DOCSLIB.ORG

An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of the Choke Canyon Reservoir Area in Mcmullen and Live Oak Counties, Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of the Choke Canyon Reservoir Area in Mcmullen and Live Oak Counties, Texas Volume 1981 Article 21 1981 An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of the Choke Canyon Reservoir Area in McMullen and Live Oak Counties, Texas Alston V. Thoms Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, [email protected] John L. Montgomery Center for Archaeological Research Alice W. Portnoy Center for Archaeological Research 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 Thoms, Alston V.; Montgomery, John L.; and Portnoy, Alice W. (1981) "An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of the Choke Canyon Reservoir Area in McMullen and Live Oak Counties, Texas," Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: Vol. 1981, Article 21. https://doi.org/ 10.21112/ita.1981.1.21 ISSN: 2475-9333 Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol1981/iss1/21 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]. An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of the Choke Canyon Reservoir Area in McMullen and Live Oak Counties, Texas Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 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/vol1981/iss1/21 l r'--../ I, , I i' / AN ARCH'AEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF A PORTION OF THE I. I CHOKE CANYON RESERVOIR AREA IN McMULLEN AND LIVE OAK COUNTIES, TEXAS By Alston V. Thoms, John L. Montgomery, and Alice W. Portnoy Report prepared by the Cultural Resources Institute Texas Tech University r .1.·1\ . \ . Center for Archaeological Research The University of Texas at San Antonio Choke Canyon Series: Volume 3 1981 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF A PORTION OF THE CHOKE CANYON RESERVOIR AREA IN McMULLEN AND LIVE OAK COUNTIES, TEXAS by Alston V. Thoms, John L. Montgomery, and Alice W. Portnoy Report prepared by the Cultural Resources Institute Texas Tech University Center for Archaeological Research The University of Texas at San Antonio Choke Canyon Series: Volume 3 1981 ABSTRACT An intensive cultural resource survey was carried out on approximately 2544 hect­ ares (6285 acres) of the proposed Choke Canyon Reservoir by the Cultural Resources Institute (CRI) of Texas Tech University from August through October 1977. The project was undertaken in response to needs of the Bureau of Reclamation. This report is one of a multivolume study.'concerning the area's cultural resources. During the 1977 survey, 113 archaeological sites, 42 low density artifact scatters, and five isolated finds were located and recorded. A no-collection policy was maintained, except isolated finds. In the late fall 1977, 15 of the recorded sites were subjected to limited testing activities. The cultural resources recorded during the survey document the presence of human groups in the reservoir beginning in late Paleo-Indian times and extending to the present. Based upon the limited occurrence of diagnostic artifacts, most of the prehistoric occupation occurred during the Archaic. Historic sites recorded were occupied primarily during the last quarter of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th century. This report documents the research design and particularly the methodology utilized during the project. Special emphasis is given to describing the systematic and intensive survey, as well as to the random/judgmental approach of selecting the various sites for limited testing. Cultural material re­ covered during testing activities are described in techno-morphological terms. The nature of survey projects in general and the paucity of reliable time markers recovered during field work severely limited the development of a cultural chronology for the study area. Research efforts resulted in the developmert of a model of lithic technology based on the ready availability of raw materials. Also presented is a settlement and subsistence pattern model which is based primarily on a rainy and dry season dichotomy and the availability of food resources. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .... i LIST OF FIGURES vi LIST OF TABLES . .viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x INTRODUCTION . The Proposed Project Changes in the Project 2 Effects of Changes 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3 Physiography 3 Geology . 5 Topographic Setting 6 Climate and Weather and Its Effects on Human Behavior 7 Flora 10 Fauna 11 THE FIELD PROJECT 14 The Intensive Survey 15 Supplementary Investigations 28 Procedures Used in Selecting Sites for Supplementary Investigations 31 RESULTS OF THE PROJECT ..... 39 Field and Laboratory Analysis . 39 Lithic Materials 66 Chipped Stone 66 iii . Page Ground Stone 116 Hammers tones 118 Heat-Fractured Rock 119 Other Lithic Materials 121 Other Materials .. 122 Historic Artifacts 126 Metal 126 Ceramic 129 Porcelain 132 Glass 132 Miscellaneous Historic Items 137 Descriptions of Representative Sites 138 41 LK 31 and 41 LK 32 138 41 LK 121 141 41 LK 152 144 41 LK 159 149 41 LK 171 . 155 41 LK 181 155 41 LK 183 166 41 MC 199 169 41 MC 201 173 41 MC 209 187 41 MC 210 196 41 MC 214 198 41 MC 217 11 0 D e 206 41 MC 225 . 210 iv Page Cultural Resources of the Study Area 213 Low Density Scatters 213 Sites 222 INTERPRETATIONS 225 Lithic Technology 225 Settlement and Subsistence 240 Historic Occupation 256 SUMMARY . 258 PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 260 Minimal Testing . 261 Limited Testing . 262 Intensive Testing 262 No Additional Investigations 263 Research Orientation of Future Investigations 263 REFERENCES CITED . 264 KEY TO TABLES 14, 15, 16, AND 17, FLAKES AND CHIPS 277 APPENDIX (FIELD FORMS) . ....... 280 v LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Nueces River Project, Choke Canyon Reservoir, CRI Survey Areas . 4 2. Subdivisions of Water Courses 8 3. Map of W. W. Walton Property 19 4. Map of N. H. Schwartz, R. T. McDermott, and J. Davidson Properties 20 5. Map of C. T. Teal Property 21 6. Map of G. Morrill Property 22 7. Grouping the Sites by Topographic Setting and Elevation 37 8. Lithic Artifacts: Cores, Trimmed Cobbles, Flakes, and Chips 69 9. Lithic Artifacts: Unifaces and Bifaces .. 81 10. Lithic Artifacts: Various Bifaces and Ground Stone 95 11. Site Map of 41 LK 32 139 12. Site Map of 41 LK 121 143 13. Site Map Df 41 LK 152 . 145 14. Views of 41 LK 152, 41 LK 159, and 41 LK 181 148 15. Site Map of 41 LK 159 . 151 16. Site Map of 41 LK 171 . 157 17. Site Map of 41 LK 181 159 18. Site Map of 41 LK 183 167 19. Site Map of 41 MC 199 . 171 20. Views of 41 MC 199 and 41 MC 201 • 172 21. Site Map of 41 MC 201 . 175 22. Views of 41 MC 201, 41 MC 209, 41 MC 214, and 41 MC 225 . 185 23. Site Map of 41 MC 209 ..... 189 vi Page 24. Site Map of 41 MC 210 . 197 25. Site Map of 41 MC 214 199 26. Site Map of 41 MC 217 207 27. Site Map of 41 MC 225 . 211 vii LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Surveys Compared 23 ' 2. Site Variables • • Cl • G ' • 32 3. Sites in Each Group 38 4. Characteristics of All Recorded Sites 40 5. Cultural Materials at All Recorded Sites 49 6. Low Density Artifact Scatters (LOS) .... 58 7. General Classification of Collected Aboriginal Materials 64 8. Cores . 70 9. Trimmed Artifacts 73 10. Unifacial Artifacts 82 11. Thick Bifaces 85 12. Thin Bifaces 91 13. Projectile Pointlike and Miscellaneous Bifaces 99 14. Flakes . 105 15. Flake Utilization . 108 16. Chips . 113 17. Chip Utilization 114 18. Lithic Shatter, Split Cobbles, Hammerstones . 115 19. Ground Stone 117 20. Heat-Fractured Rock . 120 21. Mussel and Gastropod Shell 124 22. Occurrence of Characteristics at All (113) Recorded Sites . 214 23. Attribute Analysis of Sites . 217 24. Topographic Settings of Site Types . 218 viii Page 25. Diagnostic for Testing Models 228 26. Evidence for Lithic Reduction Activities at Recorded Sites, by Location . 231 27. Food Processing and/or Consumption by Lithic Reduction Phases and Location, Recorded Sites . 232 28. Summary of Lithic Reduction Phases with Food Processing and/or Consumption, Recorded Sites . 233 29. Evidence for Lithic Reduction Activities at Tested Sites, by Location o •••••••••••••••• 11 Cl • ., •• 234 30. Food Processing and/or Food Consumption by Lithic Reduction Phases and Location, Tested Sites . 235 31. Summary of Lithic Reduction Phases with Food Processing and/or Consumption, Tested Sites . 236 32. Evidence of Core-Tool and Core-Flake Industries at Recorded Sites . ......... 238 33. Evidence of Core-Tool and Core-Flake Industries at Tested Sites . 239 34. Generalized Topographic Settings of Site Types A-V ... 244 35. Generalized Topographic Settings of Single Site Attributes 245 36. Comparison of Sites l km or Less from Permanent Water and Sites More than l km from Permanent Water . 247 37. Relationships Among Food Processing and/or Consumption Ac ti viti es . 248 38. Major Categories of Prehistoric Sites (W-Z) . 250 39. Percentages of Stone Tool Types at Tested Sites 251 40. Percentages of Flake and Chip Types; Presence of Mussel and Gastropod Shell and Heat-Fractured Rock at Tested Sites . 252 41. Time Indicators in Collected Materials 254 42.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trends in Selected Streamflow Statistics at 19 Long-Term Streamflow-Gaging Stations Indicative of Outflows from Texas to Arkansas, Louisiana, Galveston Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico, 1922
    PreparedPrepared inin cooperationcooperation withwith thethe TexasTexas WaterWater DevelopmentDevelopment BoardBoard TrendsTrends inin SelectedSelected StreamflowStreamflow StatisticsStatistics atat 1919 Long-TermLong-Term Streamflow-GagingStreamflow-Gaging StationsStations IndicativeIndicative ofof OutflowsOutflows fromfrom TexasTexas toto Arkansas,Arkansas, Louisiana,Louisiana, GalvestonGalveston Bay,Bay, andand thethe GulfGulf ofof Mexico,Mexico, 1922–20091922–2009 Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5182 Revised September 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Background, Looking towards the right bank of the Sabine River during a flood measurement at stream- flow-gaging station 08030500 - Sabine River near Ruliff, Texas, on October 23, 2006. Photograph by Doug McGhee, U.S. Geological Survey. Front cover: Left, Discharge measurement at streamflow-gaging station 08117500 - San Bernard River near Boling, Texas. Photograph by Mac Cherry, U.S. Geological Survey on April 1, 2007. Right, Gage shelter raised above 200-year flood-plain level at 08114000 - Brazos River at Richmond, Texas, January 15, 2007. Photograph by Joe Stuart, U.S. Geological Survey. Back cover: Left, U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 08475000 - Rio Grande near Brownsville, Texas, August 18, 2010. Photograph by Jaimie Ingold, U.S. Geological Survey. Right, Gage shelter and wire-weight gage at 08041000 - Neches River near Evadale, Texas. Photograph by Joe Stuart, November 17, 2006. Trends in Selected Streamflow Statistics at 19 Long-Term Streamflow-Gaging Stations Indicative of Outflows from Texas to Arkansas, Louisiana, Galveston Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico, 1922–2009 By Dana L. Barbie and Loren L. Wehmeyer Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5182 Revised September 2012 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1991 HDR-Etal Region
    Regional Water Supply Planning Study - Phase I Nueces River Basin Volume II - - --- / ------ --- / Technical Report ---- / / I I / I I / I i I I I I I I Nueces River I Authority CHOKE CANYON City of RESERVOIR Corpus Christi Edwards Underground Water District South Texas Water Authority NUECES Texas Water ESTUARY Development Board HOR Engineering, Inc. r r REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING STUDY r NUECES RIVER BASIN r r VOLUME II ·TECHNICAL REPORT r r Prepared for r Nueces River Authority City of Corpus Christi Edwards Underground Water District r South Texas Water Authority r Texas Water Development Board r r by r HDR Engineering, Inc. and r Geraghty & Miller, Inc. r r May, 1991 r (_ IDWARDS UNDERGROUND WATER r DlSTRlCT LIBRARY r r r Advisory Committee Participants r for Regional Water Supply Planning Study r Nueces River Basin r Nueces River Authority r •con Mims City of Corpus Christi r Victor Medina Jim Riley r Paul Werner Edwards Underground Water District r Russell Masters Greg Rothe r South Texas Water Authority Tom Brown r\... r Texas Water Development Board Gordon Thom rt HOR Engineering. Inc. Kenneth Choffel r Herb Grubb James K. (Ken) Haney r Samuel Kent Vaugh r r *Committee Coordinator ~ \ l r r VOLUME II - TECHNICAL REPORT r TABLE OF CONTENTS r SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTR.ODUCTION .... , . • . • • . • . • 1-1 1.1 Description of Nueces River Basin • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1-3 r 1.2 Previous Hydrologic and Water Supply Studies • • • • • • • • • 1-4 1.3 Other Considerations of Recharge Enhancement • ·••••••• 1-5 r 1.4 Study Objectives • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1-6 2.0 WATER USE AND WATER RIGHTS · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2-1 2.1 Historical Surface Water Use • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2-1 r 2.2 Water Rights .
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Biological Control of Invasive
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States Roy Van Driesche Bernd Blossey Mark Hoddle Suzanne Lyon Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team—Morgantown, West Virginia United States Forest FHTET-2002-04 Department of Service August 2002 Agriculture BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES Technical Coordinators Roy Van Driesche and Suzanne Lyon Department of Entomology, University of Massachusets, Amherst, MA Bernd Blossey Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Mark Hoddle Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, USDA, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the authors of the individual chap- We would also like to thank the U.S. Depart- ters for their expertise in reviewing and summariz- ment of Agriculture–Forest Service, Forest Health ing the literature and providing current information Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West on biological control of the major invasive plants in Virginia, for providing funding for the preparation the Eastern United States. and printing of this publication. G. Keith Douce, David Moorhead, and Charles Additional copies of this publication can be or- Bargeron of the Bugwood Network, University of dered from the Bulletin Distribution Center, Uni- Georgia (Tifton, Ga.), managed and digitized the pho- versity of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, (413) tographs and illustrations used in this publication and 545-2717; or Mark Hoddle, Department of Entomol- produced the CD-ROM accompanying this book.
    [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]
  • Volumetric and Sedimentation Survey of CHOKE CANYON RESERVOIR June 2012 Survey
    Volumetric and Sedimentation Survey of CHOKE CANYON RESERVOIR June 2012 Survey August 2013 Texas Water Development Board Carlos Rubinstein, Chairman | Bech Bruun, Member | Kathleen Jackson, Member Kevin Patteson, Executive Administrator Prepared for: City of Corpus Christi Authorizationfor use or reproduction ofany original material contained in this publication, i.e. not obtained from other sources, isfreely granted. The Board would appreciate acknowledgement. This report was prepared by staffofthe Surface Water Resources Division: Ruben S. Solis, Ph.D., P.E. Jason J. Kemp, Team Lead Tony Connell Holly Holmquist Nathan Brock Michael Vielleux Khan Iqbal Bianca Whitaker Kyle Garmany y*y; ££* \*i $/RUBEN OoLJ?^"*5 mm Published and distributed by the Texas Water ^ Development Board P.O. Box 13231, Austin, TX 78711-3231 Executive summary In March 2012 the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) entered into agreement with the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, to perform a volumetric and sedimentation survey of Choke Canyon Reservoir. Surveying was performed using a multi-frequency (200 kHz, 50 kHz, and 24 kHz), sub-bottom profiling depth sounder. In addition, sediment core samples were collected in select locations and correlated with the multi-frequency depth sounder signal returns to estimate sediment accumulation thicknesses and sedimentation rates. Choke Canyon Dam and Choke Canyon Reservoir are located on the Frio River in Live Oak and McMullen Counties, approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the City of Three Rivers, Texas. The conservation pool elevation of Choke Canyon Reservoir is 220.5 feet (NGVD29). TWDB collected bathymetric data for Choke Canyon Reservoir between June 5, 2012, and June 27, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • 7 HYDRILLA PEST STATUS of WEED Nature of Damage 91
    7 HYDRILLA J. K. Balciunas1, M. J. Grodowitz 2, A. F. Cofrancesco2, and J. F. Shearer2 1 USDA-ARS, Exotic and Invasive Weed Research Unit, Western Regional Research Center, Albany, California, USA 2 U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA Nature of Damage PEST STATUS OF WEED Economic damage. In the United States, hydrilla of- Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle (hereafter, referred ten dominates aquatic habitats causing significant eco- to as “hydrilla”) (Fig. 1) is a submersed, rooted nomic damage (Fig. 2). Hydrilla interferes with a wide aquatic plant that forms dense mats in a wide variety variety of commercial operations. Thick mats hinder of freshwater habitats (canals, springs, streams, ponds, irrigation operations by reducing flow rates by as lakes, rivers, and reservoirs) (Langeland, 1990). Plants much as 90% (CDFA, 2000a) and impede the opera- grow from the substrate to the water’s surface in both tion of irrigation structures (Godfrey et al., 1996). shallow and deep water (0-15 m in depth) (Langeland, Hydroelectric power generation also is hindered by 1990; Buckingham, 1994). This plant is listed on the fragmented plant material that builds up on trash 1979 federal noxious weed list (USDA-NRCS, 1999) racks and clogs intakes. During 1991, hydrilla at Lake and also is identified in the noxious weed laws of Moultrie, South Carolina shut down the St. Stephen Florida (FDEP, 2000), Louisiana (LDWF, 2000), powerhouse operations for seven weeks resulting in Texas (TPWD, 2000), California (CDFA, 2000a), $2,650,000 of expenses due to repairs, dredging, and South Carolina (SCDNR, 2000), North Carolina fish loss.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
    04/CS/2001 THU 10:56 FAX @002 TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AN AGREED ORDER Amending the operational procedures and continuing an Advisory Council pertaining to Special Condition 5.B., Certificate of Adjudication No. 21-3214; Docket No. 2001-0230-WR On April4, 2001, came to be considered before the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("Commission") the Motion by the City of Corpus Christi and Nueces River Authority for the adoption of an amendment to the Agreed Order issued April28, 1995, establishing operating procedures pertaining to Special Condition 5.13., Certificate of Adjudication No. 21-3214, held by the City of Corpus Christi, the Nueces River Authority, and the City of Three Rivers" (the two cities and river authority shall be referred to herein as "Certificate Holders"). The Certificate Holders and the Executive Director of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission have agreed to the provisions of this Agreed Order. The City of Corpus Christi (managing entity) requests that Section 2 of this Agreed Order be amended to add further detail to the provisions regarding the use of water for bays and estuaries and to make changes in the required passage of inflows for the bays and estuaries automatic at 40 percent and 30 percent of total reservoir system capacity upon institution of mandatory outdoor watering restrictions. Additionally, Certificate Holders request the most recent bathymetric surveys be used for determining reservoir system storage capacity. The c~rti ficate Holders request details be added regarding provisions for two projects to enhance/augment the amount of :freshwater going into the receiving estuary and timelines for those projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Choke Canyon Reservoir 2017 Survey Report
    Choke Canyon Reservoir 2017 Fisheries Management Survey Report PERFORMANCE REPORT As Required by FEDERAL AID IN SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACT TEXAS FEDERAL AID PROJECT F-221-M-3 INLAND FISHERIES DIVISION MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Prepared by: Greg Binion, District Management Supervisor and Dusty McDonald, Assistant District Management Supervisor Inland Fisheries Division Corpus Christi District, Mathis, Texas Carter Smith Executive Director Craig Bonds Director, Inland Fisheries July 31, 2018 i Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................................................... i Survey and Management Summary ............................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Reservoir Description ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Angler Access ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Management History .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment
    DRAFT Chacon Creek, Laredo, Texas Biological Assessment April 2018 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 6121 Indian School Rd. NE, Suite 205 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110 Laredo, Texas April 2018 Table of Contents 1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Federal Action and Authority ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project History.................................................................................................................. 2 2 - Location and Site Description ................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Description of the Action Area and Project Sites ............................................................ 2 2.2 Study Setting .................................................................................................................... 6 3 - Biology and Distribution of Listed Species............................................................................ 7 3.1 Federally-Listed Species and Critical Habitat .................................................................. 7 3.2 Status of the Species within the Action Area ................................................................... 9 Ocelot ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Gulf Coast Jaguarundi..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation August 30, 2016
    Water Supply Discussion - Demands Inflows/Pass-Thru Requirements of Agreed Order Council Presentation August 30, 2016 1 Today’s Presentation • Alternative Demand Projection – Kristi Shaw (HDR) • Fresh Water Inflows – Ray Allen (Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program - CBBEP) • Agreed Order Pass-Thru Requirements – Rocky Freund (Nueces River Authority - NRA) 2 Discover, Discuss, Decide 3 Presentation Schedule Date Topic May 10, 2016 Discovery – Texas Water Planning July 19, 2016 Discovery – Demands August 30, 2016 Discussion – Demands Discovery – Agreed Order September 27, 2016 Discovery – Current Supplies (and Model Updates) Discovery – Future Supplies* Discovery and Discussion – RFI Approach October/ November 2016 Discovery - Future Supplies Nov / Dec 2016 Decide – Adopt Water Management Plan * Studied by Region N 4 Water Supply Discussion: Alternative Demand Projections Kristi Shaw, P.E., HDR Council Presentation August 30, 2016 5 Summary- Range of Water Demands (Previously Presented July 19th) 6 Council-Requested Alternative Based on Dr. Lee Studies Scenario 3- (New) 7 Council-Requested Alternative Based on Dr. Lee Studies Scenario 3- (New) 8 Summary- Range of Water Demands 9 Key Entities • USBR (US Bureau of Reclamation) – provided funding for and built Choke Canyon Reservoir (CCR) • TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) – Party to permit and agreed order • City (Corpus Christi) – Took operational responsibilities for CCR from USBR • NRA (Nueces River Authority) – Third party, independent pass-thru compliance assistance
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Species Within the CCBNEP Study Area: References, Habitats, Distribution, and Abundance
    Current Status and Historical Trends of the Estuarine Living Resources within the Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program Study Area Volume 4 of 4 Checklist of Species Within the CCBNEP Study Area: References, Habitats, Distribution, and Abundance Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program CCBNEP-06D • January 1996 This project has been funded in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement #CE-9963-01-2 to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. The contents of this document do not necessarily represent the views of the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, nor do the contents of this document necessarily constitute the views or policy of the Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program Management Conference or its members. The information presented is intended to provide background information, including the professional opinion of the authors, for the Management Conference deliberations while drafting official policy in the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). The mention of trade names or commercial products does not in any way constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use. Volume 4 Checklist of Species within Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program Study Area: References, Habitats, Distribution, and Abundance John W. Tunnell, Jr. and Sandra A. Alvarado, Editors Center for Coastal Studies Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Dr. Corpus Christi, Texas 78412 Current Status and Historical Trends of Estuarine Living Resources of the Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program Study Area January 1996 Policy Committee Commissioner John Baker Ms. Jane Saginaw Policy Committee Chair Policy Committee Vice-Chair Texas Natural Resource Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6 Conservation Commission Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • RIVER AUTHORITIES and SPECIAL LAW DISTRICTS WITHIN the STATE of TEXAS (With Lakes and Bays)
    Dallam Sherman Hansford Ochiltree Lipscomb RIVER AUTHORITIES AND SPECIAL LAW DISTRICTS Hartley Moore Hutchinson Roberts Hemphill WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS Lake Meredith (with lakes and bays) Oldham Potter Carson Gray Wheeler NOTE: Map reflects Authority and District statutory boundaries and does not necessarily represent service areas. Greenbelt Reservoir Deaf Smith Randall Armstrong Donley Collingsworth Buffalo Lake Prairie Dog Town Fk Red River Parmer Castro Swisher Briscoe Hall Childress Hardeman Lake Pauline Bailey Lamb Hale Floyd Motley Cottle Wilbarger Wichita Foard Santa Rosa Lake Lake Texoma Pat Mayse Lake Lake Nocona Diversion Reservoir Clay Truscott Lake Hubert H Moss Lake Kemp Lamar Red River Lake Arrowhead Montague Red River Cooke Grayson Cochran Fannin Hockley Lubbock Crosby Dickens King Knox Baylor Archer Bowie White River Lake Lake Amon G. Carter Delta Millers Creek Reservoir Ray Roberts Lake Cooper Lake Wright Patman Lake Elm Fork Trinity River Titus Jack Franklin Wise Denton Collin Hopkins Morris Yoakum Terry Lynn Garza Cass Kent Stonewall Haskell Throckmorton Young Lake Bridgeport Hunt Lewisville Lake Lavon Lake Lake Bob Sandlin Lake Graham Lake Stamford Camp Grapevine Lake Ellison Creek Reservoir Rockwall Eagle Mountain Lake Lake Ray Hubbard Rains Lake Fork Reservoir Marion Possum Kingdom Lake Lake O' the Pines Lake Tawakoni Wood Upshur Caddo Lake Hubbard Creek Reservoir Parker Tarrant Dallas Gaines Palo Pinto Dawson Borden Scurry Fisher Jones Shackelford Stephens Lake Daniel Lake Palo Pinto Benbrook Lake Joe Pool Lake
    [Show full text]