DOCSLIB.ORG

Hill Country Conservation: a Network and Narrative for Large-Scale Collaborative Conservation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hill Country Conservation: a Network and Narrative for Large-Scale Collaborative Conservation Hill Country Conservation: A Network and Narrative for Large-scale Collaborative Conservation A Report to the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation Research and Report by: R. Patrick Bixler, PhD Ashley Noel Lovell, PhD 1 Executive Summary From April 2015-May 2016, we have been involved in a joint research and practitioner-based effort to understand the network and the narrative that shapes Hill Country conservation opportunities and outcomes. We have collected and analyzed over 40 hours of interview data and developed an extensive database of information on the organizations and agencies that work to make the Hill Country a socially and ecologically thriving landscape. Through these efforts, we believe that opportunities exist to improve coordination of activities, leverage and pool resources, increase and use social capital, enhance conflict management (prevention, reduction, resolution), and im- prove knowledge management (including generation, trans- lation, and diffusion). The report that follows summarizes these efforts and offers insights and recommendations based on our analysis. The following are some key take-aways: 1. The organizations and agencies working in the Hill Coun- try are many and diverse. The Hill Country is a special place to many people, it may come as no suprise that there is an abundace of organizations working on conservation issues in the region. Our survey identified 160 organizations and agen- cies (which is not exhaustive) that represent ten different or- ganizational categories, examples include community-based organizations (23% of the network), state non-governmental organizations (15% of the network), and land trusts (5% of the network). Some organizations are focused on specific places, others are focused on connecting with specific constituencies, while still others work on regional or state policy. More important than the sheer number is the diversity of functions and roles, that, considered at the scale of the network, fit particular niches and contribute to the overall function. We identified extensitve collaboration within organization types (for examples, land trusts collaborate with each other) but also between organizational types (for example, regional NGOs collaborate with universities). Without an understanding of the structure and function of the entire network, the abundance appears overwhelming. Understanding the larger system, however, we can be strategic about leveraging resources and expertise of the whole network. 2. We found that collaboration in the Hill Country is already extensive. Of all the connections between organizations in the Hill Country, approximately 80% of survey respondents reported they were “work- ing collaboratively on a project” with other organizations. The interviews identified formal and informal communication infrastructure that facilitates this ongoing collaboration. For example, regional meetings, annual summit’s, workshops, and newsletters provide mechanisms that organizations feel “connected” and “up to date”. More formal and informal communication infrastructure can facilitate more collabora- tion. Our analysis highlights that network core organizations could have a broader influence through more exposure, communication, and interaction with the broader network of organizations. We suggest initiating a forum for communication as a means to build trust and implementable projects. A Hill Coun- try Conservation Network Summit would vastly increase the ability to proactively set priorities and lever- age opportunities to deliver outcomes. 2 Executive Summary - Continued 3. The majority of conservation organizations working in the Hill Country report that they focus on “educa- tion and outreach” as their primary activity. This finding points to the rather unique context and enormous opportunities inherent in a large landscape conservation initiative in a private-lands landscape. The “net- work” of organizations should focus on improving capacities to communicate with landowners and move toward action-oriented and project-based education and outreach efforts. When these initiatives show success, it builds trust and capacity between organizations and with landowners to work toward larger and more ambitious projects. We suggest identifying projects that promote action-based collaboration between landowners and conservation organizations. 4. There is a strong desire for a large-scale collaborative approach. Both the interviews and the survey high- lighted an interest in a large-scale network approach. A key to “scaling up” conservation efforts in the Hill Country is to make sure there is “a table” for interested parties to sit. Without the table, there is no place for groups to communicate and identify where and how they can best work together. To improve the ability to think and work proactively to address future problems or operate at larger scales, network governance struc- ture needs to be discussed and agreed upon. These points and others emerged from the research and analysis. In the following, we summarize our ap- proach and focus on key findings through illustrations in the data. The Key Findings section includes a series of figures along with an explanation of the key finding, interpretation, and recommendation that follows from the insight. 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Background 5 Hill Country Conservation Network 6 The time is right. 5 Reasons to focus on the Hill Country: 6 Our Approach 6 Research Questions and Methods 7 Qualitative Methods 7 Social Network Analysis 7 Key Findings 9 Current Organizational Landscape 9 Figure 1. Number of Nodes Identified in Analysis 9 Figure 2. Types of Organizations in the Network 10 Figure 3. What Organizations and Agencies Report Working On 11 Figure 4a. Number of staff reported 12 4b. Budget Reported 12 Barriers and Benefits to Collaboration 13 Table 5. Benefits of Collaboration 13 Table 6. Barriers to Collaboration 14 How Are We Collaborating? 15 Figure 7. Social Network Analysis of the Hill Country Conservation Network 15 Figure 8. Centrality Analysis in the Hill Country Conservation Network 16 Figure 9. The Hill Country Conservation Network Across Geographical Space 18 A Hill Country Conservation Netowrk Narrative 19 Table 10. Common Conservation Narrative Elements 20 Hill Country Narrative and Network: Summary and Conclusions 21 Limitations 22 Case Study: Network Governance in the Crown of the Continent 23 Acknowledgements 26 Appendix A 26 Appendix B 27 Appendix C 28 Appendix D 39 4 Background The Texas Hill Country spans a 17 county area that encompasses approximately 11.3 million acres (17,760 square miles) and is recognized around the world for its stunning beauty and its unique natural, cultural, and economic resources. The Edwards Plateau and the Llano Uplift are the defining geologic features that serve as the foundation for the immense diversity of peaks, valleys, plants, animals, streams, and vistas. Many of the rivers and streams in the Hill Country begin along the eastern margins of the Edwards Plateau, including the Medina, Pedernales, Guadalupe, and Blanco rivers. These hydro-geological features have created elab- orate karst aquifer systems, some of the most biologically diverse subterranean ecosystems in the world. Below and above the surface, 88 listed endangered species call these ecosystems home. The vast open spaces and dark night skies of the Hill Country’s north and west contrast sharply to the rap- idly urbanizing metropolitan corridor of Austin and San Antonio. These cities are two of America’s fastest growing municipalities, and they constitute the eastern border of the Hill Country. Low-density, unplanned subdivisions, strip malls, and office parks are now spreading out from these cities westward and northward into the Hill Country, putting the region’s surface and groundwater resources, scenery, and wildlife at risk. Nearly 90 percent of the Hill Country lies in private, unincorporated areas (where little land use regulation exists) and only 3.6 percent of the land lies in permanent protection. These protected lands include 15 state parks and natural areas and numerous private-land conservation easements. There are countless individual efforts and organizations working to protect the water, wildlife, and the qual- ity of life upon which both urban and rural residents depend. However, the scale of the challenges necessi- tates a more comprehensive and collaborative effort between organizations and agencies working across the rural-urban gradient. Many governmental and non-governmental organizations, state and federal agencies, universities, and land- owner associations are working to make the Hill Country a thriving landscape and to preserve the ecological and cultural characteristics that make the landscape special. To coordinate these efforts at a larger-scale, it is crucial to have a thorough understanding of the organizational landscape without being overwhelmed by its complexity. By researching who is doing what, we can identify stakeholders and their functions in the overall Hill Country Conservation Network. 5 The time is right. 5 Reasons to focus on the Hill Country: • There is a strong heritage and stewardship ethic in the Hill Country • The region is an epicenter of conservation partnership activity in Texas • The landscape is widely regarded as a unique and amenity-rich eco- system that underpins the region’s quality of life • The Hill Country provides natural, scenic and water resources for the Austin-San Antonio corridor • Opportunities exist to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 19 State Parks Could Close for Financial Reasons
    Highlights of the 2010 River Management Society and National Association of Recreation Resource Planners Symposium The River Management Society joined with the National Association of Recreation Resource Planners (NARRP) to host their biennial symposium on river management. Recognizing resource protection as a core value, the symposium explored how scientists, planners, and managers are maintaining or restoring ecosystem sustainability while providing opportunities for high quality recreation experiences on rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Participants at the symposium interacted with regional and national leaders in river conservation and recreation management through a diverse program. The symposium theme, “Bridging Conservation and Recreation” recognizes that resource professionals too often become narrowly focused in their specialties, and that effective long- term management usually requires broader cross-disciplinary solutions. The symposium provided opportunities for professionals to network and integrate their knowledge from many fields. Attendees left with renewed creativity and passion for natural resource management in watersheds. Feedback from Symposium Attendees Mary Donze, Missouri Division of State Parks “While all of the educational sessions I attended were wonderful, it was the networking that took place at the breaks and dinners that was the most valuable. It is amazing how many agencies are facing the same issues. The camaraderie that develops at the annual conference is truly inspiring. It is nice to take that home; knowing you have lots of fellow professionals to contact, when you need advice on an issue or problem. Meeting the student scholarship recipients was also a highlight of the conference. It is so gratifying to see such amazing young professionals entering the field." John Baas, Michael Brandman Associates “I enjoyed the plenary session on managing the Columbia Gorge.
    [Show full text]
  • LOCAL SPOTLIGHT Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio, Texas, United States—Protecting Groundwater
    LOCAL SPOTLIGHT Edwards Aquifer, San Antonio, Texas, United States—Protecting groundwater Photo: © Blake Gordon Photo: © Blake Gordon North America Left. Officials release a benign "tracer dye" into Edwards Aquifer drainage systems to chart flows and track the underground water pathways. Right. Hydrogeologist descends into a sinkhole to check on the Edwards Aquifer. The challenge As one of the largest, most prolific artesian aquifers in the world, the Edwards Aquifer serves as the primary source of drinking water for nearly 2 million central Texans, including every resident of San Antonio—the second largest city in Texas—and much of the surrounding Hill Country. Its waters feed springs, rivers and lakes and sustain diverse plant and animal life, including rare and endangered species. The aquifer supports agricultural, industrial and recreational activities that not only sustain the Texas economy, but also contribute immeasurably to the culture and heritage of the Lone Star State. AUSTIN The aquifer stretches beneath 12 Texas counties, and the land above it includes several important hydrological areas. Two areas in particular— the drainage area and the recharge zone—replenish the aquifer by “catching” rainwater, which then seeps through fissures, cracks and sinkholes into the porous limestone that dominates the region. While this natural filtration system helps refill the aquifer with high-quality water, the growing city of San Antonio is expanding into territories of the very sensitive recharge zone, increasing the risk of contamination. In Edwards Aquifer SAN ANTONIO addition to a rising population, the state’s water supplies have been impacted by multi-year droughts. By 2060, Texas is projected to be home to approximately 50 million people while the annual available water resources are estimated to decrease by nearly 10 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Stewardship of the Edwards Aquifer
    STEWARDSHIP OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER What is the Edwards Aquifer? “The Edwards Aquifer is one of the most valuable resources in the central How does this affect me? Aquifer: an underground area that holds enough water Texas area. In most places, it takes time for stormwater to travel to provide a usable supply. over land and filter through soil to reach the rivers and This aquifer provides water for lakes that supply drinking water to residents. In the municipal, industrial, and agricultural Edwards Aquifer region, recharge features provide a direct link between groundwater and our underground uses as well as sustaining a number of water supply. This means that stormwater pollution rare and endangered species. directly affects the quality of our drinking water. To preserve these beneficial uses, As a result, TCEQ has implemented extra water quality San Antonio ReportSan Texans must protect water quality in requirements to protect the aquifer. Examples include Source: this aquifer from degradation water quality treatments like rain gardens and water resulting from human activities.” quality ponds, as well as erosion and sedimentation While other aquifers in Texas are made up of sand and controls at construction sites. gravel, the Edwards Aquifer is a karst aquifer, composed - Texas Commission on Environmental of porous limestone formations that serve as conduits Quality (TCEQ), RG-348 for water as it travels underground. (Edwards Aquifer Authority) As shown in the graphic to the right, the Edwards Aquifer region encompasses much of South Central Texas. Portions of the City Antonio ReportSan of West Lake Hills lie within the Edwards Aquifer Contributing and Recharge Zones.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Texas Highland Lakes
    Lampasas Colorado Bend State Park 19 0 Chappel Colo rado R. LAMPASAS COUNTY 2657 281 183 501 N W E 2484 S BELL La mp Maxdale asa s R Oakalla . Naruna Central Texas Highland Lakes SAN SABA Lake Buchanan COUNTY Incorporated cities and towns 19 0 US highways Inks Lake Lake LBJ Other towns and crossroads 138 State highways Lake Marble Falls 970 Farm or Ranch roads State parks 963 Lake Travis COUNTY County lines LCRA parks 2657 Map projection: Lambert Conformal Conic, State 012 miles Watson Plane Coordinate System, Texas Central Zone, NAD83. 012 km Sunnylane Map scale: 1:96,000. The Lower Colorado River Authority is a conservation and reclamation district created by the Texas 195 Legislature in 1934 to improve the quality of life in the Central Texas area. It receives no tax money and operates on revenues from wholesale electric and water sales and other services. This map has been produced by the Lower Colorado River Authority for its own use. Accordingly, certain information, features, or details may have been emphasized over others or may have been left out. LCRA does not warrant the accuracy of this map, either as to scale, accuracy or completeness. M. Ollington, 2003.12.31 Main Map V:\Survey\Project\Service_Area\Highland_Lakes\lakes_map.fh10. Lake Victor Area of Detail Briggs Canyon of the Eagles Tow BURNETBURNET 963 Cedar 487 Point 138 2241 Florence Greens Crossing N orth Fo rk Joppa nGab Mahomet Sa rie l R Shady Grove . 183 2241 970 Bluffton 195 963 COUNTYCOUNTY Lone Grove Lake WILLIAMSONWILLIAMSON 2341 Buchanan 1174 LLANOLLANO Andice 690 243 Stolz Black Rock Park Burnet Buchanan Dam 29 Bertram 261 Inks La ke Inks Lake COUNTYCOUNTY Buchanan Dam State Park COUNTYCOUNTY 29 Inks Dam Gandy 2338 243 281 Lla no R.
    [Show full text]
  • Property for Sale Lake Buchanan Texas Miniclip
    Property For Sale Lake Buchanan Texas Animal and triplex Chalmers tailor: which Donny is languishing enough? Knickered Giancarlo unvulgarizing her hire so incandescently that Shaughn nag very incalculably. Bantam Gregor ruin or unscrambled some sculptor none, however unequipped Giavani popularize compulsively or Islamised. Travertine flooring all the property for sale buchanan texas due to send me email settings, large that you may want and beauty Districts and do, property sale buchanan dam, striped bass are for the side. Plethora of date or sale texas home tours and franchised offices which is rich in! Fees associated with home for sale buchanan dam, amazing views to home! Interests at water, property for lake buchanan lake access can help find homes for new properties are listed or public activity will notice the ranch is our community. Trec and is for sale lake texas highland lakes famous for this file is surrounded with incredible views on two locations providing year round use this includes a good. Version of each home for sale lake buchanan west. Completely turnkey and fishing property sale lake texas in the lake, bring is a password. Unlimited income potential as revered for lake buchanan lake, tx electric co provides a glass walk in april of the bald eagles feed their property! Consumer choice and the property for lake buchanan texas hill county. Flexible financial or a property for sale is awesome with your search as replacing outdated light fixtures or you will submit an amazing views on two decades of today. Pull into the only for sale lake buchanan include the living! Early texas home, property for lake buchanan dam, panoramic view from austin.
    [Show full text]
  • A RECREATIONAL USE SURVEY of the SAN MARCOS RIVER Thesis
    A RECREATIONAL USE SURVEY OF THE SAN MARCOS RIVER Thesis Presented to the Graduate Council of Southwest Texas State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE By David D Bradsby San Marcos, Texas May 1994 - A RECREATIONAL USE SURVEY OF THE SAN MARCOS RIVER Approved: B. G. Whiteside, Chairman Approved: TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures . i v List of Tables . vi Acknowledgements . vi i Introduction . 1 Recreational Literature Review . 2 San Marcos River . 6 Threatened and Endangered Species . 2 4 Methods . 27 Results.................................... 35 Discussion . 5 4 Conclusions . 6 9 Literature Cited . 7 2 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 . Map of the upper San Marcos River from Spring Lake to the Blanco River confluence ................ 7 2. Detailed map of the upper San Marcos River showing study areas ...... .... ..... ..... .. ... .. ....... ... .. ..... ......... ...... ... 9 3. Pepper's study area on the San Marcos River looking upstream .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. 1 1 4. Sewell Park study area on the San Marcos River looking downstream............................................................... 1 3 5. City Park study area on the San Marcos River ............ 1 5 6. Rio Vista Annex study area on the San Marcos River ........... ......... .... .... .... ......... ........ .... ......... ....... 1 7 7. Rio Vista Park study area on the San Marcos River ................ ......... ....... ..... .... ........ .... ........
    [Show full text]
  • MEXICO Las Moras Seco Creek K Er LAVACA MEDINA US HWY 77 Springs Uvalde LEGEND Medina River
    Cedar Creek Reservoir NAVARRO HENDERSON HILL BOSQUE BROWN ERATH 281 RUNNELS COLEMAN Y ANDERSON S HW COMANCHE U MIDLAND GLASSCOCK STERLING COKE Colorado River 3 7 7 HAMILTON LIMESTONE 2 Y 16 Y W FREESTONE US HW W THE HIDDEN HEART OF TEXAS H H S S U Y 87 U Waco Lake Waco McLENNAN San Angelo San Angelo Lake Concho River MILLS O.H. Ivie Reservoir UPTON Colorado River Horseshoe Park at San Felipe Springs. Popular swimming hole providing relief from hot Texas summers. REAGAN CONCHO U S HW Photo courtesy of Gregg Eckhardt. Y 183 Twin Buttes McCULLOCH CORYELL L IRION Reservoir 190 am US HWY LAMPASAS US HWY 87 pasas R FALLS US HWY 377 Belton U S HW TOM GREEN Lake B Y 67 Brady iver razos R iver LEON Temple ROBERTSON Lampasas Stillhouse BELL SAN SABA Hollow Lake Salado MILAM MADISON San Saba River Nava BURNET US HWY 183 US HWY 190 Salado sota River Lake TX HWY 71 TX HWY 29 MASON Buchanan N. San G Springs abriel Couple enjoying the historic mill at Barton Springs in 1902. R Mason Burnet iver Photo courtesy of Center for American History, University of Texas. SCHLEICHER MENARD Y 29 TX HW WILLIAMSON BRAZOS US HWY 83 377 Llano S. S an PECOS Gabriel R US HWY iver Georgetown US HWY 163 Llano River Longhorn Cavern Y 79 Sonora LLANO Inner Space Caverns US HW Eckert James River Bat Cave US HWY 95 Lake Lyndon Lake Caverns B. Johnson Junction Travis CROCKETT of Sonora BURLESON 281 GILLESPIE BLANCO Y KIMBLE W TRAVIS SUTTON H GRIMES TERRELL S U US HWY 290 US HWY 16 US HWY P Austin edernales R Fredericksburg Barton Springs 21 LEE Somerville Lake AUSTIN Pecos
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat and Phenology of the Endangered Riffle Eetle, Heterelmis
    Arch. Hydrobiol. 156 3 361-383 Stuttgart, February 2003 Habitat and phenology of the endangered riffle beetle Heterelmis comalensis and a coexisting species, Microcylloepus pusillus, (Coleoptera: Elmidae) at Comal Springs, Texas, USA David E. Bowles1 *, Cheryl B. Barr2 and Ruth Stanford3 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, University of California, Berkeley, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service With 5 figures and 4 tables Ab tract: Habitat characteristics and seasonal distribution of the riffle beetles Herere/­ mis comalensis and Microcylloepu pusillus were studied at Comal Springs, Texas, during 1993-1994, to aid in developing sound reconunendations for sustaining their natural popu1atioas. Comal Springs consists of four major spring cutlers and spring­ runs. The four spring-runs are dissimilar in size, appearance, canopy and riparian cover, substrate composition, and aquatic macrophyte composition. Habitat conditions associated with the respective popuJatioos of riffle beetles, including physical-chemi­ cal measurements, water depth, and currenc velocity, were relatively unifom1 and var­ ied lHUe among sampling dates and spring-runs. However, the locations of the beetles in the respective spri ng-runs were not well correlated to current velocity, water depth, or distance from primary spring orifices. Factors such as substrate size and availability and competition are proposed as possibly influencing lheir respective distributions. Maintaining high-quality spring-flows and protection of Lhe physical habitat of Here· re/mis comalensis presently are the only means by which to ensure the survival of this endemic species. Key words: Conservation, habitat conditions, substrate availability, competition. 1 Authors' addresses: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Society of America Bulletin
    Downloaded from gsabulletin.gsapubs.org on January 11, 2012 Geological Society of America Bulletin Structural framework of the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone in south-central Texas David A. Ferrill, Darrell W. Sims, Deborah J. Waiting, Alan P. Morris, Nathan M. Franklin and Alvin L. Schultz Geological Society of America Bulletin 2004;116, no. 3-4;407-418 doi: 10.1130/B25174.1 Email alerting services click www.gsapubs.org/cgi/alerts to receive free e-mail alerts when new articles cite this article Subscribe click www.gsapubs.org/subscriptions/ to subscribe to Geological Society of America Bulletin Permission request click http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/copyrt.htm#gsa to contact GSA Copyright not claimed on content prepared wholly by U.S. government employees within scope of their employment. Individual scientists are hereby granted permission, without fees or further requests to GSA, to use a single figure, a single table, and/or a brief paragraph of text in subsequent works and to make unlimited copies of items in GSA's journals for noncommercial use in classrooms to further education and science. This file may not be posted to any Web site, but authors may post the abstracts only of their articles on their own or their organization's Web site providing the posting includes a reference to the article's full citation. GSA provides this and other forums for the presentation of diverse opinions and positions by scientists worldwide, regardless of their race, citizenship, gender, religion, or political viewpoint. Opinions presented in this publication do not reflect official positions of the Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental Impact Statement
    Draft Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental Impact Statement Prepared for: Comal County, Texas Comal County Commissioners Court Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants Smith, Robertson, Elliott, Glen, Klein & Bell, L.L.P. Prime Strategies, Inc. Texas Perspectives, Inc. Capital Market Research, Inc. April 2010 SWCA Project Number 12659-139-AUS DRAFT COMAL COUNTY REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT April 2010 Type of Action: Administrative Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Responsible Official: Adam Zerrenner Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas For Information: Bill Seawell Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas Tele: 512-490-0057 Abstract: Comal County, Texas, is applying for an incidental take permit (Permit) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. (ESA), to authorize the incidental take of two endangered species, the golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and the black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), referred to collectively as the “Covered Species.” In support of the Permit application, the County has prepared a regional habitat conservation plan (Proposed RHCP), covering a 30-year period from 2010 to 2040. The Permit Area for the Proposed RHCP and the area of potential effect for this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is Comal County in central Texas. The requested Permit would authorize the following incidental take and mitigation for the golden-cheeked warbler: Take: As conservation credits are created through habitat preservation, authorize up to 5,238 acres (2,120 hectares) of golden-cheeked warbler habitat to be impacted over the 30-year life of the Proposed RHCP.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Availability of the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, Texas: Numerical Simulations Through 2050
    GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY OF THE BARTON SPRINGS SEGMENT OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER, TEXAS: NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS THROUGH 2050 by Bridget R. Scanlon, Robert E. Mace*, Brian Smith**, Susan Hovorka, Alan R. Dutton, and Robert Reedy prepared for Lower Colorado River Authority under contract number UTA99-0 Bureau of Economic Geology Scott W. Tinker, Director The University of Texas at Austin *Texas Water Development Board, Austin **Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District, Austin October 2001 GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY OF THE BARTON SPRINGS SEGMENT OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER, TEXAS: NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS THROUGH 2050 by Bridget R. Scanlon, Robert E. Mace*1, Brian Smith**, Susan Hovorka, Alan R. Dutton, and Robert Reedy prepared for Lower Colorado River Authority under contract number UTA99-0 Bureau of Economic Geology Scott W. Tinker, Director The University of Texas at Austin *Texas Water Development Board, Austin **Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District, Austin October 2001 1 This study was initiated while Dr. Mace was an employee at the Bureau of Economic Geology and his involvement primarily included initial model development and calibration. CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1 STUDY AREA...................................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • San Marcos Recovery Plan
    ~""'.- San Marcos Recovery Plan U. • Fish & Wildlife Service Albu,querque, New Mexico .-1-934--- The San Marcos Recovery Plan FOR San Hareqs River, Endangered and Threatened Species San ,Marcos Gambusia (Gambusia georgei) Hubbs and Peden ~ountainDarter (Etheostoma fonticola) (Jordan and Gilbert) San Marcos Salamander (Eurycea nana) Bish~p Te1,Ca s Wildr ice" (Z.tzaniatexana}Hitchcock PREPARED BY THE SAN MARIDS REIDVERY TEAM Dr. Robert J. Edwards, Leader, Pan American University, Edinburg, Texas 78539 Mr. Harold E. Beaty, 3414 Forest Trail, Temple, Texas 76502 Dr. Glenn Longley, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666 Mr. David H. Riskind, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas 78744 Dr. Dianna D.Tupa, center for Research and Water Resources, Unlvers1tyof Texas Balcones Research' Center, Austin, Texas 78758 Dr. Bobby G.Whites ide, Southwes t Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666 OONSULTANTS Mr. Harry Bishop, USFWS, Fish Cult. & Develop. Res. Center, San Marcos, Texas 78666 Dr. W. H. P. Emery, South~est Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 7e666 (Member 1981-82) Mr. Russell L. Masters, Edwards Underground Water District, San AntoniO, Texas 78205 Mr. William McPherson, Soil Conservation Service, Bastrop, Texas 78602 Mr. Floyd E. Potter, Jr., Texas Parks and lHl(,ili~~ Department, Austin, Texas 78759 i;:'y' , . // i f ,It . '1 ,/.' "V- Approved: '. ~ /-, j;t Regtaff'a i or, Region 2 U.S. Fi h, .. ' 'Wildlife Service Date: '/ .f --------~~~~~--------------------- SUMMARY 1 •. GOAL: Secure the survival and eventual recovery of the San Marcos .. gambusia, f01.nltain darter, San Marcos salamander, and Texas wildrice through protection of their natural ecosystem, the . San Marcos River.
    [Show full text]