DOCSLIB.ORG

Big Thicket National Preserve, Final General Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Big Thicket National Preserve, Final General Management Plan Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement Big Thicket National Preserve Hardin, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Orange, Polk, and Tyler Counties, Texas __________________________________________________________________________ Big Thicket National Preserve was authorized by Congress on October 11, 1974. The last comprehensive management plan for Big Thicket National Preserve was completed in 1980. Much has changed since then, including the addition of 22% more land. As a result, visitor use and resource management needs have changed. These changes have implications for how visitors access and use Big Thicket National Preserve, how resources are managed, and how the National Park Service manages its operations. Consequently, a new general management plan is needed. The Big Thicket National Preserve Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (general management plan) has been prepared by the National Park Service in consultation with associated tribes, federal and state agencies, state and local governments, and the general public. Big Thicket National Preserve is in Hardin, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Orange, Polk and Tyler counties in southeast Texas. The plan provides background on the preserve’s legislation, its purpose, the significance of its resources, special mandates and administrative commitments, and servicewide laws and policies. Further, the plan details the planning opportunities and issues that were raised during public scoping meetings and initial planning team efforts. The plan also describes alternatives for managing the preserve including the continuation of current management practices and trends in the preserve (alternative 1). Three action alternatives for managing the preserve are presented: (1) the preferred alternative (alternative 2), which uses partnerships and collaboration to support a broad ecosystem approach for preserve management; (2) alternative 3, which emphasizes natural resource preservation and research while providing self-reliant recreational opportunities; and (3) alternative 4, which seeks to increase the relevancy of the preserve and the National Park Service to the people in the communities of southeast Texas and to visitors from all over the world. The areas and resources that would be affected by implementing the actions contained in the alternatives are also described. The impacts of the various alternatives to cultural resources, natural resources, visitor use and experience, socioeconomic environment, and preserve operations and facilities are also included in the plan. More information about this general management plan can be provided by contacting headquarters at Big Thicket National Preserve Headquarters Doug Neighbor, Superintendent 6044 FM 420 Kountze, TX 77625 U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service SUMMARY This general management plan describes the Alternative 1: Continuation of general path the National Park Service (NPS) Current Management intends to follow in managing Big Thicket (No-Action Alternative) National Preserve for the next 15–20 years. More specifically, the Big Thicket National Under this alternative, the current manage- Preserve Final General Management Plan / ment approach for the preserve would Environmental Impact Statement is intended continue into the future. The management to direction would be in accordance with the 1980 general management plan (GMP), . confirm the purpose and significance previous NPS practices and approved of Big Thicket National Preserve actions, and all applicable laws, regulations, . clearly define resource conditions and policies. Lands acquired after the 1980 and visitor uses and experiences to be general management plan (including the Big achieved in Big Thicket National Sandy Creek corridor unit, Village Creek Preserve corridor unit, and Canyonlands unit) would be managed in a manner compatible with . provide a framework for preserve existing units. New or expanded uses would managers to use when making not be anticipated. decisions about how to best protect preserve resources, how to provide Impacts to soils, water quality, vegetation, quality visitor experiences, how to and wetlands would be negligible to minor manage visitor use, and what types of and adverse over the long term. Fish and facilities, if any, to develop in or near wildlife and endangered and threatened Big Thicket National Preserve species and species of concern would experience a negligible, long-term adverse The general management plan does not impact. These impacts to natural resources describe how particular programs or projects would be due to visitor use and some minimal should be prioritized or implemented. Those facility development. Impacts to archeo- decisions will be addressed in future more logical resources in this alternative would be detailed planning efforts. All future plans will negligible to minor, long-term, adverse, and tier from the approved general management localized. Negligible to minor, long-term, and plan. adverse and beneficial impacts would occur to historic structures, sites, and cultural This General Management Plan / Environ- landscapes. Ethnographic resources would mental Impact Statement examines four experience negligible to minor, long-term, alternatives for managing Big Thicket adverse, and beneficial impacts. These National Preserve. In all of the alternatives, impacts to cultural resources would occur NPS managers would continue to strive to from ongoing visitor use, routine preserve protect and maintain natural and cultural operations, preservation undertakings, and resource conditions. Natural and cultural other factors. Negligible to minor, long-term, resource management would concentrate on and adverse impacts would occur to visitor long-term monitoring, research, restoration, opportunities and interpretation and and mitigation where appropriate. education. Impacts to socioeconomics would Interpretation and education programs be minor to moderate, long term, and would continue to provide a variety of beneficial. Minor to moderate, localized, personal and nonpersonal services. SUMMARY long-term, adverse, and beneficial impacts operations would incorporate strong would occur to operations and facilities. environmental protection and sustainable development practices. Alternative 2: Partnerships and Collaboration (Preferred Alternative) Impacts to soils under this alternative would be minor to moderate, long-term, and Alternative 2 would emphasize a broad adverse. Water quality, vegetation, and ecosystem perspective for protection of the endangered and threatened species and historic “Big Thicket.” This alternative species of concern would experience minor, recognizes the challenges associated with long-term, and adverse impacts. Impacts to management of cross-boundary resource wetlands and fish and wildlife would be issues and recognizes the importance of negligible to minor, long-term, and adverse encouraging partnerships to address and under this alternative. These impacts to resolve resource problems. From this natural resources would be due to visitor use perspective, the National Park Service would and some minimal facility development. proactively engage in regional planning and Impacts to archeological and ethnographic policy efforts for the benefit of resource resources in this alternative would be minor, protection, compatible visitor use, and other long-term, adverse, and localized. Historic issues both within and outside the preserve structures, sites, and cultural landscapes boundaries. Elements of this alternative would experience minor, long-term, adverse would support the resilience of the preserve impacts as well as minor to moderate, long- with regard to expected impacts from climate term, beneficial impacts. These impacts to change, such as saltwater intrusion in cultural resources would occur from ongoing freshwater environments, advancing visitor use, new construction, routine shorelines interfering with preserve preserve operations, preservation under- ecosystems, changes in composition in flora takings, and other factors. Visitor and fauna, and more intense storm surges opportunities would experience negligible to and flooding threats to cultural resources, all minor, adverse, long-term impacts, while of which may affect cultural and natural interpretation and education would see resources, as well as visitor experience at Big minor to moderate, long-term, beneficial Thicket National Preserve. impacts. Impacts to socioeconomics would be minor to moderate, long-term, and The National Park Service would emphasize beneficial. Minor to moderate, localized, the preserve’s status as a globally important long-term, adverse, and beneficial impacts biological protection area. Initiatives that would occur to operations and facilities. advance the long-term protection of the preserve’s natural resources would receive Alternative 3: Leadership in the primary focus of management attention Biodiversity and Sustainability and funding. The preserve’s important cultural resources would continue to be Alternative 3 would emphasize natural protected and preserved as required by law. resource preservation and research while Appropriate visitor uses and experiences providing self-reliant recreational opportuni- would also be improved and expanded. As a ties. This alternative would provide the means to achieve these objectives, the highest emphasis on protection, restoration, preserve staff would expand and encourage and maintenance of native biodiversity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Polk County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
    2012 POLK COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Polk County, Texas DECEMBER 10, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1 A. Authorities ........................................................................................................................ 1 B. Public Involvement .......................................................................................................... 1 C. Plan Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 2 D. Population and Land Use/Development Trends............................................................... 3 E. Plan Background .............................................................................................................. 9 F. Adoption by Local Jurisdictions .................................................................................... 15 II. VULNERABILITY AND RISK EXPOSURE ..................................................................... 21 A. Current Hazard Analysis ................................................................................................ 21 B. Past Emergencies and Disasters ..................................................................................... 21 C. Hazard Identification: Natural Hazards ......................................................................... 21 D. Hazard Identification Process........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Vegetation Map of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, New
    ______________________________________________________________________________ A Vegetation Map of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, New Mexico ______________________________________________________________________________ A Vegetation Map of Valles Caldera National Preserve, New Mexico 1 Esteban Muldavin, Paul Neville, Charlie Jackson, and Teri Neville2 2006 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY To support the management and sustainability of the ecosystems of the Valles Caldera National Preserve (VCNP), a map of current vegetation was developed. The map was based on aerial photography from 2000 and Landsat satellite imagery from 1999 and 2001, and was designed to serve natural resources management planning activities at an operational scale of 1:24,000. There are 20 map units distributed among forest, shrubland, grassland, and wetland ecosystems. Each map unit is defined in terms of a vegetation classification that was developed for the preserve based on 348 ground plots. An annotated legend is provided with details of vegetation composition, environment, and distribution of each unit in the preserve. Map sheets at 1:32,000 scale were produced, and a stand-alone geographic information system was constructed to house the digital version of the map. In addition, all supporting field data was compiled into a relational database for use by preserve managers. Cerro La Jarra in Valle Grande of the Valles Caldera National Preserve (Photo: E. Muldavin) 1 Final report submitted in April 4, 2006 in partial fulfillment of National Prak Service Award No. 1443-CA-1248- 01-001 and Valles Caldrea Trust Contract No. VCT-TO 0401. 2 Esteban Muldavin (Senior Ecologist), Charlie Jackson (Mapping Specialist), and Teri Neville (GIS Specialist) are with Natural Heritage New Mexico of the Museum of Southwestern Biology at the University of New Mexico (UNM); Paul Neville is with the Earth Data Analysis Center (EDAC) at UNM.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Park System
    January 2009 Parks and Recreation in the United States The National Park System Margaret Walls BACKGROUNDER 1616 P St. NW Washington, DC 20036 202-328-5000 www.rff.org Resources for the Future Walls Parks and Recreation in the United States: The National Park System Margaret Walls∗ Introduction The National Park Service, a bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior, is responsible for managing 391 sites—including national monuments, national recreation areas, national rivers, national parks, various types of historic sites, and other categories of protected lands—that cover 84 million acres. Some of the sites, such as Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Canyon, are viewed as iconic symbols of America. But the National Park Service also manages a number of small historical sites, military parks, scenic parkways, the National Mall in Washington, DC, and a variety of other protected locations. In this backgrounder, we provide a brief history of the Park Service, show trends in land acreage managed by the bureau and visitation at National Park Service sites over time, show funding trends, and present the challenges and issues facing the Park Service today. History National parks were created before there was a National Park Service. President Ulysses S. Grant first set aside land for a “public park” in 1872 with the founding of Yellowstone. Yosemite, General Grant (now part of Kings Canyon), and Sequoia National Parks in California were created in 1890, and nine years later Mount Rainier National Park was set aside in Washington. With passage of the Antiquities Act in 1906, the President was granted authority to declare historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and sites of scientific interest as national monuments.
    [Show full text]
  • 417 US National Parks, Historical Sites, Preserves, Seashores and More!
    417 US National Parks, Historical Sites, Preserves, Seashores and more! Alabama o Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument o Freedom Riders National Monument o Horseshoe Bend National Military Park o Little River Canyon National Preserve o Russell Cave National Monument o Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site o Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site Alaska o Alagnak Wild River o Aniakchak National Monument o Aniakchak National Preserve o Bering Land Bridge National Preserve o Cape Krusenstern National Monument o Denali National Park o Denali National Preserve o Gates of the Arctic National Park o Gates of the Arctic National Preserve o Glacier Bay National Park o Glacier Bay National Preserve o Katmai National Park o Katmai National Preserve o Kenai Fjords National Park o Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park (also Washington) o Kobuk Valley National Park o Lake Clark National Park o Lake Clark National Preserve o Noatak National Preserve o Sitka National Historical Park o World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument (also California, Hawaii) o Wrangell-St. Elias National Park o Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve o Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve Courtesy of ParkRangerJohn.com Arizona o Canyon De Chelly National Monument o Casa Grande Ruins National Monument o Chiricahua National Monument o Coronado National Memorial o Fort Bowie National Historic Site o Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (also Utah) o Grand Canyon National Park o Hohokam Pima National Monument o Hubbel Trading Post National Historic Site
    [Show full text]
  • Mojave National Preserve California
    A fact sheet from 2017 Dougall Photography/iStockphoto Mojave’s $131.8 million maintenance backlog includes repairs to historic buildings such as the Kelso Depot. Shane McMurphy/iStockphoto Mojave National Preserve California Overview Two hours from the hustle and bustle of Las Vegas and 100 miles from the nearest lodging lies California’s Mojave National Preserve. The Las Vegas Review-Journal dubbed this vast desert in San Bernardino County the “perfect escape for those seeking serenity.” The preserve spans 1.6 million acres, making it the third-largest National Park Service (NPS) unit in the contiguous United States. Mojave is ecologically and geologically diverse, with towering sand dunes, dun-colored mesas, and volcanic formations providing habitat for its abundant plants and wildlife. In addition to the densest forest of Joshua trees in the world, visitors can see bighorn sheep, bobcats, golden eagles, and breathtaking displays of seasonal wildflowers. The preserve also has a rich cultural heritage. Lands first inhabited by the Chemehuevi and Mojave tribes attracted gold miners in the late 19th century and were later crossed by several railroad lines. Visitors can learn more about this history through exhibits at the visitor center and by exploring archaeological sites, abandoned mines, and preserved homesteads and other buildings. The ghost town of Kelso, which once served as a Union Pacific Railroad depot and mining outpost, is one of the park’s most popular destinations. Unfortunately, Mojave faces over $131 million in deferred maintenance. Maintenance challenges Nearly all of Mojave’s needed repairs are for its road network. Severe deterioration of some sections of pavement has prompted the NPS to warn visitors of dangerous potholes.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Unionid Mussels in the Big Thicket
    DISTRIBUTION OF UNIONID MUSSELS IN THE BIG THICKET REGION OF TEXAS by Alison A. Tarter, B.A. A thesis submitted to the Graduate Council of Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science with a Major in Aquatic Resources May 2019 Committee Members: Astrid N. Schwalb, Chair Thomas B. Hardy Clinton Robertson COPYRIGHT by Alison A. Tarter 2019 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Alison A. Tarter, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to my committee chair, Dr. Astrid Schwalb, for introducing me to the intricate world of the unionids. Thank you to committee member Dr. Thom Hardy for having faith in me even when I didn’t. Thank you both for being outstanding mentors and for your patient guidance and untiring support for my research and funding. Thank you both for being there through the natural and atypical disasters that seemed to follow this thesis project. Thank you to committee member Clint Robertson for the invaluable instruction with species identification and day of help in the field. Thank you to David Rodriguez and Stephen Harding for the DNA analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Cover Mapping of the National Park Service Northwest Alaska Management Area Using Landsat Multispectral and Thematic Mapper Satellite Data
    Land Cover Mapping of the National Park Service Northwest Alaska Management Area Using Landsat Multispectral and Thematic Mapper Satellite Data By Carl J. Markon and Sara Wesser Open-File Report 00-51 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey LAND COVER MAPPING OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NORTHWEST ALASKA MANAGEMENT AREA USING LANDSAT MULTISPECTRAL AND THEMATIC MAPPER SATELLITE DATA By Carl J. Markon1 and Sara Wesser2 1 Raytheon SIX Corp., USGS EROS Alaska Field Office, 4230 University Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508-4664. E-mail: [email protected]. Work conducted under contract #1434-CR-97-40274 2National Park Service, 2525 Gambell St., Anchorage, AK 99503-2892 Land Cover Mapping of the National Park Service Northwest Alaska Management Area Using Landsat Multispectral Scanner and Thematic Mapper Satellite Data ABSTRACT A land cover map of the National Park Service northwest Alaska management area was produced using digitally processed Landsat data. These and other environmental data were incorporated into a geographic information system to provide baseline information about the nature and extent of resources present in this northwest Alaskan environment. This report details the methodology, depicts vegetation profiles of the surrounding landscape, and describes the different vegetation types mapped. Portions of nine Landsat satellite (multispectral scanner and thematic mapper) scenes were used to produce a land cover map of the Cape Krusenstern National Monument and Noatak National Preserve and to update an existing land cover map of Kobuk Valley National Park Valley National Park. A Bayesian multivariate classifier was applied to the multispectral data sets, followed by the application of ancillary data (elevation, slope, aspect, soils, watersheds, and geology) to enhance the spectral separation of classes into more meaningful vegetation types.
    [Show full text]
  • TRA Seeks Bids on Dam Spillway Gate Repair and Coating City Sets Budget
    6B | POLK COUNTY ENTERPRISE | Sunday, August 18, 2019 conduct. 30, of Livingston -- posses- William E. Aeschbacher RECORDS Virginia Marie Simerly- sion of marijuana, less than Jr., 73, Livingston and Sylvia Bulletin Board Continued from page 5B Tischler, 42, of Livingston two ounces. Salinas Strohl, 73, Livings- – possession of dangerous Hunter Parker III, 18, of ton. ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE (SEED) — Free Livingston – deadly conduct drug; disorderly conduct. Georgetown — possession Virgil E. McClelland III, discharge firearm indiv(s); English classes from Central Baptist Church ministries for all Justin Oray Smith, 35, of marijuana, less than two 51, Livingston and Ruth tamper/fabricate physical languages. Child care provided each week at the Wellmaker of Livingston – bench war- ounces. Elizabeth Phillips, 52, Liv- Building. Call 936-327-8753 or 936-327-5614 for details. evidence with intent to im- rant possession of controlled Drew Ponkonin, 20, of ingston. pair. Livingston — possession of WW, WEIGHT WATCHERS REIMAGINED — Meets Mondays, Jeffery Matison Collins, substance. Addison Devonn Taylor, check in begins at 5 p.m. at CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial Courdairo Anthony controlled substance (pen- 26, Livingston and Felisha 24, of Livingston – driving alty group 2), less than one conference room in Livingston, Hwy 190 W. Call 800-651-600 while license invalid; failure Morrison, 29, of Livings- Renae Adams, 26, Livings- or go online to www.ww.com ton – capias obstruction or gram; possession of mari- ton. to appear. juana, less than two ounces. Cori Elizabeth Fisher, retaliation. Jesse Lee Whipple, 30, Aug. 16 Blake Ross Whisenhunt, CUB SCOUT PACK 97 — Meets the first, third, fourth and 33, of Groveton – motion to Onalaska and Jamie Leigh 19, of Livingston — pos- fifth Thursday of the month at 6:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change and Florida's National Parks
    Climate Change and Florida’s National Parks Florida is among the most climate change-threatened states in the United States. Florida’s treasured national parks—spanning the Greater Everglades ecosystem northward into Gulf Islands National Seashore and beyond—are being impacted by our changing climate. Climate change is the greatest threat science-based policies that enhance the Florida’s economy. NPCA’s Sun Coast America’s national parks have ever faced. resilience of our incredible system of region is systematically assessing, through Nearly everything we know and love about national parks. With Florida’s low elevation, research and analysis, the most serious the parks—their plants and animals, rivers national park sites in the state are especially climate impacts threatening national and lakes, beaches, historic structures, susceptible to the threats associated with park landscapes. This regional climate and more—is already under stress from climate change. Sea level rise, changing dispatch thus serves a twofold purpose: to our changing climate. As America’s ocean conditions, and shifting weather shine a light on climate case studies across leading voice for our national parks, patterns are impacting our landscapes. iconic Floridian places, and to share what National Parks Conservation Association All of these climate impacts converge to NPCA’s Sun Coast team is doing to help (NPCA) is at the forefront of efforts to present unprecedented challenges to park address and adapt to climate threats to address climate impacts and promote management, preservation, tourism, and our treasured national park ecosystems. Above: Florida Bay in Everglades National Park ©South Florida Water Management District NATIONAL PARK Rising Sea Levels Threaten THREAT Biodiversity & Cultural Resources While all national park units in Florida Importance, Everglades National Park are threatened by sea level rise, some protects an abundance of biodiversity parks are more vulnerable than others.
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas
    ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: DAVID GIBSON AND WILL CRENSHAW DISCOVERY FUND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SCOTT AND STUART GENTLING BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) TEMPLE-INLAND FOUNDATION SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON PEG & BEN KEITH DORA & GORDON SYLVESTER DAVID & SUE NIVENS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF TEXAS DAVID & MARGARET BAMBERGER GORDON MAY & KAREN WILLIAMSON JACOB & TERESE HERSHEY FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE II OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: ALLDREDGE, LINDA & JACK HOLLEMAN, W.B. PETRUS, ELAINE J. BATTERBAE, SUSAN ROBERTS HOLT, JEAN & DUNCAN PRITCHETT, MARY H. BECK, NELL HUBER, MARY MAUD PRICE, DIANE BECKELMAN, SARA HUDSON, JIM & YONIE PRUESS, WARREN W. BENDER, LYNNE HULTMARK, GORDON & SARAH ROACH, ELIZABETH M. & ALLEN BIBB, NATHAN & BETTIE HUSTON, MELIA ROEBUCK, RICK & VICKI BOSWORTH, TONY JACOBS, BONNIE & LOUIS ROGNLIE, GLORIA & ERIC BOTTONE, LAURA BURKS JAMES, ROI & DEANNA ROUSH, LUCY BROWN, LARRY E. JEFFORDS, RUSSELL M. ROWE, BRIAN BRUSER, III, MR. & MRS. HENRY JOHN, SUE & PHIL ROZELL, JIMMY BURT, HELEN W. JONES, MARY LOU SANDLIN, MIKE CAMPBELL, KATHERINE & CHARLES KAHLE, GAIL SANDLIN, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARR, WILLIAM R. KARGES, JOANN SATTERWHITE, BEN CLARY, KAREN KEITH, ELIZABETH & ERIC SCHOENFELD, CARL COCHRAN, JOYCE LANEY, ELEANOR W. SCHULTZE, BETTY DAHLBERG, WALTER G. LAUGHLIN, DR. JAMES E. SCHULZE, PETER & HELEN DALLAS CHAPTER-NPSOT LECHE, BEVERLY SENNHAUSER, KELLY S. DAMEWOOD, LOGAN & ELEANOR LEWIS, PATRICIA SERLING, STEVEN DAMUTH, STEVEN LIGGIO, JOE SHANNON, LEILA HOUSEMAN DAVIS, ELLEN D.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Description of the Region
    Chapter 1 Description of the Region The East Texas Regional Water Planning Area (ETRWPA) is one of sixteen areas established by the 1997 Texas legislature Senate Bill 1 for the purpose of State water resource planning at a regional level on five- year planning cycles. The first regional water plan was adopted in 2001. Since that time, it was updated in 2006, 2011, and 2016. This plan, the 2021 Regional Water Plan (2021 Plan), is the result of the 5th cycle of regional water planning. Pursuant to the formation of the ETRWPA, the East Texas Regional Water Planning Group (ETRWPG or RWPG), was formed and charged with the responsibility to evaluate the region’s population projections, water demand projections, and existing water supplies for a 50-year planning horizon. The RWPG then identifies water shortages under drought of record conditions and recommends water management strategies. This planning is performed in accordance with regional and state water planning requirements of the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). This chapter provides details for the ETRWPA that are relevant to water resource planning, including: a physical description of the region, climatological details, population projections, economic activities, sources of water and water demand, and regional resources. A discussion of threats to the region’s resources and water supply, a general discussion of water conservation and drought preparation in the region, and a listing of ongoing state and federal programs in the ETRWPA that impact water planning efforts in the region are also provided. 1.1 General Introduction The ETRWPA consists of all or portions of 20 counties located in the Neches, Sabine, and Trinity River Basins, and the Neches- Trinity Coastal Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Southeast Texas & Southwest Louisiana
    AUGUST - OCTOBER 2012 SOUTHEAST TEXAS & SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA Celebration Park • Groves, TX Lamar FootballBeaumont, Team • Lamar TX University Fire Museum of Texas, Downtown Beaumont Rainbow Bridge • Bridge City, TX Wesley United Methodist • Fall Pumpkin Patch Texas Star Texas Visitor Center Beaumont, TX Orange, TX Lamar Dance Team • Lamar University Beaumont, TX DOGTOBER Beaumont,FEST • Crockettt TX Street Windmill Museum Nederland, TX Viva Spotlight Marvin Atwood: Viva Vino!: Tall Tales & Short Trips: The man behind Starvin Marvin's Texas Wines The Alamo on the Gulf Coast Jim King’s Cruisin’ SETX: Plenty to do and see Loaded With Maps, Activities, Shopping & Dining In SE Texas & SW Louisiana AUGUST - OCTOBER 2012 elcome to the first edition of Viva Southeast Texas magazine, the Wmagazine dedicated to providing valuable information about our area and its surrounding neighbors. We are a local quarterly magazine published and Wednesdays distributed throughout the Southeast Karaoke Texas and Southwest Louisiana region. Viva Southeast Texas will help you “Find Your Away Around” with colorful maps, a restaurant guide, useful lists of History things to see and do, and ideas for where to shop. We will Southeast Texas...Our Origins and Roots ............................ 4 introduce you to some of the most interesting local people ON 9TH Thursdays in our “Viva Spotlight” section, and take you back in time Places of Interest with folklore and history with “Tall Tales and Short Trips.” “Buck-off” any beer Shangri-La By Cindy Yohe Lindsey........................................................... 8 If it’s entertainment and local night life you want, Listings.................................................................................................10 Viva Southeast Texas will supply you with all the latest and any burger! information from Jim “King of the Road” and our calendar Maps of events.
    [Show full text]