DOCSLIB.ORG

GUADALUPE ESTUARY: an Analysis of Bay Segment Boundaries, Physical Characteristics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GUADALUPE ESTUARY: an Analysis of Bay Segment Boundaries, Physical Characteristics GUADALUPE ESTUARY: An Analysis of Bay Segment Boundaries, Physical Characteristics, and Nutrient Processes TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES LP-76 March 1981 GUADALUPE ESTUARY: AN ANALYSIS OF BAY SEGMENT BOUNDARIES, PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, AND NUTRIENT PROCESSES Prepared by the Engineering and Environmental Systems Section of the Planning and Development Division The preparation of this report was financed through a planning grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency under provisions of Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, as amended. Texas Department ofWater Resources LP-76 Printed March 1981 Report reflectswork completed in June 1979. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Harvey Davis, Executive Director TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD Louis A. Beecherl Jr., Chairman John H. Garrett, Vice Chairman George W. McCleskey W. 0. Bankston Glen E. Roney Lonnie A. "Bo" Pilgrim TEXAS WATER COMMISSION Felix McDonald, Chairman Dorsey B. Hardeman, Commissioner Joe R. Carroll, Commissioner Authorization for use or reproduction of any original material contained in this publication, i.e., not obtained from other sources, is freely granted. The Department would appreciate acknowledgement Published and distributed by the Texas Department of Water Resources Post Office Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE 1 SUMMARY 3 ANALYSIS OF BAY SEGMENT BOUNDARIES 4 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 6 Introduction 6 Sedimentation and Erosion 6 Mineral and Energy Resources 9 Groundwater Resources 15 Data Collection Program 15 Circulation and Salinity 16 Summary 16 Description of Estuarine MathematicalModels 16 Introduction 16 Description ofthe Modeling Process 21 MathematicalModelDevelopment 21 (1) Hydrodynamic Model 21 (2) Conservative Mass Transport Models 23 (3) DataSetsRequired 26 Application ofMathematical Models, Guadalupe Estuary 26 Simulated Flow Patterns 28 (1) Simulated Winter Circulation PatternsunderAverage Inflow Conditions . " •. 28 . (2) Simulated Non-Winter Circulation Patternsunder Average Inflow Conditions 28 in TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued Page Simulated Salinity Patterns 36 (1) Simulated November, December, January and February Salinity Patterns under Average Inflow Conditions 36 (2) Simulated March andAugust Salinity Patterns under Average Inflow Conditions 36 (3) Simulated April, May, July,September andOctober Salinity Patternsunder Average InflowConditions 36 (4) SimulatedJune Salinity Patterns under Average Inflow Conditions 44 NUTRIENT PROCESSES 44 Summary 44 Nutrient Loading 44 MarshVegetative Production 58 MarshNutrient Cycling 59 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 70 BIBLIOGRAPHY 71 FIGURES 1. Locations ofthe Estuaries 5 2. Existing Bay Segment Boundaries 7 3. Proposed Bay Segment Boundaries 8 4. Geologic Map 11 5. Guadalupe Estuary,Shoreline Physical Processes 13 6. Oil and Gas Fields 14 7. Data CollectionSites in the GuadalupeEstuary 17 8. Locationsof Gaging Stations, GuadalupeEstuary 18 9. Relationship Between Tidal Hydrodynamic andSalinity Models .....' 22 10. ConceptualIllustration of Discretization of a Bay 24 11. Computational Grid, Guadalupe Estuary '. 25 IV TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued Page 12. Monthly Distribution of Mean Annual Total Gaged and Ungaged Inflow, Guadalupe Estuary 27 13. Simulated Net Steady-State Flows in theGuadalupe Estuary under January Average Inflow 29 14. Simulated Net Steady-State Flows in theGuadalupe Estuary under February Average Inflow 30 15. Simulated Net Steady-State Flows in the Guadalupe Estuary under March Average Inflow . 31 16. Simulated Net Steady-State Flows in theGuadalupe Estuary under April Average Inflow 32 17. Simulated Net Steady-State Flows in the Guadalupe Estuary under May Average Inflow 33 18. Simulated Net Steady-State Flows in the Guadalupe Estuary under June Average Inflow 34 19. SimulatedNet Steady-State Flowsin the Guadalupe Estuaryunder July AverageInflow 35 20. Simulated Net Steady-State Flows in the Guadalupe Estuary under August Average Inflow 37 21. Simulated Net Steady-State Flows in the Guadalupe Estuary under September AverageInflow 38 22. Simulated Net Steady-State Flows in the Guadalupe Estuary under October Average Inflow 39 23. Simulated Net Steady-State Flows in the Guadalupe Estuary under November Average Inflow 40 24. Simulated Net Steady-State Flows in the Guadalupe Estuary under December Average Inflow 41 25. SimulatedSalinities in the Guadalupe Estuary underJanuary Average Inflow . 42 26. SimulatedSalinities in the Guadalupe Estuary under February Average Inflow 43 27. SimulatedSalinities in the Guadalupe Estuary under March Average Inflow 45 28. Simulated Salinities in the Guadalupe Estuary under April Average Inflow . 46 29. SimulatedSalinities in the Guadalupe EstuaryunderMayAverage Inflow . 47 30. SimulatedSalinities in the Guadalupe EstuaryunderJune Average Inflow . 48 31. Simulated Salinities in the Guadalupe Estuary underJuly Average Inflow . 49 TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued Page 32. Simulated Salinities in the Guadalupe Estuary underAugust Average Inflow 50 33. Simulated Salinities in the Guadalupe Estuary underSeptember Average Inflow 51 34. Simulated Salinities in the Guadalupe Estuary underOctober Average Inflow 53 35. Simulated Salinities in theGuadalupe Estuary under November Average Inflow 54 36. Simulated Salinities in the Guadalupe Estuary underDecember Average Inflow 55 37. Exchange Rates forTotal Organic Carbon in Guadalupe Estuary 63 38. Exchange Rates for UnfUtered Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in Guadalupe Estuary 64 39. Exchange Rates for Ammonia Nitrogenin Guadalupe Estuary 65 40. Exchange Rates for Nitrite Nitrogen in Guadalupe Estuary 66 41. Exchange Rates for Nitrate Nitrogenin Guadalupe Estuary 67 42. Exchange Rates for UnfilteredTotal Phosphorus in Guadalupe Estuary 68 43. Exchange Rates for Ortho-Phosphorus in Guadalupe Estuary 69 TABLES 1. USGS orCorps of Engineers (COE) Gages, Guadalupe Estuary 19 2. Mean Monthly Freshwater Inflows,Guadalupe Estuary 26 3. Carbon Levels in the San Antonio andGuadalupe Rivers at the Goliad and Victoria Gages 52 4. Inorganic Nitrogen Levels in the San Antonio and Guadalupe Rivers at the Goliad andVictoria Gages 56 5. Organic Nitrogen Levels in the San Antonio and Guadalupe Rivers at the Goliadand VictoriaGages 57 6. Total Phosphorus Levels in the San Antonioand Guadalupe Rivers at the Goliadand VictoriaGages 58 7. Discharge Data,Guadalupe River at Victoria 59 8. Discharge Data,San Antonio River at Goliad 60 9. Percent Total FlowContribution of the Guadalupe andSanAntonio Rivers 61. 10. Average Percent TotalContribution ofNutrients From theGuadalupe and San Antonio Rivers, 1974-76 61 11. 1974-76 Nutrient Contributions by the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers 62 vi GUADALUPE ESTUARY: AN ANALYSIS OF BAY SEGMENT BOUNDARIES, PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, AND NUTRIENT PROCESSES PREFACE In 1976, the Section 208 Planning Program for 2. Analysis of the physical characteristics of nondesignated planning areas of Texas was initiated. the selected estuarine systems including Additional planning funds were subsequently made mixing, transport, current patterns, and available by EPA to expand the scope of this planning salinity patterns; and effort and to consider other issues not previously addressed. These planning monies, which were available 3. Definition of nutrient processes in Texas in early 1978 as a supplement to the EPA grant for estuarine systems, especially the effects Section 208 planning in nondesignated planning areas, of inflows on nutrient cycling and were earmarked for development of analyses which contributions from deltaic marsh areas. could be used in future planningefforts for evaluationof the appropriateness of existing water quality standards The above tasks are basic to any consideration in major Texas estuarine systems. Due to the short time of the adequacy of water quality standards for frame of the supplemental grant funds, only three tasks Texas estuarine systems. Future tasks, which are were selected. Later these can be expanded upon necessary to complete a comprehensive assessment throughout the continuing planning process. The three of coastal water quality standards, include selected tasks are the subject of this report on the definition of the water quality requirements to Guadalupe estuary: meet various water use criteria for estuarine/river systems, and an assessment of the costs and 1. Analysis of the appropriateness of existing benefits of various uses. bay segment boundaries; GUADALUPE ESTUARY: AN ANALYSIS OF BAY SEGMENT BOUNDARIES, PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, AND NUTRIENT PROCESSES SUMMARY physical processes, including erosion, accretion and other changes in shorelineconfigurations. Because of the This report is one in a series of reports on major shallow depths throughout the estuary, wind can play a Texas estuaries. The objective is to analyze existing data major role in the generation of waves and longshore on the Guadalupe estuary for the purpose of water currents. The peak influx of freshwater to the system quality planning under Section 208 of P.L. 92-500.The normally corresponds with spring rains. Major impacts report has three sections. The first section, presents an from these inflows include overbank flooding of marsh analysis of the appropriateness of existing bay segment areas, extension and building of bay head and oceanic boundaries for water quality planning purposes, and deltas, and flushing of the bays, which reduces salinities. draws heavily upon the data analyses performed in the last two sections of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FISHING Bucks Astir Hunters Keep Anglers After Crappie Have to Change Their Strategy in Winter
    Pheasant season opens * December 8, 2006 Texas’ Premier Outdoor Newspaper Volume 3, Issue 8 * Page 7 www.lonestaroutdoornews.com INSIDE FISHING Bucks astir Hunters keep Anglers after crappie have to change their strategy in winter. The fish often go to deep waters watchful eye to escape the cold and fluctuating temperatures. Crappie also turn more lethargic, on rut activity so pursuing anglers must slow down their actions and try to put By Bill Miller their bait on the money. Page 8 As a fierce arctic front barreled over Texas last week, some deer hunters willing to brave HUNTING frigid temperatures may have hoped the chill would stir bucks into breeding. The fabled rut is the one time hunters can be assured the wily buck of their dreams will abandon caution for the pursuit of a doe in estrus. But it’s a misconception that breeding is spurred by weather. Clayton Wolf, big game director for Texas Parks and Wildlife, said the decreasing length of days is what triggers breeding activity. “When you hear people talking about see- Goose hunters had their share of ing more deer when it’s colder, and that it success as reinforcements correlates with the rut, we find ourselves cor- arrived to bulk up the state’s recting them,’’ Wolf said. Much of the breeding in Texas happens winter goose population. during November, Wolf said, although Page 6 South Texas is famous for its rut in NATIONAL December. Wolf added that some areas experience a A new Coast Guard study IN A RUT: During breeding season, the necks of white-tailed deer swell signaling dominance and readiness to mate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Freshwater Inflows in Sustaining Estuarine Ecosystem Health in the San Antonio Bay Region
    The Role of Freshwater Inflows in Sustaining Estuarine Ecosystem Health in the San Antonio Bay Region Contract Number 05-018 September 15, 2006 1. Introduction Estuaries are vital aquatic habitats for supporting marine life, and they confer a multitude of benefits to humans in numerous ways. These benefits include the provision of natural resources used for a variety of market activities, recreational opportunities, transportation and aesthetics, as well as ecological functions such as storing and cycling nutrients, absorbing and detoxifying pollutants, maintaining the hydrological cycle, and moderating the local climate. The wide array of beneficial processes, functions and resources provided by the ecosystem are referred to collectively as “ecosystem services.” From this perspective, an estuary can be viewed as a valuable natural asset, or natural capital, from which these multiple goods and services flow.1 The quantity, quality and temporal variance of freshwater inflows are essential to the living and non-living components of bays and estuaries. Freshwater inflows to sustain ecosystem functions affect estuaries at all basic physical, chemical, and biological levels of interaction. The functional role of freshwater in the ecology of estuarine environments has been scientifically reviewed and is relatively well understood. This role is summarized in section 3, after a brief overview of the geographical context of the San Antonio Bay Region in the next section. Section 4 follows with discussion of the impacts of reduced freshwater inflow to the San Antonio Bay. Section 5 concludes with some general observations. 2. Geographical Context The San Antonio Bay Region, formed where the Guadalupe River meets the Guadalupe Estuary, teems with life.
    [Show full text]
  • Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, and Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas, and San Antonio Bays Basin and Bay Area Stakeholders Committee
    Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, and Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas, and San Antonio Bays Basin and Bay Area Stakeholders Committee May 25, 2012 Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, & Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas, & San Antonio Bays Basin & Bay Area Stakeholders Committee (GSA BBASC) Work Plan for Adaptive Management Preliminary Scopes of Work May 25, 2012 May 10, 2012 The Honorable Troy Fraser, Co-Presiding Officer The Honorable Allan Ritter, Co-Presiding Officer Environmental Flows Advisory Group (EFAG) Mr. Zak Covar, Executive Director Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Dear Chairman Fraser, Chairman Ritter and Mr. Covar: Please accept this submittal of the Work Plan for Adaptive Management (Work Plan) from the Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, and Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas and San Antonio Bays Basin and Bay Area Stakeholders Committee (BBASC). The BBASC has offered a comprehensive list of study efforts and activities that will provide additional information for future environmental flow rulemaking as well as expand knowledge on the ecosystems of the rivers and bays within our basin. The BBASC Work Plan is prioritized in three tiers, with the Tier 1 recommendations listed in specific priority order. Study efforts and activities listed in Tier 2 are presented as a higher priority than those items listed in Tier 3; however, within the two tiers the efforts are not prioritized. The BBASC preferred to present prioritization in this manner to highlight the studies and activities it identified as most important in the immediate term without discouraging potential sponsoring or funding entities interested in advancing efforts within the other tiers.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Water Resources Institute Annual Technical Report FY 2003 Introduction the Mission of the Texas Water Resources Institute Is To
    Texas Water Resources Institute Annual Technical Report FY 2003 Introduction The Mission of the Texas Water Resources Institute is to: (1) Provide leadership for Experiment Station and Extension research and education water programs statewide, coordinating with scientists, specialists, county agents, administrative personnel and other agencies and water groups. (2) Serve as the designated Water Resources Research Institute for the State of Texas, as part of the National Institutes for Water Research Program and established by the Texas Legislature. (3) Obtain and manage external funds for research, academic programs, outreach, and education projects. (4) Establish TWRI as the focal point for water research and outreach efforts within the Texas A&M University System. (5) Develop relationships with policymakers, elected officials and water resources leaders throughout Texas. (6) Identify emerging water resources issues that may be significant funding sources, and communicate these issues to researchers, stakeholders, and the public. (7) Communicate TWRI projects, research opportunities, research results, resource materials, and water resources news to the public. (8) Support and help faciliatate water related academic programs and administer scholarship programs for students involved in water related studies. Research Program During 2003-04, the Texas Water Resources Institute funded 12 research projects to graduate students at universities throughout Texas. Students were supported at Texas A&M University (9 projects); the University of Texas at Austin (2); and the University of Texas at El Paso (1). These studies covered several broad subjects, including the following: brush control to improve water yields (3 projects); the development and application of computer models (3); hydrology (3); water conservation (1); groundwater (3); surface water (3); water use (3); bays and estuaries (1); aquatic ecosystems (2); water policies (1); the economics of water use (1); water treatment (1); non-point pollution (1); and water quality (5).
    [Show full text]
  • DA Fish Scales
    Fisheries Research 170 (2015) 82–88 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Fisheries Research j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres Fish traceability: Guessing the origin of fish from a seafood market using fish scale shape ∗ Ana L. Ibánez˜ Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa Departamento de Hidrobiología, Av. San Rafael Atlixco 186, Col. Vicentina. México, D.F. 09340, México a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Fish traceability is an important tool in fish food safety and a recognition tool in the assessment of Received 6 December 2014 biodiversity and fisheries. Geometric morphometric methods were used to establish whether scale mor- Received in revised form 9 May 2015 phology may determine the origin of specimens from a fish market. In order to trace the origin of fish, the Accepted 19 May 2015 fish scale shape of two mugilids species Mugil cephalus and Mugil curema specimens from three different Handling Editor B. Morales-Nin trade premises at the Mexico City central fish market was analyzed and compared with the scale shape of Available online 6 June 2015 previously collected samples from known areas along the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific coasts. The origin of the fish market specimens was kept in a closed envelope and was revealed at the end of the study. Scale Keywords: shape was described using seven landmarks, the coordinates of which were subjected to a generalised Fish traceability Procrustes analysis, followed by a principal components analysis and discriminant analysis. Discriminant Fish scale shape Stock identification classification was used as the main indicator to identify the source of the fish, where the percentage of Fisheries management discrimination traced the origin of the specimens, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • PRESS RELEASE January 22, 2021
    PRESS RELEASE January 22, 2021 Contact: Steven J. Raabe, P.E., Trustee P.O. Box 1269 Poth, Texas 78147-1269 Phone: 361-200-1456 Website: www.mbmTrust.com Email: [email protected] MATAGORDA BAY MITIGATION TRUST ANNOUNCES FUNDING FOR NINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS On October 30, 2020 the Matagorda Bay Mitigation Trust published a Request for Proposals for coastal environmental projects in four categories: habitat restoration, environmental research, public education, and improving public access. The Matagorda Bay Mitigation Trust received a total of 39 proposals, from 16 entities, totaling 14.5 million dollars. Today, Steven Raabe, Trustee of the Matagorda Bay Mitigation Trust, announces that nine projects, from six entities, totaling 3.2 million dollars have been approved for funding. “We were so fortunate to receive some great proposals and it was difficult for the selection committee to make their recommendation because of the limitation of available funds,” Raabe stated. “But we are extremely pleased with the quality, scope, and cost effectiveness of the proposals selected as a significant step to research, restore and improve the Matagorda and San Antonio bays area environment,” he added. The projects being funded, by category, are: Habitat Restoration (Three projects totaling $1,498,000) Protection and Restoration of the Blackjack Peninsula, Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, $500,000, Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program 1 Protection and Restoration of Matagorda Island West Marsh, Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, $498,000, Coastal
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Management Program 2013-2018 Appendix A
    Appendix A 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) As required under Sections 303(d) and 304(a) of the federal Clean Water Act, this list identifies the water bodies in or bordering Texas for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards, and for which the associated pollutants are suitable for measurement by maximum daily load. In addition, the TCEQ also develops a schedule identifying Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that will be initiated in the next two years for priority impaired waters. Issuance of permits to discharge into 303(d)-listed water bodies is described in the TCEQ regulatory guidance document Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (January 2003, RG-194). Impairments are limited to the geographic area described by the Assessment Unit and identified with a six or seven-digit AU_ID. A TMDL for each impaired parameter will be developed to allocate pollutant loads from contributing sources that affect the parameter of concern in each Assessment Unit. The TMDL will be identified and counted using a six or seven-digit AU_ID. Water Quality permits that are issued before a TMDL is approved will not increase pollutant loading that would contribute to the impairment identified for the Assessment Unit. Explanation of Column Headings SegID and Name: The unique identifier (SegID), segment name, and location of the water body. The SegID may be one of two types of numbers. The first type is a classified segment number (4 digits, e.g., 0218), as defined in Appendix A of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS).
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Abandoned Crab Trap Removal Program Texas ACTRP
    Texas Abandoned Crab Trap Removal Program Texas ACTRP • Senate Bill 1410 - Passed during 77th Legislative session (2001) – Mandated 10-day closure period in February • Conducted annually since 2002 – ~ 12,000 voluntary hours (> 3,000 volunteers) – > 1,000 vessels –> 35,000 traps! Commercial Crab Trap Tags in Texas 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 92 94 96 98 178 Licenses, 200 traps per license Condition Assessment • From 2002-2003, we performed an assessment study of retrieved traps looking at location, condition, bycatch, etc. Condition Assessment of Traps • 1,703 traps studied • 12% located on seagrass beds • 46% had ID present • 63% in fishable condition • 42% degradable panel present • 33% open • Oldest confirmed trap dated 1991 • 3 Diamondback terrapins Number % of Species Observed Scientific Name Observed Total Blue crab Callinectes sapidus 314 49 Stone crab Menippe adina 179 28 Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus 48 7 Thinstripe hermit crab Clibanarius vittatus 30 5 Gulf toadfish Opsanus beta 28 4 Black drum Pogonias cromis 12 2 Hardhead catfish Arius felis 6 1 Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 6 1 Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus 4 1 Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 3 <0.01 Bay whiff Citharichthys spilopterus 3 <0.01 Diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin littoralis 3 <0.01 Longnose spider crab Libinia dubia 2 <0.01 Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma 2 <0.01 Spotted scorpionfish Scorpaena plumieri 2 <0.01 Pelecypoda Rangia spp. 1 <0.01 Musk turtle Family Kinosternidae 1 <0.01 Spotted seatrout Cynoscion
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Fishing Guide |
    Texas Commercial Fishing regulations summary 2021 2022 SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 – AUGUST 31, 2022 Subject to updates by Texas Legislature or Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission TEXAS COMMERCIAL FISHING REGULATIONS SUMMARY This publication is a summary of current regulations that govern commercial fishing, meaning any activity involving taking or handling fresh or saltwater aquatic products for pay or for barter, sale or exchange. Recreational fishing regulations can be found at OutdoorAnnual.com or on the mobile app (download available at OutdoorAnnual.com). LIMITED-ENTRY AND BUYBACK PROGRAMS .......................................................................... 3 COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN LICENSE TYPES ........................................................................... 3 COMMERCIAL FISHING BOAT LICENSE TYPES ........................................................................ 6 BAIT DEALER LICENSE TYPES LICENCIAS PARA VENDER CARNADA .................................................................................... 7 WHOLESALE, RETAIL AND OTHER BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS LICENCIAS Y PERMISOS COMERCIALES PARA NEGOCIOS MAYORISTAS Y MINORISTAS .......... 8 NONGAME FRESHWATER FISH (PERMIT) PERMISO PARA PESCADOS NO DEPORTIVOS EN AGUA DULCE ................................................ 12 BUYING AND SELLING AQUATIC PRODUCTS TAKEN FROM PUBLIC WATERS ............................. 13 FRESHWATER FISH ................................................................................................... 13 SALTWATER FISH .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Estuaries Human Recreational Activities
    bays in peril bays in peril WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT GLOSSARY OF KEY CONCEPTS A Water is the lifeblood of our Texas landscape. Texas Naturalized Conditions: rivers provide water and habitat for fi sh and wildlife A computer model scenario showing freshwater infl ow throughout the state and provide the freshwater that amounts that would have occurred during about a 50- forecast for freshwater keeps coastal estuaries functioning and healthy. Unfor- year period if there had not been water withdrawals, dams, or other human alterations of infl ow patterns. tunately, we haven’t done a very good job of protecting Used as a baseline for comparison. fl ows to our rivers. Most water use permits were issued without Future Use: any consideration of how much fl ow should be left in A computer model scenario showing freshwater the river to protect water quality, fi sh and wildlife, and infl ow amounts during the same period as for natu- Texas estuaries human recreational activities. ralized conditions if all existing water withdrawal permits were fully used and levels of wastewater reuse Even today, the state hasn’t come to grips with how to were increased to about 50%. protect river fl ows and freshwater infl ows to the coast. Periods Below Drought The state and 16 regional water planning groups are Tolerance Levels: Sabine Lake developing plans to meet water demands for the next 50 A determination of the number of periods of six con- years, but so far that process does not include freshwater secutive months of very low freshwater infl ows, with- report summary infl ows as a water demand to be met.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Indian Groups of the Choke Canyon Reservoir and Surrounding Area, Southern Texas
    Volume 1981 Article 24 1981 Historic Indian Groups of the Choke Canyon Reservoir and Surrounding Area, Southern Texas T. N. Campbell Center for Archaeological Research T. J. Campbell 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 Campbell, T. N. and Campbell, T. J. (1981) "Historic Indian Groups of the Choke Canyon Reservoir and Surrounding Area, Southern Texas," Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: Vol. 1981, Article 24. https://doi.org/10.21112/ita.1981.1.24 ISSN: 2475-9333 Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol1981/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]. Historic Indian Groups of the Choke Canyon Reservoir and Surrounding Area, Southern 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/iss1/24 HISTORIC INDIAN GROUPS OF THE CHOKE CANYON RESERVOIR AND SURROUNDING AREA, SOUTHERN TEXAS T.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Program Budget
    Medina River, Catfish Farm Property PROGRAM BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015 SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY TEXAS PROGRAM BUDGETS July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015 Presented to the Board of Directors Name Title County Jerry G. Gonzales Bexar County, District 1 Lourdes Galvan Bexar County, District 2 Michael W. Lackey, PE Bexar County, District 3 Thomas G. Weaver Executive Member Bexar County, District 4 Sally Buchanan Chairman Bexar County, At Large Hector R. Morales Secretary Bexar County, At Large Terry E. Baiamonte Vice-Chair Goliad County James Fuller Goliad County Gaylon J. Oehlke Treasurer Karnes County H. B. Ruckman III Karnes County Darrel T. Brownlow, Ph.D. Executive Member Wilson County John J. Flieller Wilson County Management Name Title Suzanne B. Scott General Manager Stephen T. Graham Assistant General Manager Steven J. Raabe Director of Technical Services John A. Chisholm III Director of Operations Bruce E. Knott Director of Human Resources Kristen Hansen Watershed & Park Operations Manager Claude Harding Real Estate Manager Art Herrera Information Technology Manager Steve Lusk Environmental Sciences Manager Linda Muñoz Human Resource Manager Russell Persyn Watershed Engineering Manager Steven Schauer External Communications Manager SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY PROGRAM BUDGETS TABLE OF CONTENTS Budget Message ............................................................................................................. i Definitions .....................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]