(DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
TAXONOMY
NAME - DARTER, FOUNTAIN
OTHER COMMON NAMES - DARTER and FOUNTAIN
ELEMENT CODE -
CATEGORY - Fish
PHYLUM AND SUBPHYLUM - CHORDATA,
CLASS AND SUBCLASS - OSTEICHTHYES,
ORDER AND SUBORDER - PERCIFORMES,
FAMILY AND SUBFAMILY - PERCIDAE,
GENUS AND SUBGENUS - ETHEOSTOMA,
SPECIES AND SSP - FONTICOLA,
SCIENTIFIC NAME - ETHEOSTOMA FONTICOLA
AUTHORITY -
TAXONOMY REFERENCES -
COMMENTS ON TAXONOMY -
Fountain Darter
Etheostoma fonticola (Jordan and Gilbert, 1886)
KINGDOM: Animal GROUP: Fish
PHYLUM: Chordata CLASS: Osteichthyes
ORDER: Perciformes FAMILY: Percidae
The fountain darter, Etheostoma fonticola, is a small species of
darter usually less than 25 mm standard length (SL), and its color in
life is mostly reddish brown. The scales on the sides are broadly
margined behind with dusky pigment and the dorsal region contains many
fine specks and has approximately 8 indistinct dusky cross-blotches.
A series of horizontal stitch-like dark lines occur along the middle
of the sides, forming an interrupted lateral streak. Three small dark
spots are present on the base of the tail and there is a dark spot on
the opercle. Dark bars appear in front of, below and behind the eye.
The lower half of the spinous dorsal fin is jet-black; above there
appears a broad red band, and above this band the fin is narrowly
edged with black. The sexes are dimorphic in their banding pattern,
spinous dorsal fin coloration, genital papillae morphology, and pelvic
and anal fin nuptial tubercles (01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08).
Although the fountain darter traditionally was believed to be the
Taxonomy - 1 (DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
most advanced (or specialized) darter, the basis for this was the
analysis of a very limited subset of characteristics which appear to
be highly influenced by environmental factors such as temperature (09,
10). The subgenus Microperca, to which E. fonticola belongs, is still
thought to be the most derived subgenus of Etheostoma. The
evolutionary history of this group is presumed to involve an early
separation of the presently recognized E. proeliare and E. microperca
groups followed by a latter isolation of a subset of an E. proeliare-
like ancestor. This E. proeliare-like ancestor survived and became
the presently recognized E. fonticola in only the San Marcos and Comal
Rivers (07,10,09,11,12,13,14,15).
Recognition of the fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola) began
with the accidental description of this species as Alvarius fonticola
from specimens collected from the San Marcos River just below the
confluence of the Blanco River in 1884 (01). The authors noted at
that time the species was abundant in the river. An additional
specimen, undoubtedly misidentified (now presumed lost) from the
Washita River drainage of AR was also reported by Jordan and Gilbert
(01). Gilbert (02), in the intended original description, redescribed
the species and noted its occurrence only in the San Marcos River
system.
Evermann and Kendall (16) included an illustration of the species
by Copeland which was designated the lectotype by Jordan and Evermann
(03). Because the type referred to by Jordan and Evermann was a lot
containing four specimens, Collette and Knapp (17) selected a
lectotype from the U.S. National Museum collections of Etheostoma
fonticola originally referenced by Gilbert (02). The remaining three
specimens included in this collection are now paralectotypes (15).
Taxonomy - 2 (DRAFT) - Status
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
STATUS
Coded Status
E: Federal Endangered
COMMENTS ON STATUS -
U.S. STATUSES AND LAWS:
The fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola) has been designated an
Endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(50 CFR 17.11; P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1540),
as amended. The species has this status wherever found including
the State of Texas. Critical Habitat has been designated in
in Spring Lake and its outflows, the San Marcos River downstream
approximately 0.5 miles below the Interstate Highway 35 bridge, Hays
County, Texas (50 CFR, Sec 17.95(e)).
This species is protected by the Lacey Act (P.L. 97-79, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) which makes it unlawful to import,
export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any wild
animal (alive or dead including parts, products, eggs, or offspring):
(1) in interstate or foreign commerce if taken, possessed,
transported or sold in violation of any State law or
regulation; or
(2) if taken or possessed in violation of any U.S. law,
treaty, or regulation or in violation of Indian tribal law.
It is also unlawful to possess any wild animal (alive or dead
including parts, products, eggs, and offspring) within the U.S.
territorial or special maritime jurisdiction (as defined in
18 U.S.C. 7) that is taken, possessed, transported, or sold in
violation of any State law or regulation, foreign law, or Indian
tribal law.
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCIES:
USFWS -Responsible for the management/recovery, listing, and
law enforcement/protection of this species.
All Federal agencies have responsibility to ensure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of Critical Habitat (50 CFR 402),
and to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the
conservation of the species.
STATE STATUSES AND LAWS:
STATE: Texas
DESIGNATED STATUS: Endangered
Status - 1 (DRAFT) - Status
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
STATE STATUTE: 31 Texas Administrative Code Sec. 57.133
(127.30.003) July 1977
INTERNATIONAL STATUSES, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS:
This species is listed as Endangered in the IUCN Red Data Book,
Vol. 4, 1977; and is also listed by the Convention on Nature
Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere, 1970.
ECONOMIC STATUSES:
This species has value to naturalists and value as a component of
Texas' natural heritage of biotic diversity.
70/10/13:35 FR 16047/ - Listing as Endangered
79/05/21:44 FR 29565/29577 - Five year review
80/07/14:45 FR 47355/47364 - Designation of Critical Habitat
85/07/22:50 FR 29901/29909 - Five year review
Status - 2 HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS
HABITAT - AQUATIC
INLAND AQUATIC
LAND USE -
Transportation, communications, and Util
Mixed Urban or Built-up Land
Streams and Canals
Reservoirs
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY CODES
NWI NWICLS NWIMOD NWISPEC
Riverine, upper perennial SB1
Riverine, upper perennial AB2
COMMENTS ON HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS -
The San Marcos River arises in a series of spring openings along
the Balcones Fault Zone in the City of San Marcos, Hays County, TX.
The second largest spring system in Texas, the springs at San Marcos
historically have exhibited the greatest flow dependability and
environmental stability of any spring system in the southwestern U.S.
Records indicate that the San Marcos Springs have never ceased
flowing, although the flow has varied and is tied to fluctuations in
their source, the Edwards Aquifer underlying the Balcones Fault Zone.
Partly because of the consistancy of its waters, the San Marcos Spring
ecosystem, including its springrun, the San Marcos River, has a
greater known diversity of aquatic organisms than any other ecosystem
in the southwestern United States (21).
The biological uniqueness of this system has been known for many
years. Many of the species found in the San Marcos River ecosystem
are found nowhere else and are restricted to the first few kilometers
or less of the San Marcos springrun. Other forms are nearly as range
restricted and are limited to the largest spring system in Texas---the
springs issuing into the Comal River in nearby New Braunfels, Comal
County, TX---in addition to the San Marcos River ecosystem (21).
Due to a variety of factors, including increased use of the
aquifer waters for human activities, increased urbanization in the
San Marcos region resulting in increases in flood intensity,
pollution, recreational use and alterations of the river, the San
Marcos ecosystem is in a precarious situation.
The Balcones Fault Zone is the principal geological feature
characterizing the San Marcos area. This fault zone separates the
Edwards Plateau vegetation region from the Blackland Prairies and
South Texas Plains regions. These regions correspond to the
Balconian, Texan and Tamaulipan Biotic Provinces respectively, of
Blair (1950). The headwaters of the San Marcos River issue from
several large fissures and numerous smaller solution openings along
the San Marcos Springs fault. Early Spanish explorers estimated that
a series of 200 springs made up the main spring area. The spring fed
San Marcos River flows primarily southeastward for approximately
110 km before joining the Guadalupe River in the vicinity of Gonzales,
Gonzales County, TX. The upper San Marcos River is a rapidly flowing,
unusually clear spring run some 5-15 m wide and up to approximately
4 m deep. For the first few kilometers, to near the Blanco River
confluence, the river flows mostly over a firm gravel bottom with many
shallow riffles alternating with deep pools. The section between the
Blanco River confluence and the Guadalupe River has fewer attributes
Habitat Associations - 1 of a spring run. Upstream from the junction of the Blanco River with
the San Marcos, three creeks, various storm sewers, and one wastewater
treatment plant discharge into the river. Sink Creek, largest of the
three creeks, discharges large quantities of storm runoff from the
north into Spring Lake. Spring Lake Dam backs water approximately
1.6 km up Sink Creek. The other two creeks, Willow Springs and
Purgatory Creeks, are normally dry except during periods of high
rainfall.
The San Antonio Region of the Balcones Fault Zone extends as a
series of faults and fracture lines from the vicinity of Brackettville
(Kinney County) east to San Antonio (Bexar County) and then northeast
to near Kyle (Hays County). A major aquifer (Edwards Balcones Fault
Zone Aquifer) underlies this fault zone and is the source of water for
San Marcos Springs. Runoff from the southern and eastern portions of
the Edwards Plateau recharge this aquifer through the porous
Cretaceous-aged limestones found in this region. Water from this
recharge flows along the fault zone from west to east and then
northeast. Major springs located along this fault system include the
two largest springs in Texas, Comal Springs in New Braunfels (Comal
County) and San Marcos Springs in San Marcos (Hays County).
The flow of San Marcos Springs has been monitored intermittently
since 1894. Average annual spring flow is 4.4 cubic meters per second
(161.0 cf/s). During drought years much lower flows occurred,
especially during the mid-1950's when Comal Springs did not flow for
part of one year. As of 1979 the lowest recorded monthly flow from
San Marcos Springs was 1.53 cubic meters per second (54 cf/s) during
1956. The lowest measured daily flow rate occurred on 15 and 16
August 1956 when the San Marcos River flowed at only 1.29 cubic meters
per second (45.55 cf/s). Maximum daily spring flows can be greater
than 8.33 cubic meters per second (294.13 cf/s), especially following
periods of high local rainfall and runoff.
The thermally constant water from the San Marcos Springs has long
been noted and generally varies annually by less than 1-2 degrees C
in the headwaters. At the lower end of the springrun habitat only a
slightly greater range of variation in temperature (from 25.5 degrees
C in August to 20.4 degrees C in February) has been recorded between
1967-1971. Waters tend to be alkaline or neutral due to the limestone
aquifer. The pH range of the San Marcos Springs is 6.9-7.8. The
stability of this stream, both in terms of flow dependability and
thermal characteristics, probably provided the appropriate ecological
conditions necessary to allow the unusually high degree of endemism
of the San Marcos biota.
Spring Lake, created on the San Marcos River not far from the
headsprings is the site of a major tourist attraction, Aquarena
Springs, Inc., a private amusement park.
In addition to inhabiting the San Marcos River, the fountain
darter also is found in the Comal River, which begins at numerous
springs collectively called Comal Springs that originate from the
Edwards Aquifer within the City of New Braunfels, Comal County, TX.
The Comal River flows east approximately 5 km before emptying
into the Guadalupe River, making it the shortest river in Texas and
also the shortest river in the U.S. carrying an equivalent amount
of water. Blieders Creek, about 11 km long and dry except after
rains, joins the Comal River at the headsprings located on the north
side of the city. A short distance downstream from the headsprings,
another tributary, Dry Comal Creek, enters the Comal River from the
southwest. The upper end of the river has been dammed and developed
into a municipal recreational area, Landa Park.
Comal Springs has the greatest mean discharge of any springs in
the southwestern U.S. The mean discharge during the period 1928-1972
was 7.8 cubic meters per second (275.4 cf/s). The maximum recorded
Habitat Associations - 2 discharge of 15.1 cubic meters per second (533.2 cf/s) occurred in
October 1973. The springs ceased flowing from June until November
1956 when they began flowing again at a slow rate. At that time,
all major springs in the Balcones Fault Zone had ceased to flow
substantially. Discharge from Comal Springs from March 1973 to
February 1975 had a mean of 11.6 cubic meters per second (409.6 cf/s)
and ranged from 9.5 cubic feet per second (335.5 cf/s) in May 1973
to 15.1 cubic meters per second (533.2 cf/s) in October 1973. The
mean annual water temperature of Comal Springs is 23.4 degrees C.
To summarize, the fountain darter apparently requires:
1) Thermally constant waters; 2) undisturbed stream floor habitats
with riffles and pools; 3) mats of filamentous algae for cover; 4)
clear and clean water; 5) food supply of living organisms, 6) flowing
water, and; 7) protection from severe floods.
In general, Etheostoma fonticola, prefers vegetated stream-floor
habitats with a constant (21 degrees C) water temperature. The
species prefers mats of filamentous green algae (Rhizoclonium sp.)
over other aquatic plants and is very rarely found in areas lacking
vegetation. Young fish consistently have been collected in heavily
vegetated, backwater areas of the San Marcos River where flow is
negligible, but water temperatures constant. Adults occur in all
suitable habitats where water temperatures are also relatively
constant, including riffles (21,22). Interstate Highway 35 crosses
the San Marcos River and maintanence activities could impact the
species.
In addition to the San Marcos River the species occurs in the
Comal River which originates at numerous springs called Comal Springs,
within the City of New Braunfels, Comal County, TX.
Habitat Associations - 3 (DRAFT) - Food Habits
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
FOOD HABITS
TROPHIC LEVEL -
CARNIVORE
LIFESTAGE FOOD FOOD PART
General Zooplankton
General Arthropods
General Crustaceans
Food Habits - 1 (DRAFT) - Environment Associations
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G = General A = Adult
LIM = Limiting RA = Resting Adult
J = Juvenile FA = Feeding Adult
RJ = Resting Juvenile BA = Breeding Adult
FJ = Feeding Juvenile P = Pupae
L = Larvae E = Egg
RL = Resting Larvae
FL = Feeding Larvae
LIFESTAGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G Aquatic Features: Pool areas
G Aquatic Features: Springs [flowing]
G Human Association: Public residential parks
G
Environment Associations - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
LIFE HISTORY
FOOD HABITS:
Schenck and Whiteside sampled fountain darters (Etheostoma
fonticola) in the San Marcos River and determined the food habits of
this species (23). Based on percent of frequency of occurrence in
sampled stomachs, fountain darters less than 19.2 mm standard length
(SL) feed primarily on copepods, dipterans and ephemeropteran larvae,
darters between 19.2 and 29.5 mm SL feed mainly upon dipteran and
ephemeropteran larvae and include lesser amounts of trichopeteran
larvae. Darters greater than 29.6 mm SL feed mainly on ephemeropteran
larvae and include lesser but significant amounts of trichopteran and
dipteran larvae in their diets as well (23).
The food habits of fountain darters inhabiting Spring Lake (the
headsprings of the San Marcos River) appear different from the food
habits of the darters inhabiting the San Marcos River (23). Casual
observations indicate that the overall invertebrate community in
Spring Lake is different from the invertebrate community in the river.
Differences in the abundance of various food items in these two
environments are hypothesized as the reason for the food utilization
differences.
Fountain darters feed primarily during daylight and demonstrate
selective feeding behavior. Those held in an aquarium feed on moving
aquatic invertebrates while disregarding immobile ones, suggesting
that the darters respond to visual cues. The species apparently does
not chase food organisms but remains stationary until prey items move
to within approximately 3 cm (23).
HOME RANGE/TERRITORY:
No information is known concerning territoriality in Etheostoma
fonticola.
PERIODICITY:
Fountain darters (Etheostoma fonticola) feed primarily during
daylight (23) and are thus, apparently diurnal species.
MIGRATION PATTERNS:
No migrations are known for Etheostoma fonticola.
COVER/SHELTER REQUIREMENTS:
Fountain darters (Etheostoma fonticola) utilize stream-floor
vegetation, especially mats of green algae (Rhizoclonium sp.) for
cover and shelter (22).
REPRODUCTIVE SITE REQUIREMENTS:
The reproductive activities of fountain darters were first
described by Strawn (05,06) who noted that Etheostoma fonticola are
headwater darters which breed in the relatively constant temperature
of the San Marcos River. He further noted that this species deposits
eggs in vegetation and that the males develop nuptial coloration and
tubercles on their pelvic and anal fins, which has also been noted by
Collette (07), and Schenck and Whiteside (08). Dowden (24) also found
fountain darter eggs attached to moss and algae. These eggs hatched
Life History - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
when transferred to aerated aquaria.
REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS:
The breeding behavior of Etheostoma fonticola is described by
Strawn (05,06) and this account includes a photograph of a male in
breeding coloration. The species spawns throughout the year (05,08).
Eggs are deposited on vegetation and the parents provide no further
parental care (06,08). Natural populations of fountain darters have
two temporal peaks of ovarian development, one in August and another
in late winter to early spring (08). Mean ova diameter (1.10 mm) is
not correlated with the size of females (08) and the mean fecundity
of 74 specimens was 19, less than that found in other darters (08).
Sex ratios apparently favor males over females (1.39 to 1.0) (08).
PARENTAL CARE:
Etheostoma fonticola apparently provide no parental care for
their young after depositing the fertilized ova into mats of
vegetation (06,08).
POPULATION BIOLOGY:
Schenck and Whiteside (22) estimate the total number of
Etheostoma fonticola in the San Marcos River to be approximately
103,000. The Comal River population was extripated between 1954 and
1974 (22,25). An introduction of fountain darters from the San Marcos
into the Comal River occurred in 1975 and 1976 (22). No population
estimates of Etheostoma fonticola are available for this new Comal
River population; however, there appear to be many fewer fountain
darters in the Comal River than in the San Marcos River due primarily
to the low availability of suitable habitat in this spring run (21).
Limiting factors in both localities include limitations on suitable
habitat, food, and adequate stenothermal limestone spring waters (21).
SPECIES INTERRELATIONSHIPS:
Nematodes are the most commonly encountered parasite of
Etheostoma fonticola (26). The most common adult nematode was
Camallanus sp. and the maximum number found on any one fish was six.
Some fish contained many larval nematodes while five darters were each
parasitized by a single strigeoid nematode. Two fountain darters were
hosts to single unidentified leeches (26).
OTHER LIFE HISTORY DESCRIPTORS:
Fountain darters have been artificially hybridized with a number
of other species including: E. caeruleum, E. chlorosomum, E. euzonum,
E. juliae, E. lepidum, E. spectabile, Percina caprodes and P. sciera.
Procedures for artificially stripping eggs and milt of fountain
darters, a discussion of the artificial hybridization, and the
resulting low survival of the various hybrid combinations appear in
Strawn and Hubbs (27), Hubbs and Strawn (25,28), Hubbs (29,30), Hubbs
and Laritz (31), Hubbs (32), and Distler (33). These studies
demonstrate that male fountain darters produce little milt and that
which is produced tends to be nonviable (29,34).
Life History - 2 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
RESULT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Boating Activities
Beneficial Restricting/regulating human disturbance of populations
Beneficial Maintaining/Controlling Water Flow
Beneficial Controlling water levels
Beneficial Restricting/regulating human use of habitats
Beneficial Land Acquisition
Beneficial Water Right Acquisition
Beneficial Controlling pollution [thermal, chemical, physical]
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Pesticide Use
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Herbicide Use
Beneficial Reforestation
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Exotic Vertebrates
Adverse Incidental Capturing/Killing
Existing Incidental Capturing/Killing
Adverse Predation
Existing Predation
Adverse Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Existing Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Adverse Siltation
Existing Siltation
Adverse Water Temperature Alteration
Existing Water Temperature Alteration
Adverse Strip mining
Existing Strip mining
Adverse Water Level Fluctuation
Existing Water Level Fluctuation
Adverse Flooding
Existing Flooding
Adverse Groundwater drawdown
Existing Groundwater drawdown
Adverse Dredging
Existing Dredging
Adverse Developing/maintaining stream bank vegetation
Existing Developing/maintaining stream bank vegetation
Adverse Applying fertilizers
Existing Applying fertilizers
Adverse Applying herbicides
Existing Applying herbicides
Adverse Applying pesticides
Existing Applying pesticides
Adverse Environmental Contamination/Pollution
Existing Environmental Contamination/Pollution
Adverse Competition
Existing Competition
Adverse Exotic/Feral/Introducted Species
Existing Exotic/Feral/Introducted Species
Adverse Erosion
Existing Erosion
Adverse
Management Practices - 1 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
RESULT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Existing
Adverse Vegetation Composition Changes
Existing Vegetation Composition Changes
COMMENTS ON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -
A number of factors are currently threatening the fountain darter
(Etheostoma fonticola) with extinction. These include an extremely
limited range, and a potential elimination of the spring flow from the
San Marcos Springs due to water withdrawals from the Edwards Aquifer,
especially from urban and agricultural users of this water (18,19).
On a local scale, the City of San Marcos is growing rapidly (20) and
increased urbanization has caused increased flooding and erosion,
pollution, pesticides and herbicides which runoff into the San Marcos
River. Exotic species which compete for resources and space and may
prey on fountain darters. Effluent discharges from the secondary
sewage treatment plant of the City of San Marcos is another factor
(21).
In 1835 settlers from the United States with Mexican land grants
began to move into the area and water from the river was used for
power plants and cotton gins as well as corn, saw, and grist mills.
An ice factory later became another user of the water from the San
Marcos Springs. From 1867 to 1900 the springs were a stop on the
Chisholm Cattle Trail and a Federal fish hatchery was established
near the springs. Spring Lake (altitude 189 m) was created over fifty
years ago by the damming of the San Marcos River not far downstream
from the headsprings. The clarity of its water has made Spring Lake
the site of major tourist attraction, Aquarena Springs, Inc., a
private amusement park featuring glass-bottomed boat rides and a
submarine theater.
The population of the City of San Marcos, Hays County, TX rose
from 741 in 1870 to 23,420 in 1980; no other county along the
Balcones Fault Zone had a greater relative growth than Hays County for
the period 1960-1980. Continued rapid population growth of the City
of San Marcos and Hays County is expected.
Because the San Marcos Springs' flow is tied inseparably to water
usage over the entire Edwards Balcones Fault Zone Aquifer, human
population growth coupled with increased utilization of groundwater in
the region will decrease flow of water from the San Marcos Springs.
Analyses by the Texas Department of Water Resources in 1977 projecting
water usage from the aquifer through the year 2020 indicate that
increased usage is expected especially in the San Antonio region.
Bureau of Reclamation data suggest that demands on the Edwards
Balcones Fault Zone Aquifer, even considering a "low" rate of growth
for this region, will far exceed the recharge to the aquifer. The
Bureau of Reclamation projects that the probability of continous flow
from the San Marcos Springs by the year 2020 is only 50-75 percent
certain. Others have predicted the continued flow from the San Marcos
Springs will cease around the year 2010.
The City of San Marcos is growing rapidly. Increased
urbaniziation causes increased flooding and erosion (due to
Management Practices - 2 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
uncontrolled runoff), pollution, siltation, and general decrease in
species diversity and species numbers in adversely impacted aquatic
environments. Therefore, changes including channel and bank
modifications or activities in the upper San Marcos watershed must be
undertaken cautiously to avoid degrading suitable habitats. A series
of five flood retardation structures initiated by the Soil
Conservation Service on tributary creeks feeding into the San Marcos
River is expected to decrease the severity of flooding in the
watershed and to slightly increase the recharge into the aquifer, thus
producing a slight overall benefit to the ecosystem.
Another threat to these species is the anticipated increase in
storm water runoff as the city grows. Runoff should be discharged
at a point downstream from the habitat of the species.
Urban pollutants such as locally applied fertilizers, pesticides,
and herbicides also may be negatively impacting on the San Marcos
species. Herbicides have been used along the bridge pilings and
concrete aprons at the Interstate Highway 35 crossing of the San
Marcos River for highway grounds maintenance, and a moderate to light
rainfall could easily wash the herbicide into the river. Although the
actual effects of the herbicide on the Fountain darter is not known.
Exotic species apparently pose a significant threat because of
similarities in habitats and diets. Some of the exotic species
undoubtedly are predators on the species.
It is possible that effluent from a sewage treatement plant has
reduced the distribution of the fountain darter. In the early 1900's,
the river was dammed in the area of Jordan and Gilbert's (1886)
collection site, which changed the habitat and probably eliminated
the species from this area. Water in this segment is fairly deep
and muddy and the river banks are cut sharply. These conditions
restrict the growth of many types of vegetation which E. fonticola
prefers.
Nematodes were the most commonly encountered parasites of E.
fonticola. The most common adult nematode was Camallanus sp. and the
maximum number found in any one fish was six. Some fish contained
many larval nematodes. Five darters each were parasitized by single
strigeoid trematodes and two were hosts to single unidentified
leeches (02).
The fountain darter was extirpated from Comal Springs, but has
since been reintroduced. Three possible reasons why E. fonticola was
extirpated from the Comal River include: 1) The Commal River was
treated with rotenone in December 1951. Many specimens of desirable
fishes, including E. fonticola, were seined and held in a protected
area until the rotenone dissipated. This procedure reduced the number
of E. fonticola but apparently did not cause their immediate
elimination since this species was last collected in the Comal River
in 1954. 2) Comal Springs ceased flowing for five months in 1956,
which probably caused drastic temperature fluctuations in the
remaining pools of water thus possibly eliminating the species. 3)
A flood from Blieders Creek that inundated the entire Comal River in
the spring of 1971 may have caused their elimination.
APPROVED PLAN:
Management Practices - 3 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. San Marcos Recovery Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 109 pp.
The survival of this and three other Threatened or Endangered San
Marcos River species (San Marcos gambusia, Texas wildrice and San
Marcos salamander) is tied to the survival of the San Marcos River
ecosystem. If the flow of the San Marcos River, with its natural
cycle of variation, is assured, the chances of long-term survival of
these species increases. Short term threats also must be addressed,
but the two types of concerns are totally and inextricably
intertwined. The following items need to be determined and addressed
for the San Marcos River system:
1) Aquifer characteristics and recharge patterns and zones that
influence flow at San Marcos Springs.
2) Impacts of recreational use (i.e., boating, swimming,
"tubing", etc.) of the river on listed species.
3) Characteristics of the river's watershed.
4) Pesticide and herbicide use in the watershed.
Management guidelines for the San Marcos River ecosystem
need to be established, including:
1) Reduction of pollution load (i.e., herbicides, pesticides,
fertilizers, waste and other pollutants).
2) Possible augmentation of aquifer recharge.
3) Controls on groundwater pumping of the aquifer.
4) Preparation of water wells to ensure continued flow of the
river.
5) Restoration of damaged and enhancement of marginal habitats.
6) Removal of nonnative organisms.
7) Establishment of river recreational use guidelines.
8) Encouragement of proper management by private and public
landowners. Reduction of impacts on the ecosystem can be
enhanced by obtaining management authority along the San
Marcos River (i.e., agreements, acquisition, zoning, etc.).
Fountain darter populations should be monitored at least 4 times
a year. Efforts should be made to identify individual and population
characteristics including:
1) Competition with exotic (nonindigenous) species.
2) Reproductive parameters.
3) Survivorship patterns.
4) Effects of predation.
5) The diseases and parasites of the species.
In addition, the following habitat requirements of the fountain darter
need to be determined:
1) Water flow.
2) Water temperature.
3) Channel conformation.
4) Other niche requirements.
The fountain darter is dependent on the Edwards Aquifer which
supplies the springs of the river. The relatively constant
Management Practices - 4 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
temperature (1 degree to 5 degrees C) of the water, the slightly
alkaline or neutral pH (6.8 to 7.8), and the historical permanence of
the water level (average annual spring flow = 4.46 cubic m/sec) are
important in the maintenance of the grass and important limnological
considerations for recovery of this species (05).
The fountain darter should be provided the full protection
manadated by Federal and Texas laws. Finally, public awareness of the
uniqueness of the San Marcos River ecosystem should be increased
through information pamphlets, news releases and public involvement.
Ongoing recovery activities focus on analysis of present river
usage, study of the Edwards Aquifer that is the source of the San
Marcos Spring (and river). Present river usage is being studied
through a contract with the City of San Marcos. The contractee will
gather and map information on property ownership, land use, and water
rights ownership along the San Marcos River. Soil maps, a description
of recreational uses of the river and inchannel dams will be prepared
by the contractee. Topics of further study and how present
information could be used in management for recovery will be
suggested. Hydrology of the San Marcos Spring is being studied
through a contract with the Southwest Texas State University and
Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Center. The contractee will
determine flow paths and rates by tracing techniques, investigate
water chemistry, document the affects of precipitation on water
chemistry, and monitor water levels in wells around San Marcos.
Management Practices - 5 (DRAFT) - References
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
References
***** REFERENCES FOR ALL NARRATIVES EXCEPT N-OCCURRENCE *****
01 Jordan, D.S. and C.H. Gilbert. 1886. List of fishes collected in
Arkansas, Indian Territory, and Texas, in September 1884, with
notes and descriptions. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 9:1-25.
02 Gilbert, C.H. 1887. Descriptions of new and little known
Etheostomatoids. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 10:47-64.
03 Jordan, D.S. and B.C. Evermann. 1896. The fishes of North and
Middle America: A descriptive catalogue of the species of fish-like
vertebrates found in the waters of North America, north of the
Isthmus of Panama. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 47:1-1240.
04 Jordan, D.S. and B.C. Evermann. 1900. The fishes of North and
Middle America: A descriptive catalogue of the species of fish-like
vertebrates found in the waters of North Americal, north of the
Isthmus of Panama. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 47:3137-3313.
05 Strawn, K. 1955. A method of breeding and raising three Texas
darters. Part I. Aquarium J. 26:408-412.
06 Strawn, K. 1956. A method of breeding and raising three Texas
darters. Part II. Aquarium J. 27:11, 13-14, 17, 31-32.
07 Collette, B. 1965. Systematic significance of breeding tubercles
in fishes of the family Percidae. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 117:567-614.
08 Schenck, J.R. and B.G. Whiteside. 1977. Reproduction, fecundity,
sexual dimorphism and sex ratio of Etheostoma fonticola
(Osteichthyes:Percidae). Amer. Midl. Nat. 98:365-375.
09 Bailey, R.M. and W.A. Gosline. 1955. Variation and systematic
significance of vertebral counts in the American fishes of the
family Percidae. Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. No. 93.
44 pp.
10 Collette, B. 1962. The swamp darters of the subgenus Hololepis
(Pisces, Percidae). Tulane Stud. Zool. 9:115-211.
11 Page, L.M. and G.S. Whitt. 1972. Lactate dehydrogenase isozymes,
malate dehydrogenase isozymes and tetrazolium oxidase mobilities of
darters (Etheostomatini). Comp. Biochem. Physio. 44B:611-623.
12 Collette, B. and P. Banarescu. 1977. Systematics and zoogeography
of the fishes of the family Percidae. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34:
1450-1463.
13 Page, L.M. 1974. The subgenera of Percina (Percidae:
Etheostomatini). Copeia 1974:66-86.
14 Page, L.M. 1977. The lateralis system of darters
(Etheostomatini). Copeia 1977:472-475.
15 Burr, B.M. 1978. Systematics of the Percid fishes of the subgenus
Microperca, genus Etheostoma. Bull. AL Mus. Nat. Hist. 4:1-53.
16 Evermann, B.W. and E.C. Kendall. 1894. Fishes of Texas and the
Rio Grande Basin, considered chiefly with reference to their
geographic distribution. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. for 1982. Pp.
57-126.
17 Collette, B. and L.W. Knapp. 1966. Catalog of type specimens of
the darters (Pisces, Percidae, Etheostomatini). Proc. U.S. Nat.
Mus. 119:1-88.
18 Texas Department of Water Resources. 1977. Continuing water
resources planning and development for Texas. Phase I. Draft.
References - 1 (DRAFT) - References
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
19 Klemt, W.B., T.R. Knowles, G.R. Elder, and T.W. Sieh. 1979.
Groundwater resources and model applications for the Edwards
(Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer in the San Antonio Region, Texas.
TX Dept. Water Res. Rept. 239. 88 pp.
20 U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1982. 1980 census of the population.
Vol. 1. Characteristics of the population. Chap. B. General
population characteristics. Pt. 45. Texas. 791 pp.
21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. San Marcos Recovery Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 109 pp.
22 Schenck, J.R. and B.G. Whiteside. 1976. Distribution, habitat
preference and population size estimate of Etheostoma fonticola
(Osteichthyes: Percidae). Copeia 1976:697-703.
23 Schenck, J.R. and B.G. Whiteside. 1977. Food habits and feeding
behavior of the fountain darter Etheostoma fonticola (Osteichthyes:
Percidae). Southwest Nat. 21:487-492.
24 Dowden, D.L. 1968. Population dynamics of the San Marcos
salamander, Eurycea nana. Unpubl. MA Thesis, Southwest Texas State
Univ. San Marcos, TX. 44 pp.
25 Hubbs, C. and K. Strawn. 1957. Survival of F 1 hybrids between
fishes of the subfamily Etheostominae. J. Exp. Zool. 134:33-62.
26 Schenck, J.R. 1975. Ecology of the fountain darter, Etheostoma
fonticola (Osteichthyes:Percidae). Unpubl. MS Thesis, Southwest
Texas State Univ. San Marcos, TX. 100 pp.
27 Strawn, K. and C. Hubbs. 1956. Observations on stripping small
fishes for experimental purposes. Copeia 1956:114-116.
28 Hubbs, C. and K. Strawn. 1957. Relative variability of hybrids
between the darters Etheostoma spectabile and Percina caprodes.
Evolution 11:1-10.
29 Hubbs, C. 1958. Fertility of F 1 hybrids between the Percid
fishes, Etheostoma spectabile and E. lepidum. Copeia 1958:57-59.
30 Hubbs, C. 1959. Laboratory hybrid combinations among
Etheostomatine fishes. Tex. J. Sci. 11:49-56.
31 Hubbs, C. and C.M. Laritz. 1961. Occurrence of a natural
intergeneric Etheostomatine fish hybrid. Copeia 1961:231-232.
32 Hubbs, C. 1967. Geographic variation in survival of hybrids
between Etheostomatine fishes. Bull. TX Mem. Mus. No. 13. 72 pp.
33 Distler, D.A. 1968. Distribution and variation of Etheostoma
spectabile (Agassiz) (Percidae, Teleostei). Univ. of Kansas Sci.
Bull. 48:143-208.
34 Hubbs, C. and K. Strawn. 1957. The effects of light and
temperature on the fecundity of the greenthroat darter, Etheostoma
lepidum. Ecology 38:596-602.
***** REFERENCES FOR N-OCCURRENCE NARRATIVE ONLY *****
01 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. San Marcos Recovery Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 109 pp.
02 Jordan, D.S. and C.H. Gilbert. 1886. List of fishes collected in
Arkansas, Indian Territory, and Texas, in September 1884, with
notes and descriptions. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 9:1-25.
03 Gilbert, C.H. 1887. Descriptions of new and little known
Etheostomatoids. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 10:47-64.
References - 2 (DRAFT) - References
Species DARTER, FOUNTAIN
Species Id ESIS252002
Date 14 MAR 96
04 Evermann, B.W. and E.C. Kendall. 1894. Fishes of Texas and the
Rio Grande Basin, considered chiefly with reference to their
geographic distribution. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. for 1982. Pp.
57-126.
05 Jordan, D.S. and B.W. Evermann. 1896. The fishes of North and
Middle America: A descriptive catalogue of the species of fish-like
vertebrates found in the waters of North America, north of the
Isthmus of Panama. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 47:1-1240.
06 Ball, J.W., W. Brown and R. Kuehne. 1952. Landa Park Lake is
renovated. Texas Game and Fish Comm. 10:8-10.
07 Hubbs, C., R. Kuehne and J.C. Ball. 1953. The fishes of the upper
Guadalupe River, Texas. TX J. Sci. 5:216-244.
08 Hubbs, C. 1954. Corrected distributional records for Texas
freshwater fishes. TX J. Sci. 6:277-291.
09 Kuehne, R.A. 1955. Stream surveys of the Guadalupe and San
Antonio Rivers. Texas Game and Fish Comm. IF Rept. Ser. No. 1.
56 pp.
10 Strawn, K. 1955. A method of breeding and raising three Texas
darters. Part I. Aquarium J. 26:408-412.
11 Hubbs, C. 1957. Distributional patterns of Texas fresh-water
fishes. Southwest Nat. 2:89-104.
12 Hubbs, C. and K. Strawn. 1957. The effects of light and
temperature on the fecundity of the greenthroat darter, Etheostoma
lepidum. Ecology 38:596-602.
13 Schenck, J.R. and B.G. Whiteside. 1976. Distribution, habitat
preference and population size estimate of Etheostoma fonticola
(Osteichthyes: Percidae). Copeia 1976:697-703.
14 Hubbs, C. 1982. Occurrence of exotic fishes in Texas waters.
Pearce-Sellards Series No. 36. TX Mem. Mus. 19 pp.
15 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1965. Basic survey and
inventory of fish species present in the lower Nueces River. Proj.
No. F-6-R-12, Job B-23. 10 pp.
16 Hubbs, C. 1983. Pers. comm. Univ. of TX, Austin.
17 Burr, B.M. 1978. Systematics of the Percid fishes of the subgenus
Microperca, genus Etheostoma. Bull. AL Mus. Nat. Hist. 4:1-53.
18 Hubbs, C. and K. Strawn. 1957. Relative variability of hybrids
between the darters Etheostoma spectabile and Percina caprodes.
Evolution 11:1-10.
19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1964. Survey report on Edwards
Underground Reservoir: Guadalupe, San Antonio and Nueces Rivers
and tributaries, Texas Main Report. Fort Worth. 198 pp.
References - 3