DOCSLIB.ORG

Toledo Bend Reservoir: a Study of User Characteristics, Patterns, Preferences Alvin Lee Bertrand

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Toledo Bend Reservoir: a Study of User Characteristics, Patterns, Preferences Alvin Lee Bertrand Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Agricultural Experiment Station Reports LSU AgCenter 1973 Toledo Bend Reservoir: a study of user characteristics, patterns, preferences Alvin Lee Bertrand Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/agexp Part of the Agriculture Commons Recommended Citation Bertrand, Alvin Lee, "Toledo Bend Reservoir: a study of user characteristics, patterns, preferences" (1973). LSU Agricultural Experiment Station Reports. 308. http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/agexp/308 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the LSU AgCenter at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Agricultural Experiment Station Reports by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. itterns, Preference Ivin L. iBertran lames G.Hoov^^^^^i^ ^^BulletinNo.67$J ij^m)UISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND GRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL C GRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION )OYLE CHAMBERS. DIRECTOR Table of Contents Page Introduction 5 Objectives of the Study 5 Historical Background 6 Description of Toledo Bend Reservoir 8 Methodological Procedure 8 Demographic Characteristics of Toledo Bend Users 9 Occupation 9 Age and Sex U Education 14 Family Income 16 Residence 18 Characteristics of Recreation Expeditions 19 Distance Traveled I9 Day of Arrival and Length of Stay 23 Nature of Trip 24 Type of Accommodations Used 25 Boats and Motors Transported to Toledo Bend 26 Recreation Activities 27 Expenditures for Toledo Bend Expeditions 29 Group Nature of Recreation Experience 30 Size of Party 30 Types of Groups 31 Users' Opinions and Preferences Regarding Toledo Bend Facilities . 32 Opinions Regarding Toledo Bend as a Tourist Attraction 32 Opinions Regarding Facilities Available at Specific Toledo Bend Sites 33 Opinions Regarding the Toledo Bend Development as a Whole 34 Preferences Regarding Control of Toledo Bend Facilities 36 Opinions Regarding Funding Sources for Toledo Bend Type Developments 36 Conclusions 37 2 List of Tables Page users in sample population 10 1. Occupations of Toledo Bend characteristics in sample 2. Distribution of age and sex population of Toledo Bend groups 12 Toledo Bend users in 3. Age comparison of male and female 1^ sample population users in sample 4. Educational attainments of Toledo Bend population and white Louisiana 5. Family income of white respondents 17 respondents compared with income of white Louisiana residents in Toledo Bend 6. Size of place of residence of respondents 1970 user sample and Louisiana sub-sample as compared with U.S. Census data for Louisiana 1^ residence 19 7. Size of respondents' childhood place of Bend 20 8. Distance traveled by respondents to get to Toledo of visits per 9. Distance traveled to Toledo Bend and number year by respondents, excluding persons who were first-time users 24 10. Respondents' day of arrival at Toledo Bend 24 11. Respondents' length of stay at Toledo Bend recreationists 25 12. Nature of trips as reported by Toledo Bend recreationists 25 13. Type of accommodations used by Toledo Bend 26 14. Number of boats brought per group to Toledo Bend 26 15. Types of boats used by Toledo Bend recreationists 16. Number of outboard motors brought to Toledo Bend, per group ^'27 3 17. Sizes of motors used by Toledo Bend recreationists 27 18. Principal types of fish sought by Toledo Bend recreationists .28 19. Ownership vs. rental of accommodations by Louisiana and non-Louisiana residents 29 20. Trip costs reported by Toledo Bend recreationists 30 21. Responses to question on whether costs reported were typical for a trip to Toledo Bend 30 22. Sizes of groups of Toledo Bend users 31 23. Characteristics of types of recreationist groups at Toledo Bend 31 24. Users' opinions regarding Toledo Bend as a tourist attraction . 32 25. Toledo Bend users' assessment of needed improvements at the particular sites at which they stayed 33 26. Users' opinions regarding needed improvements for the Toledo Bend development as a whole 35 27. Funding source preferences for Toledo Bend type developments as expressed by Toledo Bend users 37 List of Figures Page 1. Parish of residence of Louisiana respondents 21 2. Parish of residence of Louisiana respondents per 100,000 population 22 3. Toledo Bend area, showing zones of decreasing frequency of visits 23 4 Toledo Bend Reservoir A Study of User Characferisfics, Pafferns, Preferences Alvin L. Bertrand and James G. Hoover^ Introduction Within recent years the evolving social climate in the United States recrea- has made it increasingly clear that more opportunities for outdoor tion are needed. Two trends have been noted especially. On the one hand, more and more Americans are engaging in outdoor recreation activities as a result of increased leisure, and on the other hand existing natural resources suitable for recreation purposes are rapidly diminishing. The latter relates to matters of alternative uses of resources or failure to follow proper conservation practices.^ In light of the above and in keeping with the current emphasis on rural development, the opening in a rural area of a new facility with a large recreation potential has research relevance. Toledo Bend Reservoir presents such a phenomenon. Although it was designed as a multipur- pose facility, it has attracted a large number of recreationists in its first few years. This study was designed to provide benchmark data on those using Toledo Bend for recreation at an early point in its existence. Objectives of the Study The study made of Toledo Bend users had three general objectives. The first was to provide basic information of interest to planners in various state and other agencies concerned with the past and future development of Toledo Bend Reservoir as a recreation facility. In this regard, it was considered that information on characteristics of users of Toledo Bend Reservoir would be most helpful to planners. *Pro£essor, Departments of Sociology and Rural Sociology, and Research Asso- ciate, Department of Rural Sociology, respectively, Louisiana State University. This study is part of an overall project, aspects of which are being conducted in the School of Forestry- and Wildlife Management and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, as well as the Department of Rural Sociology Research, lit is appropriate to note that many government and private agencies are aware of these problems and have established policies and programs to deal with them. See for example: Resources in Action: Agriculture 2000 (Washington, D.C., U.S. De- 14-17; Environmental Quality (Washington, D.C., partment of Agriculture, 1967) , pp. First Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, 1970), and Recreation Symposium Proceedings (Upper Darby, Pa., Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, USDA, 1971) , pp. 186-200. 5 The second major objective was to determine the relationships be- tween usage patterns and user characteristics. It was considered of rele- vance to relate recreation behavior to such variables as age, occupation, income, education, and place of residence. Information of this type will be of predictive value to those interested in developments such as Toledo Bend. A third objective was to contribute to the sociology of natural re- sources development and outdoor recreation. This objective is inherent in the disciplinary nature of the research project. Historical Background Agitation for a dam and reservoir on the Sabine River border of Texas and Louisiana began as far back as 1949. However, it was not until 1958 that both the Texas and Louisiana legislatures granted au- thority to issue bonds for development and building of such a facility. In 1960, Louisiana voters passed a constitutional amendment authorizing the Toledo Bend Dam project. Texas already had this authority. Ground- breaking ceremonies were held in 1961 and flooding was completed by May of 1968. The dam and powerhouse were dedicated in October of 1969. The dam and lake were built entirely through a cooperative effort be- tween Texas and Louisiana, with no permanent federal funding.^ Over- all control policies and programs were agreed on by both states, with each state being responsible for development of its own shoreline. The final cost of the project was over $65 million. At a cost of $15 per acre- foot of water stored, this is well below the national average of $30 to S60 per acre-foot for such facilities. The Toledo Bend Dam project was designed as a multipurpose fa- cility.3 The stated purposes were for hydroelectric power, water conser- vation, improvement of navigation, and recreation. The operation of Toledo Bend Reservoir is complicated by the need to satisfy these di- verse and conflicting needs. A high stage is important for power genera- tion, a low stage is important for flood control, and a near constant stage is important for recreation. Although the Toledo Bend project was planned so that its cost would be largely met by the sale of hydroelectric power, the greatest long-term economic benefit could well be in the recreation area. This possibility was one of the reasons for the present study. Some 24 public sites for recrea- tion facilities were set aside in the initial planning. Twelve were in Lou- 2For a full account of this rather unusual cooperative endeavor, see: R. Douglas Morgan, "Toledo Bend—Example of Bi-State Cooperation." Paper prepared for ASCE Annual Meeting and National Meeting on Water Resources Engineering, New Or- leans, La.. 1969." 3See: Report on feasibility of Toledo Bend Reservoir on the Sabine River of Texas and Louisiana, prepared for the Sabine River authorities of Texas and Louisiana, Forest and Cotton, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Dallas, Texas. 6 north end of the lake lying isiana and 11 in Texas, with one site at the sites for a total of 18.^ in both states. Louisiana has since added six more various stages of development The sites on the Louisiana side were in there were with none completed as of January 1, 1973.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Woodland and Caddo Period Sites at Toledo Bend Reservoir, Northwest Louisiana and East Texas
    Volume 2015 Article 24 2015 Woodland and Caddo Period Sites at Toledo Bend Reservoir, Northwest Louisiana and East Texas Timothy K. Perttula Heritage Research Center, Stephen F. Austin State University, [email protected] Mark Walters Heritage Research Center, Stephen F. Austin State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita Part of the American Material Culture Commons, Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Other American Studies Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, and the United States History Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Cite this Record Perttula, Timothy K. and Walters, Mark (2015) "Woodland and Caddo Period Sites at Toledo Bend Reservoir, Northwest Louisiana and East Texas," Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: Vol. 2015, Article 24. https://doi.org/10.21112/.ita.2015.1.24 ISSN: 2475-9333 Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol2015/iss1/24 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Regional Heritage Research at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State by an authorized editor of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Woodland and Caddo Period Sites at Toledo Bend Reservoir, Northwest Louisiana and East Texas Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This article is available in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol2015/iss1/24 Woodland and Caddo Period Sites at Toledo Bend Reservoir, Northwest Louisiana and East Texas Timothy K.
    [Show full text]
  • May 2018 Monthly Water Quality Report
    SABINE RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS TO: INTERESTED PARTIES FROM: ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION RE: MAY 2018 MONTHLY WATER QUALITY REPORT The Environmental Services Field Offices conducted water quality monitoring in the Sabine Basin from May 7th through the 10th. The results of field monitoring are presented in this report and additional results can be found using the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Clean Rivers Program Data Tool: https://www80.tceq.texas.gov/SwqmisWeb/public/crpweb.faces Sabine Basin Tidal (Including Tributaries) Weather – Air temperatures in the tidal basin were warm with highs in the 80s. Low temperatures ranged in the upper 50s to low 70s. The tidal stations received 0.12 inches of rainfall in the seven days prior to the sampling event. Tidal Conditions – Surface salinity values were not greater than 2 ppt at any of the six tidal stations. The highest salinity value of 0.8 ppt was recorded at station 10391 (SRT1) at a depth of 9.0 meters. Lower Sabine Basin (Toledo Bend Reservoir and the Sabine River downstream to Tidal) Weather – Air temperatures in the lower basin were warm with highs in the 80s. Low temperatures ranged in the upper 50s to upper 60s. Toledo Bend received 0.55 inches of rainfall during the seven days prior to the sampling event. Lake Level - The level of Toledo Bend was 170.7 feet with a daily average discharge of 4,251 cfs on the day of sampling. Toledo Bend has a conservation pool level of 172 feet msl. Reservoir profiles indicated water column is stratified. Upper Sabine Basin (Lake Tawakoni, Lake Fork Reservoir, and the Sabine River upstream of Toledo Bend) Weather - Air temperatures in the upper basin were warm with highs in the low 70s to upper 80s.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Water Meetings Could Impact Toledo Bend
    Texas water meetings could impact Toledo Bend Shreveport Times By Vickie Welborn . [email protected] . May 5, 2008 • Louisiana's Sabine River Authority officials will be keeping an eye on their neighbors in Texas in the coming weeks as public meetings are scheduled to solicit input on the maintenance of that state's rivers and streams. What, if anything, is ultimately decided could have an impact in Louisiana, too, since one of those waterways, the Sabine River, is shared by the adjoining states and is the source for Toledo Bend Reservoir. Of primary concern is if any change is made to the required flow of the Sabine River below the reservoir's dam. "This could impact Toledo Bend by requiring additional releases from the reservoir for downstream environmental conditions," SRA Executive Director Jim Pratt said. Doing so has the potential of undoing a long-sought agreement finally inked last year between the SRAs in Louisiana and Texas, as well as the utility companies that benefit from the reservoir's hydroelectric power plant, which requires power generation to cease once the 186,000-acre reservoir reaches 168 feet mean sea level. "Texas Parks and Wildlife has published an initial study that requires more than historical flows in the lower Sabine, and my understanding is they have determined we need to continue to release approximately 1-million acre-feet during the May to September period, which is contrary to the 168 feet minimum we have agreed to," Pratt said. Meetings Tuesday and Wednesday in Orange, Texas, will explain the technical studies and gather public knowledge and vision for the Sabine River.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. 2014 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (updated September 23, 2014) EPA has not approved the definition of “surface water in the state” in the TX WQS, which includes an area out 10.36 miles into the Gulf of Mexico by reference to §26.001 of the Texas Water Code. Under the CWA, Texas does not have jurisdiction to establish water quality standards more than three nautical miles from the coast, but does not extend past that point. Beyond three miles, EPA retains authority for CWA purposes. EPA’s approval also does not include the application the TX WQS for the portions of the Red River and Lake Texoma that are located within the state of Oklahoma. Finally, EPA is not approving the TX WQS for those waters or portions of waters located in Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. The following sections in the 2014 Texas WQS have been approved by EPA and are therefore effective for CWA purposes: • §307.1. General Policy Statement • §307.2. Description of Standards • §307.5. Antidegradation • §307.6. Toxic Materials (see “No Action” section) • §307.8. Application of Standards (see “No Action” section) • Appendix B – Sole-source Surface Drinking Water Supplies • Appendix E – Site-specific Toxic Criteria • Appendix F – Site-specific Nutrient Criteria for Selected Reservoirs (see “No Action” section) The following sections in the 2014 Texas WQS have been approved by EPA, except for specific items as noted: • §307.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributional Surveys of Freshwater Bivalves in Texas: Progress Report for 1997
    DISTRIBUTIONAL SURVEYS OF FRESHWATER BIVALVES IN TEXAS: PROGRESS REPORT FOR 1997 by Robert G. Howells MANAGEMENT DATA SERIES No. 147 1998 Texas Parks and Wildlife Depar1ment Inland Fisheries Division 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many biologists and technicians with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's Inland Fisheries Research and Management offices assisted with SW"Veys and collectons of freshwater mussels. Thanks also go to Pam Balcer (Kerrville, Texas) and Sue Martin (San Angelo; Texas) who assised extensively with collection of specimens and Jesse Todd (Dallas, Texas), Dr. Charles Mather (University of Arts and Science, Chickasha, Oklahoma) and J.A.M. Bergmann (Boerne, Texas) who provided specimens and field data. ABSTRACT During 1997, over 1,500 unionid specimens were docwnented from 87 locations (I 06 sample sites) statewide in Texas where specimens were either directly surveyed by the Heart of the Hills Research Station (HOH) staff or were sent to HOH by volunteers. Living specimens or recently-dead shells were found at 59% of the locations, 14% yielded only Jong-dead or subfossil shells, 24% produced no unionids or their remains, and 3% could not be accessed due to private lands or other local site problems which precluded sampling. Jn conjunction with previous field-survey work J 992-1996, unionids appear completely or almost completely extirpated from the Pedernales, Blanco, San Marcos, Llano, Medina, upper Guadalupe, upper Sulphur, areas of the San Jacinto, and much of the San Saba rivers. Sections of other river systems and many tributaries have also experienced major unionid population losses in recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(1) Appendix A
    Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(1) Appendix A - Site-specific Uses and Criteria for Classified Segments The following tables identify the water uses and supporting numerical criteria for each of the state's classified segments. The tables are ordered by basin with the segment number and segment name given for each classified segment. Marine segments are those that are specifically titled as "tidal" in the segment name, plus all bays, estuaries and the Gulf of Mexico. The following descriptions denote how each numerical criterion is used subject to the provisions in §307.7 of this title (relating to Site-Specific Uses and Criteria), §307.8 of this title (relating to Application of Standards), and §307.9 of this title (relating to Determination of Standards Attainment). Segments that include reaches that are dominated by springflow are footnoted in this appendix and have critical low-flows calculated according to §307.8(a)(2) of this title. These critical low-flows apply at or downstream of the spring(s) providing the flows. Critical low-flows upstream of these springs may be considerably smaller. Critical low-flows used in conjunction with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regulatory actions (such as discharge permits) may be adjusted based on the relative location of a discharge to a gauging station. -1 -2 The criteria for Cl (chloride), SO4 (sulfate), and TDS (total dissolved solids) are listed in this appendix as maximum annual averages for the segment. Dissolved oxygen criteria are listed as minimum 24-hour means at any site within the segment. Absolute minima and seasonal criteria are listed in §307.7 of this title unless otherwise specified in this appendix.
    [Show full text]
  • A Visitor's Guide To
    A Visitor’s Guide to Welcome Toledo Bend Lake Country & So Much More Spend a few days with us and we think you’ll see why we say that! Toledo Bend Lake Country not only offers you a great fishing opportunity but many other rewarding experiences to make your visit a memorable one. The area is rich in history, has two Championship Golf Courses, four state parks, including the nationally known Hodges Gardens, and over 35 resorts and accommodations. We have provided this book as a guide to help you have an experience you’ll remember. We hope your stay is pleasant and that you’ll come back soon. 2 Toledo Bend Lake Country Contents Toledo Bend Lake 4 Children’sActivities 22 About the lake Listing Water recreation Lunkers Marinas, Guides Accommodations 24 State Parks & Listing Scenic Trails 8 Conferences, Meetings, North Toledo Bend State Park South Toledo Bend State Park Reunions 28 Hodges Gardens State Park Accommodations for groups Scenic Trails Golf Resorts 12 Dining 30 Cypress Bend Golf Resort & Conference Center Listing Emerald Hills Golf Resort Historic Sites 15 Shopping 32 The El Camino Trail Listing Ft. Jesup Ft. St. Jean Baptiste Los Adaes Other Historic Sites Communities 35 Many Zwolle Festivals & Events 16 Fisher Special Events Florien Choctaw Apache Indian PowWow Pleasant Hill Zwolle Loggers & Forestry Festival Converse Fisher Sawmill Days Ebarb Battle of Pleasant Hill Zwolle Tamale Fiesta Map (Sabine Parish) Sabine Free State Festival 39 Day Trips 18 The Antiquing Trail Hemphill Natchitoches Logansport Floral Tours 3 Toledo Bend Lake oledo Bend Lake is Tlocated in Louisiana and Texas on the Sabine River and forms a portion of the boundary between the two states.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of East Texas (I) Region
    Summary of East Texas (I) Region The East Texas Regional Water Planning Area is ed to grow 36 percent to 1,482,448 (Figure I.2). composed of all or parts of 20 counties, stretch- Water demands in the region are projected to in- ing from the Golden Triangle of Beaumont, Port crease 41 percent, from 896,455 acre-feet in 2010 Arthur, and Orange in the south to Tyler in the to 1,261,320 acre-feet in 2060 (Figure I.3). The north and from the Texas-Louisiana border in the greatest increase is in manufacturing water de- east to the Trinity River Basin boundary in the west mand, which is projected to grow 48 percent, from (Figure I.1). The largest cities include Beaumont, 401,790 acre-feet in 2010 to 593,454 acre-feet in Tyler, Lufkin, and Nacogdoches. The major eco- 2060 (Table I.1). Steam-electric power generation nomic sectors are petrochemical, timber, and ag- water demand is projected to increase 252 per- riculture. The principal surface water sources are cent, from 43,985 acre-feet in 2010 to 154,611 the Sabine and Neches rivers and their tributaries. acre-feet in 2060, and municipal water demand is The members of the East Texas Planning Group are expected to grow 24 percent, from 151,477 acre- listed on the last page of this summary. feet to 188,161 acre-feet. Population and Water Demands Existing Water Supplies Approximately 4 percent of the state’s popula- The existing water supply in the East Texas Region tion is projected to live in the East Texas Region in is projected to be 1,158,261 acre-feet in 2010, de- 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • 1994 State of Texas Clean Water Act Section 303(D)
    7~5 11tfY y;~ Ltsrr """" """".""",.,.,., , ,.... ::".~~~::0~~] 1 I 1007 I HoustonShip Channel/BuffaloBayou 1091.80 2411.67 2 AmTox(Vinee Bayou); NPS-K;DO,FC,N I.H 2 I 1906 I lower leon Creek 834.01 2175.10 2 AmTox;NPS-C;DO,N,P I H 3 I 2304 I Rio Grande Below Amistad Reservoir 692.15 2137.09 4 AmTox;NPS-K;FC,N,CI I H 4 I 1110 I Oyster Creek Above Tidal 787.86 1991.26 3 FishKiIIs;DO,FC,P I H 5 I 2202 I Arroyo Colorado Above Tidal 1005.57 1895.09 3 AmTox;FishKiIIs;DO,Alg,N,P,CI,FC I H 6 I 0818 I Cedar Creek Reservoir 677.81 1869\70 3 Tox;NPS-K;DO,Alg,N,P,CI,SD I H .; 7 I 1221 I leon River Below Proctorlake 705.00 1857.13 4 NPS-K;DO,Alg,P,FC I H 8 I 1305 I Caney Creek Above Tidal 1030.33 1832.58 4 AmTox(Linnvilie Bayou);DO,Alg,N,P I H 9 I 2107 I Ataseosa River 833.05 1801.26 4 Tox;DO,Alg,N,P,FC I H .; 10 I 1245 I Upper Oyster Creek 661 .00 1780.26 2 Tox;FishKills;NPS-K;DO,N,P,Aig I H 11 I 1009 I Cypress Creek 598.57 1738.85 3 NPS-K;DO,N,P,Alg,FC I H .; 12 I 1602 I lavaeaRiverAboveTidal 748.21 1737.86 4 NPS-P;DO,N,P,FC,CI I H .; 13 I 0604 I Neches River Below lake Palestine 653.95 1715.06 4 Tox;NPS-C;DO.N,P,FC I H 14 I 0611 I Angelina River Above Sam Rayburn 684.11 1692.34 4 Tox;DO,N.P,FC I H Reservoir 15 I 1226 I NorthBosqueRiver 554.93 1626.94 4 Tox;NPS-K;N,P,Alg,FC I M 16 I 2302 I Rio Grande Below FalconReservoir 682.88 1578.17 4 Tox;NPS-C;DO,Alg,N,FC,CI I M 17 I 0610 I SamRayburnReservoir 631.19 1561.43 4 Tox;DO,N,P,Alg,SD I M 18 I 1008 I Spring Creek 663.48 1544.24 3 Tox;DO,N,P,FC I M 19 I 1006 I Houston Ship Channel 839.49 1504.36 1 Tox;NPS-K;FishKills;DO,N,FC I H 20 I 1101 I ClearCreekTidal 857.67 1497.12 2 Tox;NPS-P;DO,Alg,N,FC I H 21 I 0805 I Upper Trinity River I 586.43 1489.42 4 Tox;NPS-K;N,P,FC I M 22 0607 Pine Island Bayou 529.00 1468.53 4 NPS-K;DO,Alg,P M 23 0506.
    [Show full text]
  • Premium Inland Map Overlays
    PREMIUM INLAND MAP OVERLAYS Available for select Garmin and Navionics chart cards and the Navionics Boating app. HIGH-RESOLUTION RELIEF SHADING SONAR IMAGERY Color and shadow combine for an easy-to-interpret, See changes to bottom hardness clearly and in bright clearer view of fish-holding structure, artificial reefs, color, highlighting both subtle and dramatic transition underwater shelves and more. areas on select U.S. lakes. Garmin Navionics States Name Relief Shading Sonar Imagery Relief Shading Sonar Imagery AL Bankhead Lake √ √ √ √ AL Jordan Lake √ √ √ √ AL Lake Martin √ √ √ √ AL Lake Tuscaloosa √ X √ X AL Lay Lake √ √ √ √ AL Lewis Smith Lake √ √ √ X AL Logan Martin Lake √ √ √ √ AL Mitchell Lake √ √ √ √ AL Neely Henry Lake √ √ √ √ AL Wheeler Lake √ √ √ √ Lake Eufaula AL/GA √ √ √ X (Walter F. George Reservoir) AL/MS/TN Pickwick Lake √ √ √ √ AL/TN Guntersville Lake √ √ √ √ AL/TN Wilson Lake √ √ √ √ AR Beaver Lake √ √ √ √ AR Greers Ferry Lake √ √ √ √ 03/21 Garmin Navionics States Name Relief Shading Sonar Imagery Relief Shading Sonar Imagery AR Greeson Lake √ X √ X AR Lake Dardanelle √ √ √ √ AR Lake Hamilton √ X √ X AR Lake Maumelle √ √ √ √ AR Lake Ouachita √ √ √ √ AR/MO Bull Shoals Lake √ √ √ √ AR/MO Norfork Lake √ √ √ √ AR/MO Table Rock Lake √ √ √ √ AZ Apache Lake √ √ √ √ AZ Canyon Lake √ √ √ √ AZ Lake Pleasant √ √ √ √ AZ Saguaro Lake √ √ √ √ AZ Theodore Roosevelt Lake √ √ √ √ AZ/CA Lake Havasu √ √ √ √ AZ/NV Lake Mohave X √** X X CA Castaic Lake √ √ √ √ CA Clear Lake √ √ √ X CA Folsom Lake √ X √ X CA Lake Isabella √ X √ X CT Candlewood Lake √ √ √ X FL Lake Eustis √ √ √ √ FL Lake Harris √ √ √ √ FL Lake Kissimmee √ √* √ X FL Lake Tohopekaliga √ √ √ √ FL/GA Lake Seminole √ √ √ √ GA Lake Oconee √ √ √ √ GA Lake Sidney Lanier √ √ √ √ GA Lake Sinclair √ √ √ √ GA West Point Lake √ √ √ √ Clarks Hill Lake GA/SC √ √ √ √ (J.
    [Show full text]
  • Toledo Bend Reservoir Rules and Regulations April 11, 2019 Contents Introduction
    TOLEDO BEND RESERVOIR RULES AND REGULATIONS APRIL 11, 2019 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ - 3 - 1. STATUTORY AUTHORITY ................................................................................................................. - 4 - 2. GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................. - 4 - 3. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................... - 5 - 4. SUPERVISION OF TOLEDO BEND ..................................................................................................... - 6 - 5. OFFICE LOCATIONS .......................................................................................................................... - 6 - 6. AUTHORITY ...................................................................................................................................... - 6 - 7. VIOLATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... - 7 - 8. PROPERTY OWNED BY AUTHORITY ................................................................................................ - 7 - 9. LIMITED USE PERMITS ..................................................................................................................... - 7 - 10. RESTRICTED
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphic Responses to Changes in Flow Regimes in Texas Rivers
    Geomorphic Responses to Changes in Flow Regimes in Texas Rivers Project Report for the Texas Water Development Board and Texas Instream Flow Program, TWDB contract number 1104831147 Jonathan D. Phillips* Copperhead Road Geosciences 720 Bullock Place Lexington, KY 40508 *also Department of Geography, University of Kentucky FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2012 1 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction and Background page 5 Overview 5 Study Area 6 Chapter 2: Channel Responses to Changes in Flow Regimes 9 Hydraulic Geometry 10 Lane Relationship and Brandt Model 11 Grade 13 Bed Mobility 13 Schumm Model 15 Transport Capacity 16 River Evolution Diagram 17 Channel Evolution Models 18 Synthesis 21 Flow-Channel Fitness 22 Resistance 27 Chapter 3: Case Studies of Channel Responses 33 Texas Studies—Direct Human Impacts 33 Texas Studies—Climate and Sea-level Change 40 Dam Removal 42 Summary and Synthesis 43 Chapter 4: Channel Response Model 47 Declining Disharge 47 Increasing Discharge 47 Channel Response Model 48 Identification of Critical Thresholds 57 Examples 60 Chapter 5: Synthesis and Summary 66 Models of Channel Change 66 Concluding Remarks 68 References 69 Appendix A: Scope of Work 79 Appendix B: Response to comments on draft final report 80 2 List of Figures Figure 1. Major rivers and drainage basins of Texas. page 7 Figure 2. Landscape units of the Guadalupe River valley. 8 Figure 3. River evolution diagram. 18 Figure 4. Channel evolution model for sand-bed incised channels. 19 Figure 5. CEM for incised coastal channels on the Isle of Wight. 21 Figure 6. An example of an underfit stream. 24 Figure 7.
    [Show full text]