DOCSLIB.ORG

Instream Flow-Habitat Relationships in the Upper Rio Grande River Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Instream Flow-Habitat Relationships in the Upper Rio Grande River Basin Instream Flow-Habitat Relationships in the Upper Rio Grande River Basin Prepared for: Senate Bill 3 Upper Rio Grande Basin and Bay Expert Science Team Prepared By: Trungale Engineering & Science 707 Rio Grande, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78701 April, 2012 Texas Water Development Board Contract Report Number 1248311376 This page is intentionally blank ii Texas Water Development Board Contract Report Number 1248311376 Acknowledgements The author wishes to express his gratitude for the support of a number of individuals and entities who made this work possible. State agency personal including Ken Saunders, (TPWD) and Michael Vielleux and David Flores (TWDB) spent several long days in the field collecting the field data. Members of the BBEST coordinated this work and provided expert guidance and feedback. Ken Saunders, Kevin Mayes, David Bradsby and Megan Bean of TPWD and Dr. Tim Bonner of Texas State University lent their expertise in the development of habitat suitability criteria. iii Texas Water Development Board Contract Report Number 1248311376 This page is intentionally blank iv Texas Water Development Board Contract Report Number 1248311376 Instream Flow-Habitat Relationships in the Upper Rio Grande River Basin Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Study Sites .................................................................................................................................. 1 3 Cross-Section Data Collection ................................................................................................... 4 4 Hydraulic Modeling ................................................................................................................... 5 5 Habitat Suitability Criteria ......................................................................................................... 7 6 Physical Habitat Model .............................................................................................................. 9 6.1 Mesohabitat Scale Analysis (Cross Section Weighted Usable Area) ............................. 9 6.2 Microhabitat Scale Analysis (Point Depth and Velocity Habitat Values) .................... 19 6.3 Assessing Quantity versus Quality Habitat at Reach level ........................................... 22 7 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 25 8 References ................................................................................................................................ 26 9 Appendix A Uncertainty .......................................................................................................... 27 10 Appendix B Habitat Suitability Criteria ................................................................................... 33 11 Appendix C Weighted Usable Area Results. ........................................................................... 37 12 Appendix D Spreadsheet Details ............................................................................................ 111 List of Figures Figure 2-1 Map of study sites. ........................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2-2 Devils River Cross Sections. ......................................................................................... 3 Figure 2-3 Independence Creek Cross Sections. ............................................................................ 3 Figure 2-4 Pecos River Cross Sections. .......................................................................................... 3 Figure 3-1 Generalized study site map. .......................................................................................... 4 Figure 4-1 Rating curves for study sites in the upper Rio Grande basin. ....................................... 6 Figure 4-2 Water surface elevations (above) and velocities (below) predicted by hydraulic model for cross section 1 (run) at the Devils River. .................................................................................. 7 Figure 5-1 Habitat suitability criteria for the Devils River minnow (Dionda diaboli). ................. 9 Figure 6-1 Flow versus weighted usable area (top) and percent of maximum WUA (bottom) for cross section 1 (Run) at the Devils River...................................................................................... 11 Figure 6-2 Devils River minnow habitat at 25 cfs at cross section 1 (run) at the Devils River. .. 19 Figure 6-3 Devils River minnow habitat at 70 cfs at cross section 1 (run) at the Devils River. .. 20 Figure 6-4 Devils River minnow habitat at 150 cfs at cross section 1 (run) at the Devils River. 21 Figure 6-5 Quantity versus quality of available habitat at the Devils River study site. ............... 24 Figure 9-1 WUA response to flow Devils River cross section 7 based on application of Devils River rating curve to Devils River site (above) vs. application of Independence Creek River rating curve to Devils River site (below). ..................................................................................... 29 Figure 11-1 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Devils River (Total). .............. 37 Figure 11-2 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Devils River (Riffle Total). .... 39 Figure 11-3 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Devils River (Riffle 1). .......... 41 Figure 11-4 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Devils River (Riffle 2). .......... 43 v Texas Water Development Board Contract Report Number 1248311376 Figure 11-5 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Devils River (Run Total). ...... 45 Figure 11-6 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Devils River (Run 1). ............. 47 Figure 11-7 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Devils River (Run 2). ............. 49 Figure 11-8 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Devils River (Pool Total). ...... 51 Figure 11-9 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Devils River (Pool 1). ............ 53 Figure 11-10 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Devils River (Pool 2). .......... 55 Figure 11-11 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Devils River (Pool 3). .......... 57 Figure 11-12 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Independence Creek (Total). 59 Figure 11-13 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Indy Creek (Riffle Total). .... 61 Figure 11-14 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Indy Creek (Riffle 1). .......... 63 Figure 11-15 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Indy Creek (Riffle 2). .......... 65 Figure 11-16 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Indy Creek (Riffle 3). .......... 67 Figure 11-17 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Indy Creek (Run Total). ....... 69 Figure 11-18 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Indy Creek (Run 1). ............. 71 Figure 11-19 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Indy Creek (Run 2). ............. 73 Figure 11-20 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Indy Creek (Run 3). ............. 75 Figure 11-21 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Indy Creek (Pool Total). ...... 77 Figure 11-22 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Indy Creek (Pool 1). ............ 79 Figure 11-23 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Indy Creek (Pool 2). ............ 81 Figure 11-24 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Indy Creek (Pool 3). ............ 83 Figure 11-25 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Pecos River (Total). ............. 85 Figure 11-26 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Pecos River (Riffle Total). ... 87 Figure 11-27 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Pecos River (Riffle 1). ......... 89 Figure 11-28 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Pecos River (Riffle 2). ......... 91 Figure 11-29 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Pecos River (Riffle 3). ......... 93 Figure 11-30 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Pecos River (Run Total). ..... 95 Figure 11-31 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Pecos River (Run1). ............. 97 Figure 11-32 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Pecos River (Run 2). ............ 99 Figure 11-33 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Pecos River (Run 3). .......... 101 Figure 11-34 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Pecos River (Pool Total). ... 103 Figure 11-35 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Pecos River (Pool 1). ......... 105 Figure 11-36 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Pecos River (Pool 2). ......... 107 Figure 11-37 Weighted usable area versus simulated discharge at Pecos River (Pool 3). ......... 109 vi Texas Water Development Board Contract Report Number 1248311376 List of Tables Table 2-1 Study sites. ...................................................................................................................... 1 Table 3-1 Modified Wentworth substrate scale. ............................................................................. 5 Table 5-1 Species for which habitat suitability criteria were developed for use in the physical habitat model. .................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Application and Utility of a Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial System to Manage and Conserve Aquatic Resources in Four Texas Rivers
    Application and Utility of a Low-cost Unmanned Aerial System to Manage and Conserve Aquatic Resources in Four Texas Rivers Timothy W. Birdsong, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744 Megan Bean, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 5103 Junction Highway, Mountain Home, TX 78058 Timothy B. Grabowski, U.S. Geological Survey, Texas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Texas Tech University, Agricultural Sciences Building Room 218, MS 2120, Lubbock, TX 79409 Thomas B. Hardy, Texas State University – San Marcos, 951 Aquarena Springs Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Thomas Heard, Texas State University – San Marcos, 951 Aquarena Springs Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Derrick Holdstock, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 3036 FM 3256, Paducah, TX 79248 Kristy Kollaus, Texas State University – San Marcos, 951 Aquarena Springs Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Stephan Magnelia, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, P.O. Box 1685, San Marcos, TX 78745 Kristina Tolman, Texas State University – San Marcos, 951 Aquarena Springs Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Abstract: Low-cost unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have recently gained increasing attention in natural resources management due to their versatility and demonstrated utility in collection of high-resolution, temporally-specific geospatial data. This study applied low-cost UAS to support the geospatial data needs of aquatic resources management projects in four Texas rivers. Specifically, a UAS was used to (1) map invasive salt cedar (multiple species in the genus Tamarix) that have degraded instream habitat conditions in the Pease River, (2) map instream meso-habitats and structural habitat features (e.g., boulders, woody debris) in the South Llano River as a baseline prior to watershed-scale habitat improvements, (3) map enduring pools in the Blanco River during drought conditions to guide smallmouth bass removal efforts, and (4) quantify river use by anglers in the Guadalupe River.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Nueces River Off-Road Vehicle Conflict in Texas
    Evaluation of the Nueces River Off-Road Vehicle Conflict in Uvalde, Texas Prepared By: Jennifer Yust Tracy Gwaltney For: PLAN 620 Dispute Resolution Brody March 2003 1 Table of Contents Chapter Page I. Summary................................................................................................................ 3 II. Background............................................................................................................ 4 A. Introduction and Problem Identification.......................................................... 5 B. Site Description and History............................................................................ 6 III. Stakeholder Analysis ............................................................................................. 8 A. Identification of Stakeholders.......................................................................... 9 B. Issues.............................................................................................................. 10 C. Stakeholder Interest and Positions................................................................. 12 D. Role of Power ................................................................................................ 15 E. Role of Personal Styles .................................................................................. 16 IV. Task Force Process .............................................................................................. 19 A. Pre-Task Force..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of April-June 1957 in Texas and Adjacent States
    Floods of April-June 1957 in Texas and Adjacent States By I. D. YOST FLOODS OF 1957 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1652-B Prepared in cooperation with the States of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and with other agencies UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1963 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. CONTENTS Page Abstract__ _ _____________________________________________________ Bl Introduction._____________________-___________-___-_-__------_---- 1 Acknowledgments ____________-_-__-____--__------_---__-__-------- 4 Definition of terms and abbreviations_-_____-_-_--___-----_---------- 5 General features of the floods_--__-_-____--._------------__---_------ 5 Precipitation..________________________________________________ 5 Thefloods_-____________________________________ - 10 Flood-control reservoirs-___________---___------_---_----------- 13 Determination of flood discharges____________________-___---___---- 13 Explanation of data___________________--_-________--____-_------- 15 Station data______________________________________________________ 16 Arkansas River basin_______________-____--__---_--_-_--_------ 16 Canadian River near Amarillo, Tex_______________-_-___.---_- 16 Red River basin_____________________-__-_--_---__------------- 18 Salt Fork Red River at Mangum, Okla_--__-_-_-__---_------- 18 North Fork Red River near Headrick,
    [Show full text]
  • Stewarding the Pedernales River Basin – 2019
    © Robin Gorrell 1 HOW TO USE THIS MANUAL You are important to the Pedernales River Basin. If you are a resident, landowner, business owner or returning visitor in the Pedernales River Basin, there is a role for you in stewarding this Hill Country treasure. This booklet is for those who want to protect and care for a landscape that provides clean water for millions of people, livelihoods for rural and urban communities, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic beauty, cultural heritage, and recreational activities. The Pedernales is a river that gives life. Landowner’s Guide: Stewarding the Pedernales River Basin is a manual on how to care for the river, the land around it, and the variety of life it supports. We can all start by caring for the small or large tracts of land we have responsibility for and control over. Stewardship has become a buzzword in recent years, but too often the term is used without a clear understanding of what it really means. Stewardship can be defined as the inner-conviction that motivates landowners to care for and sustain the land entrusted to them. It is a voluntary obligation based on a love and appreciation of the land. This can be anyone from homeowner, to the rancher with thousands of acres. The reasons why land stewards want to care for the land may be threefold: for their own personal benefit (including economic reasons); for the benefit to future generations who will someday inherit or acquire the land; and for the benefits that society receives. When land stewards take responsibility to properly manage and conserve the natural resources under their care, everyone benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuous Monitoring in the Lone Star State
    Waltz Across Texas: Continuous Monitoring in the Lone Star State Texas Commission On Environmental Quality Continuous Water Quality Monitoring Network Stops Along the Way June 2001 Texas Legislative directive to monitor water quality downstream of dairy Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in North Central Texas. First Continuous Water Quality Monitoring Stations in Upper North Bosque River (2) and Leon River (2). Initially included only sensor based parameters. Old No. (70)1 • Solar powered • Landline phone • T, SC, pH, DO • Nutrient ISE sensors Raising the Bar AquaLab auto-analyzers were added to analyze nitrogen and phosphorus compounds and turbidity Greater complexity and greater staff resource demands Controlled environment (HVAC) Hard Wired powered Landline phone T, SC, pH, DO, TURB Wet chemistry SRP Nitrogen species ISE sensors Near Real-Time data from CWQMN stations published online at: www.texaswaterdata.org Secondary Simplification With as many as eight auto-analyzers in operation, operation and maintenance required between 1.5 and 2.0 FTEs. Assessment of the data revealed good to excellent correlations between total nutrients (sum of N and P analytes) and specific conductance. We pulled the plug. CWQMN Participants TCEQ operates/maintains 11 stations in the Lower Rio Grande Valley and the Upper North Bosque River USGS Texas operates/maintains 15 CWQMN stations along the Rio Grande, Arroyo Colorado and Pecos River USGS New Mexico operates/maintains 1 CWQMN station outside of Texas Cooperative stations have been operated
    [Show full text]
  • Dams on the Upper San Marcos River
    Watershed CONSERVATION Texas Watersheds Conservation news from headwaters to coast SPRING 2015 NEWSLETTER In this issue History of Dams on the Upper San Marcos River KEN SAUNDERS AND KARIM AZIZ, TPWD RIVER STUDIES PROGRAM When we think of dams in the state of Texas, one typically thinks of dams on 5 the state’s major rivers and the large reservoirs they impound. In fact, most of Early Results of Blanco the 7,500 dams in Texas are located on smaller rivers and streams. These River Guadalupe Bass dams were an integral part of the state’s historical economic development, Reintroduction Efforts providing power to drive mechanical mills and providing water for cattle and Encouraging agricultural irrigation. Many of these dams still remain, although many do not serve the purpose for 7 which they were originally intended. While the waters these dams impound are often still used to provide irrigation they also often block the migration of fish, alter The Urban Water the way sediments are transported, and can lead to unstable watershed conditions. Cycle Tour According to American Rivers, a Washington, D.C. based public interest group, 1,150 dams have been removed across the country since 1912. 8 The San Marcos River emanates from multiple springs within the City of San Marcos, New Texas Aquatic Texas. These springs are the second largest in Texas, have never stopped flowing, Science Curriculum and have historically exhibited the most constant discharge of any spring system in the southwestern United States. There are eight species listed as endangered or Now Available CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 Remnants of Cape’s Dam and Weir, July 2014 9 Upper San Marcos River Protection Efforts 9 Texas Stream Team on the San Marcos River 12 Contact and Submission Information 2 Texas Watersheds CONTINUED History of Dams on the Upper San Marcos River Descriptions are presented in order from upstream to down- stream and not chronologically.
    [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]
  • Recharge to the Edwards Aquifer in the San Antonio Area, Texas, 2003
    Recharge to the Edwards Aquifer in the San Antonio Area, Texas, 2003 The Edwards aquifer is one of the most permeable and productive car- to the Edwards aquifer is part of a continuing program of the U.S. Geologi- bonate aquifers in the United States and is the major source of public water cal Survey in cooperation with the Edwards Aquifer Authority. supply for more than 1 million people in Bexar, Comal, Hays, Medina, and The estimated annual recharge for 2003 is 669,000 acre-feet (table 1). Uvalde Counties. The Edwards aquifer also supplies large quantities of The estimated annual recharge for 1934–2003 ranges from 43,700 acre-feet water to agriculture, business, and industry in the region; the major artesian in 1956 to 2,486,000 acre-feet in 1992. The average and median estimated springs of the Edwards aquifer provide water for recreational activities, annual recharge for 1934–2003 are 689,500 and 559,400 acre-feet, businesses, and downstream users and provide habitat for several threatened respectively. or endangered species. References The Edwards aquifer area includes the associated catchment area of the Puente, Celso, 1978, Method of estimating natural recharge to the Edwards Edwards aquifer and the Edwards aquifer recharge zone (fig. 1). The catch- aquifer in the San Antonio area, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water- ment area lies in the southern part of the Edwards Plateau and includes the Resources Investigations Report 78–10, 34 p. watersheds of the major streams that recharge the Edwards aquifer. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 2001, Documentation The recharge zone is located on the southern and southeastern margins for the Edwards aquifer recharge zone geospatial data layer: accessed of the Edwards Plateau within the Balcones Escarpment and includes areas September 11, 2003, at URL of Edwards outcrop as well as areas adjacent to and that drain to the out- http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/gis/metadata/edwards_met.html/ crop.
    [Show full text]
  • Of the Guadalupe River Basin
    Guadalupe River and Lavaca-Guadalupe Coastal Basins Guadalupe River Basin Table of Contents Introduction . .2 Executive Summary. 3-5 Objectives and Goals. .6 Coordination and Cooperation with Other Entities ...............6-7 Overview of the Guadalupe River Basin .......................... 8-10 Summary of Water Quality Characteristics .......................11 Water Quality Monitoring. .12-13 Description of the Water Quality Assessment Process .......14-15 Water Quality Inventory 303(d) List - 2003-2010. 15 Index of Biotic Integrity. .16-18 Public Partnerships ............................................19-21 Water Quality Parameters .........................................22 Overview of the Technical Summary. 23 Subwatershed Concerns and Issues Upper Guadalupe above Comfort . .24-33 Upper Guadalupe below Comfort ............................34-45 Blanco River Watershed .....................................46-53 San Marcos River Watershed ...............................54-61 Plum Creek Watershed ......................................62-69 Middle Guadalupe River Watershed .........................70-87 Peach Creek Watershed .....................................88-93 Sandies Creek Watershed. .94-99 Coleto Creek .............................................100-103 Lower Guadalupe River Watershed ......................104-113 Lavaca-Guadalupe Coastal Basin .......................114-117 Inventory of Events . 118-120 Cover photo by Janet Thome Photo by Tammy Beutnagel The Basin Summary report is Program (CRP) and opportunities designed to provide
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Annual Report for the Guadalupe Bass Restoration Initiative
    2018 ANNUAL REPORT Guadalupe Bass Restoration Initiative CONSERVATION NEEDS The rocky, spring-fed rivers of the Texas Hill Country are ecologically diverse, hosting 54 species of native freshwater fishes, including the official state fish of Texas, Guadalupe Bass. Of those species, Guadalupe Bass is one of 15 currently considered imperiled and identified by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Guadalupe Bass is also a popular sport fish. The economic value of fishing in Hill Country rivers was recently estimated to be $71 million over a 16-month period, with nearly half of anglers who fished the region specifically targeting Guadalupe Bass. The primary threats to the long-term persistence of Guadalupe Bass are hybridization with non-native Smallmouth Bass and habitat degradation. Guadalupe Bass populations are inextricably linked to natural river flow patterns, functional riparian zones, instream connectivity, and instream structural habitat features characteristic of pristine, unaltered rivers of the Hill Country. Extirpation of Guadalupe Bass has been documented in Pedernales River at Pedernales Falls State Park Hill Country rivers where fish habitats have been altered due to construction of dams, water withdrawals, and changes in watershed land uses. Hill Country rivers face a variety of conservation challenges, many of which stem from their location within one of the fastest growing regions of the state. The Texas Hill Country added roughly 700,000 people between 2000 and 2010, and the population is projected to increase more than 50% to over 7.3 million people by 2060. Increased water demands associated with this burgeoning population will be met primarily by surface and groundwater withdrawals, which will undoubtedly impact the region’s spring-fed rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater in Texas: Case Studies of Effective Management
    Groundwater in Texas: Case Studies of Effective Management Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District Introduction Groundwater is critical to Texas’ ecology and economy. It is the primary source of water for agriculture, rural landowners, and communities in Texas, providing approximately 60% of the 16.1 million acre-feet of water used in the state annually. Groundwater also supports rivers, streams, and springs in Texas, providing an estimated 30% of surface flows. During drought, virtually all of the naturally flowing water in rivers originates from groundwater. Groundwater conservation districts (GCDs) are the only entities in Texas with the primary responsibility for managing groundwater resources. GCDs utilize science to manage groundwater in a balanced, proactive and effective way. This is no easy task, and what effective management looks like is different for different GCDs as they are managing unique hydrogeological conditions and varying uses across Texas, through individually unique enabling legislation. This series of case studies will describe how different GCDs across the state are proactively managing groundwater to protect both the long-term viability of groundwater resources and landowners’ private property rights in groundwater. In this first case study, we discuss the work that the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District (GCD) is doing to protect groundwater wells and springflow within its jurisdiction. The iconic Jacob’s Well spring, the second-largest underwater cave in Texas, and Cypress Creek, an important tourist attraction that generates tens of millions of dollars of revenue for Hays County, are located within the district’s jurisdiction.1 To better protect these treasured water resources and in some cases even prevent springs and rural wells from drying up completely, the district embarked on a multi- faceted and interconnected process that included stakeholder engagement, improving science and data, and management tools such as drought curtailments.
    [Show full text]
  • Repatriation of Guadalupe Bass in the Blanco River, Texas: a Case Study in the Opportunistic Use of Drought As a Fisheries Management Tool
    American Fisheries Society Symposium 87: 2019 Repatriation of Guadalupe Bass in the Blanco River, Texas: A Case Study in the Opportunistic Use of Drought as a Fisheries Management Tool STEPHAN MAGNELIA*, GORDON LINAM, RYAN MCGILLICUDDY, KEN SAUNDERS, AND MELISSA PARKER Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Post Office Box 1685, San Marcos, Texas 78667, USA TIMOTHY BIRDSONG Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744, USA DIJAR LUTZ-CARRILLO, JÁNAYE WILLIAMSON Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 505 Staples Road, San Marcos, Texas 78666, USA RACHAEL LINDSEY RANFT1 The Nature Conservancy 23345 Bat Cave Road, San Antonio, Texas, 78266, USA TIMOTHY BONNER Texas State University, Department of Biology/Aquatic Station 601 University Drive, San Marcos, Texas 78666, USA *Corresponding author: [email protected] 1Current address: Eco-vative Associates 223 Paisano Drive, Victoria, TX 77904, USA 1 2 Magnelia et al. Abstract.—Repatriation of Guadalupe Bass Micropterus treculii was un- dertaken in the Blanco River, Texas, after extirpation due to hybridization with non-native, introduced Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu. In summer 2011, much of the river was reduced to a series of disconnect- ed, enduring pools due to severe drought. Electrofishing and seines were used to remove Smallmouth Bass from fifty-two enduring pools in a 24-km reach of the river upstream of a natural fish passage barrier. After the removal effort was completed, stockings of non-introgressed, hatchery- produced Guadalupe Bass fingerlings (n = 316,016) were initiated in spring 2012 when river flows returned. Successful recruitment of wild, naturally-produced Guadalupe Bass was documented in fall 2014 and 2015.
    [Show full text]