DOCSLIB.ORG

GHG Final Cultural Report Pipeline for Occidental

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GHG Final Cultural Report Pipeline for Occidental REVISED DRAFT PEDESTRIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY FOR THE PROPOSED OXYCHEM MARKHAM ETHYLENE PIPELINE PROJECT IN SAN PATRICIO, REFUGIO, ARANSAS, CALHOUN, VICTORIA, JACKSON, AND MATAGORDA COUNTIES, TEXAS Lead Federal Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Prepared for: Occidental Chemical Corporation Prepared by: HRA Gray & Pape, LLC 110 Avondale Street Houston, Texas 77006 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 , 2 0 1 4 HRA Gray & Pape Project #815 February 20, 2014 REVISED DRAFT PEDESTRIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY FOR THE PROPOSED OXYCHEM MARKHAM ETHYLENE PIPELINE PROJECT IN SAN PATRICIO, REFUGIO, ARANSAS, CALHOUN, VICTORIA, JACKSON, AND MATAGORDA COUNTIES, TEXAS Lead Federal Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Prepared for: Occidental Chemical Corporation Contact: Mr. Mark Evans (361) 776-6169 Prepared by: Julia Balakirova and Tony Scott ____________________________ Tony Scott Principal Investigator ABSTRACT In March, May, and June of 2013, HRA Gray & Pape, LLC, of Houston, Texas, completed pedestrian cultural resources survey and limited shovel testing on portions of a proposed 184- kilometer (114-mile) alignment in preparation for a new 20.3-centimeter (8-inch) diameter ethylene pipeline to be located in San Patricio, Refugio, Aransas, Victoria, Calhoun, Jackson, and Matagorda Counties, Texas. The Phase I survey was conducted on behalf of Tetra Tech, Inc. of Buffalo, New York, under contract with Occidental Chemical Corporation. The Lead Federal Agency for the project (Project) is the Environmental Protection Agency. To date, 175.7 kilometers (109.2 miles) of Project alignment, or 95.8 percent of the Project, has been surveyed. The amount of surveyed Project area in addition to surveyed areas no longer in consideration for the Project amounts to approximately, 1,399.8 hectares (3,459 acres) of survey coverage. Approximately 7.7 kilometers (4.8 miles) of Project are currently not surveyed. Of that amount HRA Gray & Pape, LLC recommends that 3.7 kilometers (2.3 miles) of marsh not be required for survey. Access is pending for the other 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) of Project alignment that has not been surveyed. Fieldwork conducted in 2013 was completed over three separate mobilizations carried out from March 6 to 26, May 15 to 29, and June 17 to 21. In addition to work conducted in 2013, a 4.2-kilometer (2.6-mile) portion of the Project was previously surveyed by HRA Gray & Pape, LLC in 2011 and reported on in a separate document (Scott et al. 2013). Field investigation was conducted entirely on privately owned properties and consisted of walkover and limited shovel testing within the Project area. During this investigation 33 cultural resources were identified or confirmed. These include 17 new archaeological sites, one historic structure, five loci of three to ten historic artifacts, six isolated finds, and four previously recorded sites (41RF51, 41RF53, 41RF54, and 41SP256). The location of one additional previously recorded site (41JK111) has yet to be surveyed due to pending property access. In general, cultural resources identified as the result of field efforts consisted of prehistoric shell middens and campsites, historic occupations and trash dumps, and historic and prehistoric isolate finds. No further work is recommended for 30 of the 33 identified resources as they are either confined to the plow zone, are now outside of the Project area, or offer little information to add to the understanding of the history of the area or for research potential. Of those sites identified within the proposed Project alignment, Sites 41RF54, 41SP268, and 41SP269 are considered potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or as State Archaeological/Antiquities Landmarks. These sites consist of prehistoric occupations and shell middens. HRA Gray & Pape, LLC recommends efforts to avoid these three sites and Project plans are for them to be avoided by horizontal drilling. The location of Site 41JK111 in regard to the project and its eligibility status is currently unknown. The remaining portions of the proposed Project not surveyed including the location of Site 41JK111, as well as any additional laydown yards and access roads will be included in an addendum report once survey has been completed for those areas. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ ii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project and Project Area Description .............................................................................. 1 1.2 Organization of the Report .............................................................................................. 3 1.3 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 3 2.0 NATURAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Physiography and Geomorphology................................................................................. 5 2.2 Soils................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Climate ............................................................................................................................ 8 2.4 Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 9 3.0 PREHISTORIC SETTING ............................................................................................... 10 3.1 Cultural Periods ............................................................................................................ 10 3.1.1 Paleoindian Period ................................................................................................ 10 3.1.2 Archaic Period ...................................................................................................... 10 3.1.3 Late Prehistoric Period .......................................................................................... 11 3.1.4 Protohistoric Period to the Post-Contact ............................................................... 12 3.1.5 Historic Period ...................................................................................................... 13 Early European Explorations (1515-1716) ................................................................... 13 Spanish Colonial Period (1716-1821) ........................................................................... 14 Mexican Colonial Period (1821-1836), Anglo-American Colonization ....................... 15 Texas War for Independence and the Republic of Texas (1836-1845) ........................ 17 Mexican War (1846-1848) ............................................................................................ 18 Pre-Civil War Period (1848-1861) ................................................................................ 18 Civil War Period (1861-1865) ...................................................................................... 19 Post-Civil War – The Twentieth Century ..................................................................... 20 4.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Site File and Literature Review .................................................................................... 23 4.2 Field Methods ............................................................................................................... 23 4.2.1 Pedestrian Reconnaissance Survey ....................................................................... 23 4.2.2 Site Definition ....................................................................................................... 24 4.3 Laboratory and Curation ............................................................................................... 25 5.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................................. 27 5.1 Results of Site File Research ........................................................................................ 27 5.1.1 Previously Recorded Sites .................................................................................... 27 Site 41RF53 .................................................................................................................. 29 Site 41RF54 .................................................................................................................. 30 ii Site 41SP256 ................................................................................................................. 30 Site 41JK111 ................................................................................................................. 31 5.1.2 Previously Recorded Surveys ............................................................................... 31 5.2 Results of Field Investigations .....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wastewater Influences Nitrogen Dynamics in a Coastal Catchment During a Prolonged Drought
    LIMNOLOGY and Limnol. Oceanogr. 62, 2017, S239–S257 VC 2017 The Authors Limnology and Oceanography published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. OCEANOGRAPHY on behalf of Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography doi: 10.1002/lno.10576 Wastewater influences nitrogen dynamics in a coastal catchment during a prolonged drought Denise A. Bruesewitz ,1,2* Timothy J. Hoellein,3 Rae F. Mooney,2,4 Wayne S. Gardner,2 Edward J. Buskey2 1Environmental Studies Program, Colby College, Waterville, Maine 2University of Texas Marine Science Institute, Port Aransas, Texas 3Department of Biology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 4Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program, Corpus Christi, Texas Abstract Ecosystem function measurements can enhance our understanding of nitrogen (N) delivery in coastal catchments across river and estuary ecosystems. Here, we contrast patterns of N cycling and export in two rivers, one heavily influenced by wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), in a coastal catchment of south Tex- as. We measured N export from both rivers to the estuary over 2 yr that encompass a severe drought, along with detailed mechanisms of N cycling in river, tidal river, and two estuary sites during prolonged drought. WWTP nutrient inputs stimulated uptake of N, but denitrification resulting in permanent N removal accounted for only a small proportion of total uptake. During drought periods, WWTP N was the primary source of exported N to the estuary, minimizing the influence of episodic storm-derived nutrients from the WWTP-influenced river to the estuary. In the site without WWTP influence, the river exported very little N during drought, so storm-derived nutrient pulses were important for delivering N loads to the estuary.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed and Flow Impacts on the Mission-Aransas Estuary
    Watershed and Flow Impacts on the Mission- Aransas Estuary Sarah Douglas GIS in Water Resources Fall 2016 Introduction Background Estuaries are vibrant and dynamic habitats occurring within the mixing zone of fresh and salt water. They are home to species often capable of surviving in a variety of salinities and other environmental stressors, and are often highly productive due to the high amount of nutrient input from both terrestrial and marine sources. As droughts become more common in certain areas due to climate change, understanding how species adapt, expand, or die is crucial for management strategies (Baptista et al 2010). Salinity can fluctuate wildly in back bays with limited rates of tidal exchange with the ocean and low river input, leading to changes in ecosystem structure and function (Yando et al 2016). The recent drought in Texas from 2010 to 2015 provides a chance to study the impacts of drought and river input on an estuarine system. While some studies have shown that climate changes are more impactful on Texas estuaries than changes in watershed land use (Castillo et al 2013), characterization of landcover in the watersheds leading to estuaries are important for a variety of reasons. Dissolved organic carbon and particulate organic matter influx is an important driver of microbial growth in estuaries (Miller and Shank 2012), and while DOC and POM can be generated in marine systems, terrestrial sources are also significant. Study Site The site chosen for this project is the Mission-Aransas estuary, located within the Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR). In addition to being an ideal model of a Gulf Coast barrier island estuary, the Mission-Aransas NERR continuously monitors water parameters, weather, and nutrient data at a series of stations located within the back bays and ship channel.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecology and Sociology of the Mission-Aransas Estuary
    THE ECOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY OF THE MISSION-ARANSAS ESTUARY THE MISSION-ARANSAS ESTUARY OF AND SOCIOLOGY THE ECOLOGY THE ECOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY OF THE MISSION-ARANSAS ESTUARY AN ESTUARINE AND WATERSHED PROFILE Evans, Madden, and Morehead Palmer Edited by Anne Evans, Kiersten Madden, Sally Morehead Palmer THE ECOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY OF THE MISSION-ARANSAS ESTUARY AN ESTUARINE AND WATERSHED PROFILE Edited by Anne Evans, Kiersten Madden, Sally Morehead Palmer On the cover: Photo courtesy of Tosh Brown, www.toshbrown.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………………………......ix Contributors…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…....xi Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………..xiii Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 Reserve Mission, Vision, and Goals ...................................................................... 2 Chapter 2 Biogeographic Region ....................................................................... 5 Chapter 3 Physical Aspects ................................................................................ 7 References ........................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 4 Climate .............................................................................................. 13 Issues of Concern for Climate .............................................................................. 14 Climate Change ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PDF of Management Plan
    Final Management Plan TEXAS NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE: Mission-Aransas Estuary Prepared by: University of Texas at Austin Marine Science Institute 750 Channel View Drive Port Aransas, Texas 78373 February 2006 Submitted to: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service Ocean and Coastal Resource Division Estuarine Reserves Division 1305 East-West Highway Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 This management plan has been developed in accordance with NOAA regulations, including all provisions for public involvement. It is consistent with the congressional intent of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and the provisions of the Texas Coastal Management Program. Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve Final Management Plan 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES......................................................................... -iii- LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................-iv- LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................... -v- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................-vi- 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................ 1 1.1 NERRS Mission and Goals.......................................................... 1 1.2 Reserve Mission, Vision, and Goals................................................... 4 2.0 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION............................................................... 9 2.1 General
    [Show full text]
  • Community Characterization of the Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve and Surrounding Areas
    Community Characterization of the Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve and Surrounding Areas April 5, 2007 Revised May 3, 2007 Prepared by Sally Morehead, Tami G. Beyer, and Ken Dunton for NOAA Coastal Services Center University of Texas at Austin - Marine Science Institute 750 Channel View Drive Port Aransas, Texas 78373 UTMSI Report #TR/07-001 Work Order # FC133COSE4131 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction..................................................................... 4 2.0 Site Description.................................................................. 5 2.1 Geography of the Mission-Aransas NERR ........................................ 5 2.2 Information on Reserve Partners ................................................ 5 2.3 Geography of the Surrounding Area ............................................. 6 2.4 Watershed of the Mission-Aransas NERR ........................................ 8 2.5 Community Involvement ..................................................... 9 3.0 Community Characterization ...................................................... 11 3.1 Introduction ............................................................... 11 3.2 Biophysical Resources ....................................................... 11 3.2.1 Energy .............................................................. 11 3.2.2 Land Use ............................................................ 12 3.3 Socioeconomic Resources .................................................... 12 3.3.1 Population ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aransas County Floodplain Management Plan
    Aransas County Multi-Jurisdictional Flood Plain Management Plan ARANSAS COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN 2017 2016 1 Aransas County Multi-Jurisdictional Flood Plain Management Plan ARANSAS COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN 2017 INCLUDES: Aransas County, Texas City of Aransas Pass, Texas Town of Fulton, Texas City of Rockport, Texas Publication supported in part by an Institutional Grant (NA14OAR4170102) to the Texas Sea Grant College Program from the National Sea Grant Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. A publication funded by a Texas Coastal Management Program grant approved by the Texas Land Commissioner pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA15NOS4190162. 2016 2 Aransas County Multi-Jurisdictional Flood Plain Management Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (Details to be added later) Existing Needs/Gaps: Executive Summary: Amanda, do you still want to include an Executive summary? (pg. 7) Chapter 5 JURISDICTION SPECIFIC INFORMATION All jurisdictions: Affected Buildings (Number and Type): need text to describe the two tables in this section (pg. 26, 28, 30, & 32) Review of Damaged Buildings/Flood Insurance Claims: This section needs to be updated with FEMA data (Text and tables!) (pg. 26, 28, 30, & 32) Areas not Mapped on the FIRM that are Prone to Flooding: a description of the map (for each jurisdiction), how the information was obtained, & a description of past floods needs to be added (pg. 27, 29, 31, & 33) Other Surface Flooding Identified in other Studies: a description of the map (for each jurisdiction) and how this information was obtained needs to be added (pg. 27, 29, 31, & 33) Need to add a description of the Coastal A & V Zones, and add maps for each jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Bacteria Source Tracking in Copano Bay: Phase II Final Report
    BACTERIA SOURCE TRACKING IN COPANO BAY PHASE II FINAL REPORT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS: JOANNA B. MOTT AND ROY L. LEHMAN TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY- CORPUS CHRISTI (361) 825-6024 FAX: 825-2742 TGLO Project Coordinator: Blake Traudt Date of submission: June 30, 2005 SUBMITTED TO: Texas General Land Office 1700 N. Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78701-1495 Executive Summary Copano Bay is a secondary bay located on the northwestern shore of Aransas Bay in the Mission-Aransas Estuary on the lower Gulf coast of Texas, approximately 50 km north of the city of Corpus Christi, Texas. It is classified as an oyster-harvesting bay and water quality is monitored by the Texas Department of Health (TDH) [now the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS)] Seafood Safety Division, according to the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, using fecal coliform bacteria as the indicator for fecal contamination. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) identifies Copano Bay/Port Bay/Mission Bay as water body segment 2472. The TCEQ is required, under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, to identify water bodies for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards and list these on the Texas 303(d) list. The TCEQ Draft 2004 303(d) list includes the Copano Bay water body segment 2472, specifically, the area along the southern shore including Port Bay, and the area near Bayside for bacteria (oyster waters). While fecal coliform levels are used to indicate fecal contamination and thus impaired water quality, these numbers do not provide information on the sources of the contamination.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Analysis in the Mission-Aransas NERR
    “Effects of Freshwater Inflows on Estuarine Structure and Function” CE 394K.3 GIS in Water Resources Fall 2010 Aubrey Lashaway Contents Introduction Methods o Study Site and Sample Collection Results o Delineation: Streams Networks, Stream Mouths, Watershed o Landcover/Landuse o Interpolation . Salinity . Chlorophyll-a and Phosphorus Project Significance and Conclusions References Introduction Estuaries are defined by the presence and magnitude of freshwater inputs they receive. (Turek et al., 1987). The rivers and streams that drain the terrestrial environment transport not only water but also sediments, organic detritus, dissolved organic and inorganic materials, and pollutants to the coastal ocean (Chen et al., 2009). Because they constitute the interface between the land and the ocean, estuaries are affected by changes in the biological, chemical and physical conditions of both the rivers and seas. In watersheds, human activities such as agriculture and sewage treatment have greatly influenced the amount and composition of river inflows. Climate change is predicted to further affect the amount and timing of rainfall and storm events (Cavazos, 1998; Philippart, 2007). Abiotic changes associated with climate disruption (e.g. temperature rise, sea level rise, increased risks of floods and droughts) may increase the risk of abrupt changes in many ecosystems, especially estuaries, which could potentially affect both their diversity and function (Norkko et al., 2002). However, the importance of freshwater inflows required to maintain and manage a healthy and functioning estuarine ecosystem remains a matter of considerable debate. 1 Texas is an ideal location for studying the relationship between freshwater and estuarine health. Texas's climate has always been variable and sometimes extreme (Schnetzler et al., 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2013 Comprehensive Annual Work Plan
    Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program FY 2013 Comprehensive Annual Work Plan Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program, Inc. 1305 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 205 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 www.cbbep.org Approved August 23, 2012 COASTAL BEND BAYS & ESTUARIES PROGRAM FY 2013 Comprehensive Annual Work Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ...............................................................................................1 II. Starting Date .............................................................................................2 III. Federal & State Program Coordinators and Project Officers ............... 2 IV. Accomplishments to Date ........................................................................3 V. Goals for FY 2013 .....................................................................................3 VI. Implementation of Projects .....................................................................3 VII. Project Deliverables/Schedule ................................................................3 VIII. Program Administration.........................................................................32 IX. Project Management & Implementation................................................ 32 X. Program Expenses .................................................................................32 XI. Working Capital ......................................................................................33 XII. Summary .................................................................................................33 Table
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Movement in the Copano, San Antonio, and Matagorda Bay Systems, Central Texas Coast, 1930S to 2010S Jeffrey G
    Shoreline Movement in the Copano, San Antonio, and Matagorda Bay Systems, Central Texas Coast, 1930s TO 2010s Jeffrey G. Paine, Tiffany Caudle, and John Andrews, with contributions from Aaron Averett, John Hupp, Lucie Costard, and Kutalmis Saylam Final Report OOctctoboberer 20120166 A report funded in part by a Financial Bureau of Economic Geology Assistance Award from the U. S. Scott W. Tinker, Director Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish Jackson School of Geosciences and Wildlife Service, Coastal Impact The University of Texas at Austin Assistance Program. The views Austin, Texas 78713-8924 expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Final Report Prepared for the General Land Office under Contract No. 13-258-000-7485. QAe5203 Page intentionally blank SHORELINE MOVEMENT IN THE COPANO, SAN ANTONIO, AND MATAGORDA BAY SYSTEMS, CENTRAL TEXAS COAST, 1930s TO 2010s by Jeffrey G. Paine, Tiffany Caudle, and John Andrews Bureau of Economic Geology John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin University Station, Box X Austin, Texas 78713 with contributions from Aaron Averett, Lucie Costard, John Hupp, and Kutalmis Saylam Corresponding author [email protected] (512) 471-1260 A report funded in part by a Financial Assistance Award from the U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal Impact Assistance Program. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Status and Historical Trends of Seagrass in the CCBNEP Study
    FIGURES 57 Figure 1. Map of seagrass study area in Texas Coastal Bend region. 58 Figure 2. Seagrass distribution in 1988 in upper Laguna Madre. From Quammen and Onug (1993). 60 170 160 Pier 21 Mid-1950s (Galveston) drought 150 140 130 Port Isabel 120 110 100 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Year Figure 3. Water level changes at Galveston Pier 21 and Port Isabel tide gauges. The drop in water levels in the mid-1950s reflects the severe drought during that period. Tide gauge data from Lyles et al. (1988) and NOAA. Nueces River at Mathis 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Calender Year Figure 4. Mean annual streamflow of the Nueces River at Mathis. Data from Texas Water Development Board and U.S. Geological Survey. 62 Mission River at Refugio 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Calender Year Figure 5. Mean annual streamflow of the Mission River at Refugio. Data from U.S. Geological Survey. Aransas River at Skidmore 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Calender Year Figure 6. Mean annual streamflow of the Aransas River at Skidmore. Data from U.S. Geological Survey. 63 Rockport Tide Levels 200 195 190 185 1.7 cm/yr 180 0.48 cm/yr 175 Mean Annual Sea Level (cm) 170 165 160 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year Figure 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Mission and Aransas River Watersheds Watershed Protection Plan
    Mission and Aransas Rivers Watershed Protection Plan - Draft Mission and Aransas River Watersheds Watershed Protection Plan A document developed by the stakeholders of the Mission and Aransas Rivers watersheds to restore and protect water quality in Mission River Tidal (Segment 2001), Aransas River Tidal (Segment 2003), Mission River Above Tidal (Segment 2002), Aransas River Above Tidal (Segment 2004), and Poesta Creek (Segment 2004B). Mission and Aransas Rivers Watershed Protection Plan Mission and Aransas Rivers Watershed Protection Plan Authored and prepared by: Texas Water Resources Institute Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report 2019 Funding support for this project provided by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality through a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. i Mission and Aransas Rivers Watershed Protection Plan Acknowledgements This document presents the strategy developed by the stakeholders of the Mission and Aransas Rivers watersheds to restore and protect water quality in the Mission and Aransas Rivers and the waterbodies that flow into them. Local stakeholders dedicated considerable time and effort in discussing the watershed, influences on water quality, and developing management measures to address water quality concerns. The ultimate success of the Mission and Aransas Rivers Watershed Protection Plan depends on the current and continued engagement of local stakeholders with technical and financial support from regional, state, and federal agencies. Special appreciation is extended to the many watershed landowners and residents who attended the numerous meetings and events to provide direct input to the plan. The direct involvement of landowners and residents was critical to ensuring the plan included feasible management measures that address sources of water quality impairment in the watershed.
    [Show full text]