The document summarizes the endangered species listing process and species to track under the Endangered Species Act in central Texas. It provides details on mussel species in central and east Texas that are undergoing species status assessments and listing decisions. It also lists species in the agency's listing workplans for fiscal years 2020 through 2023, including plants, birds, fish, salamanders and other terrestrial species. The presentation cautions that lack of data on species distributions, life histories, tolerances and population numbers could impact listing decisions. It concludes with lessons learned from California's experience with ESA listings and water projects, emphasizing the need for proactive conservation, science, coordination and public education.

1. Endangered Species Act Listing Process
&
Species to Track
Nathan Pence
Exec Mgr of Environmental Science
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority

2. USFWS ESA Listing Process

3. USFWS ESA Listing Workplan – May 2019

4. Central TX Mussels
• Finalized Species Status Assessment
• Listing Decision
– in DC
– Expected in Fall 2020 / Spring 2021
Guadalupe Fatmucket
Guadalupe Orb
False Spike

5. East TX Mussels
• Listing Workplan FY20
• Species Status Assessment Underway
• Louisiana Pigtoe
• Texas Heelsplitter
• Triangle Pigtoe
Louisiana Pigtoe
Texas Heelsplitter

7. Species in the Workplan
In addition to Aquatic Species:
– Plants
– Avian and Bats
– Terrestrial Species
– Unnamed species
Lack of data/information:
– Distribution
– Life Histories
– Tolerances
– Population #’s

8. Listing Workplan FY20
• Blanco Blind Salamander
• Comal Blind Salamander
• Golden Orb
• Smooth Pimpleback
• Blind Catfish
• Toothless Catfish
• Alligator Snapping Turtle

9. Listing Workplan FY21
• Rio Grande Cooter
• Texas Salamander
• Monarch Butterfly

10. Listing Workplan FY22
• Cascade Caverns Salamander
• Mimic Cavesnail
• Mexican Fawnsfoot
• Salina Mucket
• Saltmarch Topminnow

11. Listing Workplan FY23
• Chihuahua Catfish
• Golden-Winged Warbler

12. 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1900, Austin, Texas 78701 v lglawfirm.com
Endangered Species Act
Legal and Regulatory Update
Presented by:
Sara R. Thornton
sthornton@lglawfirm.com
(512) 322-5876

13. Endangered Species Act Update
vOverview of ESA
vRecent ESA
Rulemaking
vMajor Changes
vPending Litigation
vQuestions

14. ESA Overview
vSection 3: Definitions
vSection 4: Determination
of Endangered and
Threatened Species
vSection 7: Interagency
Cooperation
vSection 9: Prohibited Acts

15. ESA Rule Revisions
vEliminates Blanket 4(d) Rule
vInformation on economic impacts in
listings
vListing factors can be used for
delistings

16. ESA Rule Revisions
vHeightened standard
for designating
unoccupied areas as
critical habitat
vClarifying “foreseeable
future” for listing of
threatened species

17. Rule Revision Litigation
vSeven environmental
groups
v17 states, D.C., and
New York City
vClaims of violations of
APA, NEPA, ESA

18. QUESTIONS?

19. Impact of ESA Actions
on CA Water Supplies
Endangered Species Act Panel
TWCA Annual Convention, March 4, 2020
By Jason Larrabee

20. 20
California Water Projects

21. 21
CA CVP and SWP Facts
• Central Valley Project – 13M ac/ft storage
• 3m ac irrigated ag land
• 5.18 TWh annual generation
• State Water Project – 5.7M ac/ft storage
• 750,000 ac irrigated ag land
• Drinking water for 27 million people (LA & Bay Area)
• 6.5 GWh annual generation
• Both Projects provide for flood control, recreation & water
quality

22. 22
Historical Actions in CA Water
• 1935 Congress authorizes federal Central Valley Project. Water & Power start in 1944.
• 1960 State Water Project Authorized. Water & Power start in 1962.
• 1971 State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) issues SWP and CVP
water quality standards.
• 1986 Historic State/Fed Accord, “Coordinated Operation Agreement”, authorized by
Congress.
• 1987 State Water Board begins to revise water quality standards after U.S. EPA
declares it inadequate.
• 1989 Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon listed as threatened under ESA
• 1992 CVP Improvement Act allocates 800,000 acre-feet of water annually to
environment. Legislature passes Delta Protection Act, establishing the Delta Protection
Commission.
• 1993 Delta smelt listed threatened.
• 1994 State and federal officials announce Bay-Delta Accord. Winter-run Chinook
salmon listed as endangered.
• 1999 Sacramento splittail and spring-run Chinook salmon listed as threatened under
ESA.

23. 23
Historical Actions in CA Water
• 2000 CALFED ROD signed. Sacramento splittail removed from ESA list. Coalition of
fishing groups sues State, alleging it never obtained proper legal authority to kill fish
while exporting water.
• 2005 Southern Resident killer whales listed as endangered.
• 2006 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement. Mandates water flowing year round
and reintroduction program of salmon. Green Sturgeon listed as threatened.
• 2007 SWP Delta export pumping operations temporarily shut down to protect
endangered Delta smelt. Court invalidates BiOps issued by USFWS. Concludes Delta
smelt were in jeopardy of extinction from the operation of the Projects.
• 2008/2009 Biops survive legal challenge. New operations program begins
• 2013 State Water Board continues update of flow objectives for Bay-Delta (WQCP).
• 2014 drought grips CA. Water allocations dropped to 0%
• 2016 WIIN Act passes. Provides funding and new operational structure for CVP/SWP
• 2018 State Water Board votes to require 40% UIF on tributaries to the San Joaquin
River for WQCP. Sac River proposal is 55% UIF
• 2019 US EPA requires more scientific information on WQCP. Review pending.
• 2020 new BiOps finalized based on WIIN Act. State files suit against Feds

24. 24
ESA Impacts to Water Supply

25. 25
Mistakes Made by Water Users
• Fought ESA Actions without any science
• “best available science” is key term in ESA
• Complained about ESA instead of working within the law
• Led to water shutoffs, litigation, PR problems
• Believed they could “work if out” with opponents
• Allowed others to define them
• Processed to death
• CVPIA, Bay-Delta Accord, CALFED, BiOps, WQCP

26. 26
Cost of Actions
• Dramatically reduced allocations and lost power generation
• Some years = ZERO % water
• Species population declines and additional listings
• Extensive legislative actions
• CVPIA, CALFED, WQCP
• Extensive legal battles
• Litigation for 30+ years
• Billions in water user fees, state and federal appropriations

27. 27
Lessons Learned
• ESA never goes away
• Be willing to define yourself or someone else will
• Legislation is a blessing and a curse
• Restrictions in law vs. public funding
• Proactive conservation measures and new science works
• The system is all inter-related and no one is on an island

28. 28
CA Water Today

29. 29
What Should Texas Water Users do about ESA
listings?
• Coordinate with each other
• Build your scientific profile and understanding
• Engage!
• Be proactive with species conservation and water
conservation/quality programs
• Message and educate
• Know this is a VERY long process and it will cost a lot of
money

30. Thank You!
Jlarrabee@vnf.com / (202) 298-1877
Jason Larrabee