2. Storage, delivery, discharge, and diversion of water and treated wastewater.
3. Drawdown or dewatering of submerged lands to allow for maintenance or repair of TRA
or Covered Parties facilities, customer intakes, and landowner repairs to docks and
retaining walls.
4. Management of TRA or Covered Parties lands, including but not limited to habitat and
vegetation management activities that do not involve ground disturbance above the
ordinary high-water mark.
5. Provision of recreational opportunities on or near the water.
6. Operation, repair, or restoration of existing infrastructure.
7. Replacement of existing infrastructure within the same previously disturbed area.
�•
8. Water safety activities, such as patrols, placement and maintenance of hazard and no
wake buoys and related signage, and occasional removal of navigation hazards.
9. Regulation and inspection of marinas and private docks.
10. Implementation of regulatory programs related to nonpoint source pollution and on-site
sewage facilities around reservoirs owned or managed by the TRA or Covered Parties.
11. Lake or river clean-up activities.
12. Aquatic vegetation management.
13. Emergency operations, including flood operations.
14. Flood response operations.
15. Dredging of accumulated sediment.
16. Research and monitoring activities related to species habitat, water quality, and water
supply.
17. Invasive species management.
18. Activities that do not involve any ground disturbance.
If the Covered Activity fits within one or more of these exemptions and the due diligence
review indicates that no Historic Property would be affected, then the Service considers the
activity to have no potential to cause effects on a Historic Property and the activity can be
considered exempted from SHPO and THPO review. TRA or the Covered Parties shall maintain
documentation of those conclusions for their records and make them available to the Service
upon request. This would conclude the Service's Section 106 compliance for this activity.
If the Covered Activity does not fit within one or more of the above exemptions, it is considered
to have potential to affect a Historic Property. Proceed to Step 3.
Step 3: Formal Section 106 consultation for a Covered Activity that has the
potential to affect a Historic Property.
For a Covered Activity that has the potential to affect a Historic Property, TRA or the Covered
Parties will assist the Service in its Section 106 compliance obligations by completing
consultation. For each APE, TRA or the Covered Parties will initiate procedures outlined in
regulations 36 CFR Part 800 working directly with other consulting parties (e.g., SHPO, THPO
etc.). In the event a recognized tribe requests government-to-government consultation, TRA or
the Covered Parties will notify the Service.
The specific steps for consulting on a Covered Activity that has the potential to affect Historic
Properties includes:
Define the project site and parameters (APE and timing of activities).
Cross-reference the project site to state and Federal cultural resource databases within the
SHPO and/or the THPO, if applicable, to see if any potential impacts to known Historic
Properties can be identified (if not done already).
109
Information resulting from the review and consultation above will be submitted to the SHPO
and any other consulting parties TRA or the Covered Parties have identified as having a
potential interest in the APE (e.g., THPOs/tribes). TRA or the Covered Parties should clearly
state to the consulting parties that this is a Service undertaking. The SHPO review form can be
used, or correspondence with equivalent information, with the supporting documentation
including maps and database searches, can be sent to the SHPO/THPO for review. The SHPO or
THPO may choose to engage the Service directly, rather than TRA or the Covered Parties, and if
so, the review process and timing may be different.
The SHPO should review the Covered Activity within 30 calendar days and the THPO or tribe
within 45 calendar days from the date the Covered Activity is submitted for review. Either party
may request a field visit or "survey." If no response is given or no survey is requested, activities
can begin as planned and TRA or the Covered Parties shall document this for their records, to
provide to the Service on request. This would conclude the Service's Section 106 compliance for
this activity.
If the SHPO or THPO determines a survey is required, a cultural resources professional that
meets the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61) must
conduct the survey.
If possible Historic Properties are not found and SHPO concurs, TRA or the Covered Parties will
notify the consulting parties and document this for their records. TRA or the Covered Parties
will provide the documentation to the Service upon request.
If possible Historic Properties are found and cannot be avoided, TRA or the Covered Parties, in
consultation with the consulting parties, will develop a plan to evaluate whether or not the site
is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and what effect, if any,
the Covered Activity will have on the site. Such plan will be subject to the review and approval
of SHPO. TRA or the Covered Parties will work with the consulting parties and follow the
Section 106 process to conclusion. TRA or the Covered Parties shall maintain documentation for
their records, which will be available to the Service on request. This would conclude the
Service's Section 106 compliance.
If, during implementation of any ground disturbing activities, archeological deposits are
discovered, all activities in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and the TRA or Covered
Parties Cultural Resources Coordinator shall be notified in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.13.
110
CERTIFICATE OF INCLUSION
Certificate of Inclusion for the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances and associated
Enhancement of Survival Permit (Permit) for at-rislc species of the Trinity River Basin, including the
Texas Fawnsfoot, Truncilla macrodon, Texas Heelsplitter, Potamilus nmphichaenus, Trinity Pigtoe,
Fusconaia chunii, and Louisiana Pigtoe, Pleurobema ridellii; and two species of turtle, Alligator
snapping turtle, Macrochelys te►nminckii, and Western Chicicen Turtle, Deirochelys reticularia miaria
(covered species)
This certifies that Citv of Fort Worth, TX (participating Entity),
which owns or manages the propeities described below, will be induded within the scope of the Permit
issued to the Trinity River Authority of Texas (TRA) by the U.S. f-ish and Wildlife Service under the
authority of Section 10(a)(I)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C.
1539(a)(I)(B). This Permit is effective upon signature and will become active if any of the covered species
become listed under tl�e ESA. Such Permit will authorize incidental tal<e of covered species as part of a
Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA). This incidental tal<e will be allowed due to
the application of appropriate conservation measures outlined in the CCAA for tf�e Trinity River basin
that will benefit ti�e covered species and/or their habitats, wfierever they occur within the CCAA
coverage area. Pursuant to the terms of the Perrnit 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 tl�at may result in the incidental tal<ing
of the covereci species, as appropriate, subject to the terms and conditions of the Permit and the CCAA.
Permit autf�orization is subject to the participating Entity cariying 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 requirernents 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 projects lil<e
existing levees, reservoirs, pipeline crossings, water and wastewater treatment plants
and other• relevant infrastructure.
. 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 CI will not provide assurance beyond
the duration of the 10 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 inc�usion.
Enrolled entities will notify TRA within 30 days following a major change in service area within the Trinity
River 6asin, 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 CI.
By signing below, the participating Entity acknowledges tl�at they have read and understand this CI and
the CCAA in effect on the date of their signaYure. The participating Entity further commits to comply
with the terms and conditions of the CCAA and the Permit attached to this CI. Finally, the participating
Entity acknowledges that this CI and the CCAA may not be sufficient to prevent the listing of the covered
species.
Participating Entity
'��'�- Mar 29, 2024
Date
--- Participant Signature(s) ---
Trinity River hor' exa
Date � S �
J. in Ward — General Manager
CITY OF FORT WORTH
F emando Costa
Assistant City Manager
Date: Mar 29, 2024
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED:
Christopher Haer(Mar25, 202415:11 CDTI
Chris Harder, P.E.
Water Department Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Douglas Black (Mar 29, 202410:03 CDT)
Douglas W. Black
Sr. Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
�A�
Jannette S. Goodall
City Secretary
No M&C Required
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.
Stacy Walters, Regulatory-Environmental Administrator