1. ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL - HISTORICAL INVESTIGATIONS PERMITTING FOR UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AREA ENDANGERED SPECIES ISSUES ARE WELL KNOWN CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION – ENDANGERED SPECIES ARE OF HIGHEST CONCERN – PRESERVE IMPACTS VS. HABITAT IMPACTS

2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REQUIRES THAT IMPACTS ON ENDANGERED SPECIES BE EVALUATED WHEN THEY ARE KNOWN TO BE OR FOUND TO BE IN THE WORK AREA AND YOU MUST DO ONE OR MORE THINGS WHERE SPECIES AND THEIR HABITAT ARE ENCOUNTERED : – AVOID THEM. IF YOU CANNOT AVOID THEM … – MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS OF YOUR PROPOSAL ON THE SPECIES AND THEIR HABITAT. AND IF YOUR MINIMUM IMPACTS RESULT IN A SITUATION THAT MAY ADVERSELY IMPACT THEM, THEN YOU MUST … – “MITIGATE” FOR ANY UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS WHICH MUST BE INCIDENTAL TO THE PROPOSAL. – AND, YOU MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL WITH LESS IMPACT TO THE SPECIES THAN YOURS IF A PROPOSAL CANNOT DO THESE THINGS, AN INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT CANNOT BE OBTAINED FROM THE USFWS TO “TAKE” ENDANGERED SPECIES.

3. “TAKE” Endangered Species Act prohibits “take” of endangered species and their habitat. Take is described as killing, maiming, injuring or disturbing the life history or habitat of the species in such a way that it MAY CAUSE harm to the species, either directly or indirectly, and this does include the modification to its habitat or in proximity to habitat. Obviously, however, once a species’ habitat is modified it is no longer regulated as habitat.

4. LOCAL ‘ENDANGERED’ FAUNA Black-capped vireo Vireo atricapillus Golden-cheeked warbler Dendroica chrysoparia Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion Tartarocreagris texana Tooth Cave spider Neoleptoneta myopica Bee Creek harvestman Texella reddelli Bone Cave harvestman Texella reyesi Tooth Cave ground beetle Rhadine persephone Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle Texamaurops reddelli Others

5. ENDANGERED SPECIES

6. Study and evaluation methods Feb 12, 2007 - met with Mr. Scott Rowin, biologist and permitting specialist, USFWS Discussed current best available commercial science relating impact to Golden-cheeked Warbler (GCWA) and the Tooth Cave Ground Beetle (Rp) USFWS advises that: take of Rp occurs within 500 feet of occupied habitat. take of GCWA occurs within 250 feet of occupied habitat indirect take MAY occur beyond those distances as well under certain circumstances.

7. In May the Design Oversight Committee met to discuss results of analysis and “ground truth” field work in several alternative routes. In mid May the recommendations of the technical consultants were made to the managers of the three cities and other attendees at the meeting. On June 12, the preferred route of the managers of the three cities was discussed with the USFWS. – Result - the opinion of USFWS biologists, supported by field work, that the presence of known, occupied karst habitat in close proximity to areas of Lime Creek Road, Anderson Mill Road and Lakeline Boulevard would likely result in a finding of take for construction in those areas since those routes do not avoid the species but another feasible route does. August 17, USFWS (S. Rowin and A. Arnold) were again advised of the impact issues for the several routes for the raw water line project. – Preferred route places raw water line construction in areas more than 500 feet from all known karst faunal features, – Preferred route places raw water line more than 250 feet from all known GCWA habitat Dec. 15, route toured with USFWS representative and field biologists. Recommended route avoids endangered species and their habitat

8. A biological assessment and biological opinion of the findings of the technical consultants to use the previously approved LCRA route was finalized and has been submitted to the USFWS for their consideration and concurrence. An application has been made to the Balcones Canyonland Preserve manager for a certificate of participation to cover one small possible GCWA area on the plant site A Nationwide Sec 12 Permit application has been submitted to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to re-use the three already confined and existing road crossings of ‘waters of the U. S.’ along the preferred route.

9. Prior Environmental Assessments An environmental assessment for a 50 foot wide route study area, nearly identical to the proposed route with nearly identical impacts, was prepared and submitted by LCRA in 2000. LCRA also studied alternative routes, discarding others and ultimately selecting the Trails End route recommended for use by BCRUA. LCRA Environmental Assessment was approved under similar standards of review by the USFWS, by the Corps of Engineers, by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Antiquities Commission, and those agencies individually and collectively determined that the LCRA project included no significant adverse impacts – neither direct nor indirect - to waters of the U. S. and wetlands, to endangered species or to other environmental elements on this alignment. There are no known karst features containing endangered species, nor were any new features found in our field work on a 1000 foot wide route study area of the work zone for the preferred alignment.

10. Trails End Road Area

11. Known Rhadine persephone sites

12. Outcrop area with small features

13. HABITAT AND PRESERVE DESIGNATIONS

14. ANOTHER LOOK AT PRESERVES

15. FEASIBILITY AND PRUDENCE MORE THAN ONE ROUTE WAS BOTH FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT FROM A NARROW CONSIDERATION OF ENGINEERING ISSUES. PRESENCE OF EXISTING ENDANGERED SPECIES PRESERVES COVERING BROAD AREAS MADE SOME ROUTES FAR LESS FEASIBLE OR INFEASIBLE THAN OTHERS. IF AN “AVOIDANCE PROPOSAL” COULD NOT BE ADVANCED, APPROVAL OF A HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN BY THE USFWS THAT INCLUDES IMPACT TO ONE OR MORE ENDANGERED SPECIES WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR ANY PROPOSAL TO GO FORWARD. THE REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN A CRUCIAL PERMIT FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE OF Rp COULD NOT BE MET WITHOUT NEW LOCATIONS OF Rp BEING AVAILABLE FOR MITIGATION. NO “NEW” LOCATIONS OF Rp ARE KNOWN TO EXIST IN THIS REGION AMONG THE BIOLOGICAL/SPELEOLOGICAL COMMUNITY ONE ROUTE, THAT PROPOSED, WAS FEASIBLE, AND THEREFORE PRUDENT, FROM THE NARROW CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

16. QUESTIONS …….

17. LCRA WATER PLANT AND WATERLINE PROJECT

18. USACE APPROVAL LETTER, LCRA

19. USFWS APPROVAL LETTER, LCRA