DOCSLIB.ORG

Twin Buttes Reservoir Ecosystem Restoration Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Twin Buttes Reservoir Ecosystem Restoration Project Twin Buttes Reservoir Ecosystem Restoration Project Upper Colorado River Authority, San Angelo Project, Texas Draft Environmental Assessment U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Great Plains Region Oklahoma-Texas Area Office April 2010 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Contents Page Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Project History .................................................................................................. 1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................. 1 Objectives of Treatment .................................................................................... 1 Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 2 Preferred Alternative – Combination of Helicopter Herbicide Application and Plowing ................................................................................................. 2 Saltcedar ...................................................................................................... 2 Mesquite ...................................................................................................... 3 Willow baccharis ........................................................................................ 4 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................... 5 Actions Considered but Discarded .................................................................... 5 Adoption of Existing Environmental Assessment (EA) ..................................... 5 Existing Conditions and Potential Impacts ........................................................ 6 Phreatophytic Plant Species .............................................................................. 6 Saltcedar ...................................................................................................... 6 Mesquite ...................................................................................................... 9 Willow Baccharis ........................................................................................ 9 Topography ..................................................................................................... 10 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 10 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 10 Soils ............................................................................................................. 10 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 11 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 11 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 11 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 11 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 11 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 11 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 12 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 12 Socioeconomic Conditions ............................................................................. 12 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 13 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 13 Recreational, Scenic, and Esthetic Resources ................................................. 13 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 13 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 13 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 13 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 14 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 14 Surface Water.................................................................................................. 14 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 15 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 15 Groundwater ................................................................................................... 15 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 15 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 15 Water Quality .................................................................................................. 15 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 16 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 16 Wetland Resources.......................................................................................... 17 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 17 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 17 Fish and Wildlife............................................................................................. 17 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 18 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 18 Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 18 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 18 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 19 Transitional Habitat ........................................................................................ 19 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 19 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 19 Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E) ................................................... 19 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 22 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 23 Critical Habitat ................................................................................................ 23 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 23 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 23 Climate Change ............................................................................................... 23 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 23 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 24 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 24 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 24 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 24 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................... 24 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 24 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 25 Human Health, Safety, and Security ............................................................... 25 Impacts of Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 25 Impacts of No Action Alternative ....................................................... 25 List of Environmental Commitments................................................................ 25 Compliance with Environmental Statutes ........................................................ 26 Clean Water Act (CWA, Section 404) ............................................................ 26 Endangered Species Act (ESA) ...................................................................... 26 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)......................................................... 26 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) ................................................ 27 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) ............................................................... 27 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, Section 106) .............................. 27 Consultation and Coordination ......................................................................... 27 Public Involvement ........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Concho River & Upper Colorado River Basins
    CONCHO RIVER & UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASINS Brush Control Feasibility Study Prepared By The: UPPER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY In Cooperation with TEXAS STATE SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION BOARD and TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY December 2000 Cover Photograph: Rocky Creek located in Irion County, Texas following restoration though a comprehensive brush control program. Photo courtesy of United States Natural Resources Conservation Services. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The preparation of this report is the result of action by many state, federal and local entities and of many individuals dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of water resources within the State of Texas. This report is one of several funded by the Legislature of Texas to be implemented by the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board during FYE2000. We commend the Texas Legislature for its’ extraordinary insight and boldness in moving ahead with planning that will be critical to water supply provision in future decades. In particular, the efforts of State Representative Robert Junell are especially recognized for his vision in coordinating the initial feasibility study conducted on the North Concho River and his support for studies of additional watershed basins in Texas. The following individuals are recognized as having made substantial contributions to this study and preparation of this report: Arlan Youngblood Ben Wilde Bill Tullos Billy Williams Bob Buckley Bob Jennings Bob Northcutt Brent Murphy C. Wade Clifton C.J. Robinson Carl Schlinke David Wilson Don Davis Eddy Spurgin Edwin Garner Gary Askins Tommy Morrison Woody Anderson Gary Grogan Howard Morrison J.P. Bach James Moore Jessie Whitlow Jimmy Sterling Joe Dean Weatherby Joe Funk John Anderson John Walker Johnny Oswald Keith Collom Kevin Spreen Kevin Wagner Lad Lithicum Lisa Barker Marjorie Mathis Max S.
    [Show full text]
  • Occasional Papers Museum of Texas Tech University Number 265 21 December 2006
    Occasional Papers Museum of Texas Tech University Number 265 21 December 2006 THE MAMMALS OF SAN ANGELO STATE PARK, TOM GREEN COUNTY, TEXAS JOEL G. BRANT, ROBERT C. DOWLER, AND CARLA E. EBELING ABSTRACT A survey of the mammalian fauna of San Angelo State Park, Tom Green County, Texas, began in April 1999 and includes data collected through November 2005. Thirty-one species of native mammals, representing 7 orders and 18 families, were verified at the state park. The mammalian fauna at the state park is composed primarily of western Edwards Plateau mam- mals, which include many Chihuahuan species, and mammals with widespread distributions. The most abundant species of small mammal at the state park were Neotoma micropus and Peromyscus maniculatus. The total trap success for this study (1.5%) was lower than expected and may reflect the drought conditions experienced in this area during the study period. Key words: Edwards Plateau, mammal survey, San Angelo State Park, Texas, Tom Green County, zoogeography INTRODUCTION San Angelo State Park (SASP) is located about tributaries, and the North Concho River with its asso- 10 km (6 mi.) west of San Angelo in Tom Green ciated tributaries and O. C. Fisher Reservoir (Fig. 1). County, Texas, and is situated around O. C. Fisher The North Concho River creates a dispersal corridor Reservoir and the North Concho River (Figs. 1 and for eastern species to move west into west-central 2). This area is an ecotonal zone at the junction of Texas. two major biotic regions in Texas, the Edwards Pla- teau (Balconian) to the south and the Rolling Plains to The soils of SASP are composed mostly of the north (Blair 1950).
    [Show full text]
  • San Angelo Project History
    San Angelo Project Jennifer E. Zuniga Bureau of Reclamation 1999 Table of Contents The San Angelo Project.........................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................3 Project Authorization.....................................................4 Construction History .....................................................7 Post Construction History ................................................12 Settlement of Project Lands ...............................................16 Project Benefits and Use of Project Water ...................................16 Conclusion............................................................17 About the Author .............................................................17 Bibliography ................................................................18 Archival and Manuscript Collections .......................................18 Government Documents .................................................18 Articles...............................................................18 Books ................................................................18 Index ......................................................................19 1 The San Angelo Project The San Angelo Project is a multipurpose project in the Concho River Basin of west- central Texas. In a region historically known for intermittent droughts and floods, the project provides protection against both weather extremes.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Trends in Streamflow from Semiarid Rangelands
    Global Change Biology (2008) 14, 1676–1689, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01578.x Long-term trends in streamflow from semiarid rangelands: uncovering drivers of change BRADFORD P. WILCOX*, YUN HUANG* andJOHN W. WALKERw *Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA, wTexas AgriLIFE Research, San Angelo, TX 76901, USA Abstract In the last 100 years or so, desertification, degradation, and woody plant encroachment have altered huge tracts of semiarid rangelands. It is expected that the changes thus brought about significantly affect water balance in these regions; and in fact, at the headwater-catchment and smaller scales, such effects are reasonably well documented. For larger scales, however, there is surprisingly little documentation of hydrological change. In this paper, we evaluate the extent to which streamflow from large rangeland watersheds in central Texas has changed concurrent with the dramatic shifts in vegeta- tion cover (transition from pristine prairie to degraded grassland to woodland/savanna) that have taken place during the last century. Our study focused on the three watersheds that supply the major tributaries of the Concho River – those of the North Concho (3279 km2), the Middle Concho (5398 km2), and the South Concho (1070 km2). Using data from the period of record (1926–2005), we found that annual streamflow for the North Concho decreased by about 70% between 1960 and 2005. Not only did we find no downtrend in precipitation that might explain this reduced flow, we found no corre- sponding change in annual streamflow for the other two watersheds (which have more karst parent material).
    [Show full text]
  • Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
    Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication).
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 512 490-0057 FAX 490-0974 December 3, 2004 Wayne A. Lea Chief, Regulatory Branch Fort Worth District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 17300 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300 Consultation No. 2-15-F-2004-0242 Dear Mr. Lea: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the proposed water operations by the Colorado River Municipal Water District (District) on the Colorado and Concho rivers, located in Coleman, Concho, Coke, Tom Green, and Runnels counties. These actions are authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Permit Number 197900225, Ivie (Stacy) Reservoir project, pursuant to compliance with the Clean Water Act. The District and the Corps have indicated, through letters dated September 10, 2004, and September 13, 2004, respectively, that an emergency condition affecting human health and safety exists with this action. We have considered the effects of the proposed action on the federally listed threatened Concho water snake (Nerodia harteri paucimaculata) in accordance with formal interagency consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The emergency consultation provisions are contained within 50 CFR section 402.05 of the Interagency Regulations. Your July 8, 2004, request for reinitiating formal consultation was received on July 12, 2004. You designated District as your non-federal representative. This biological opinion is based on information provided in agency reports, telephone conversations, field investigations, and other sources of information.
    [Show full text]
  • A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion
    A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion June 2004 © The Nature Conservancy This document may be cited as follows: The Nature Conservancy. 2004. A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion. Edwards Plateau Ecoregional Planning Team, The Nature Conservancy, San Antonio, TX, USA. Acknowledgements Jasper, Dean Keddy-Hector, Jean Krejca, Clifton Ladd, Glen Longley, Dorothy Mattiza, Terry The results presented in this report would not have Maxwell, Pat McNeal, Bob O'Kennon, George been possible without the encouragement and Ozuna, Jackie Poole, Paula Power, Andy Price, assistance of many individuals and organizations. James Reddell, David Riskind, Chuck Sexton, Cliff Most of the day-to-day work in completing this Shackelford, Geary Shindel, Alisa Shull, Jason assessment was done by Jim Bergan, Bill Carr, David Singhurst, Jack Stanford, Sue Tracy, Paul Turner, O. Certain, Amalie Couvillion, Lee Elliott, Aliya William Van Auken, George Veni, and David Wolfe. Ercelawn, Mark Gallyoun, Steve Gilbert, Russell We apologize for any inadvertent omissions. McDowell, Wayne Ostlie, and Ryan Smith. Finally, essential external funding for this work This project also benefited significantly from the came from the Department of Defense and the U. S. involvement of several current and former Nature Army Corps of Engineers through the Legacy Grant Conservancy staff including: Craig Groves, Greg program. Without this financial support, many of the Lowe, Robert Potts, and Jim Sulentich. Thanks for critical steps in the planning process might not have the push and encouragement. Our understanding of ever been completed. Thank you. the conservation issues important to the Edwards Plateau was greatly improved through the knowledge and experiences shared by many Conservancy staff including Angela Anders, Gary Amaon, Paul Barwick, Paul Cavanagh, Dave Mehlman, Laura Sanchez, Dan Snodgrass, Steve Jester, Bea Harrison, Jim Harrison, and Nurani Hogue.
    [Show full text]
  • Camp Elizabeth, Sterling County, Texas
    Camp Elizabeth, Sterling County, Texas: . An Archaeological and Archival Investigation of a u.s. Army Subpost, and Evidence Supporting Its Use by the Military and "Buffalo Soldiers 11 Maureen Brown, Jose E. Zapata, and Bruce K. Moses with contributions by Anne A. Fox, C. Britt Bousman, I. Waymle Cox, and Cynthia L. Tennis Sponsored by: San Angelo District Texas Department of Transportation Archaeological Survey Report, No. 267 Center for Archaeological Research The University of Texas at San Antonio 1998 Camp Elizabeth, Sterling County, Texas: An Archaeological and Archival Investigation of a U.S. Army Subpost, and Evidence Supporting Its Use by the Military and "Buffalo Soldiers" Maureen Brown, Jose E. Zapata, and Bruce K. Moses with contributions by Anne A. Fox, C. Britt Bousman, L Waynne Cox, and Cynthia L. Tennis Robert J. Hard and C. Britt Bousman Principal Investigators Texas Antiquities Permit No. 1866 Archaeological Survey Report, No. 267 Center for Archaeological Research The University of Texas at San Antonio ©copyright 1998 The following information is provided in accordance with the General Rules of Practice and Procedure, Chapter 41.11 (Investigative Reports), Texas Antiquities Committee: 1. Type of investigation: Archaeological and archival mitigation 2. Project name: Camp Elizabeth 3. County: Sterling 4. Principal investigator: Robert J. Hard and C. Britt Bousman 5. Name and location of sponsoring agency: Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas 78701 6. Texas Antiquities Permit No.: 1866 7. Published by the Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio, 6900 N. Loop 1604 W., San Antonio, Texas 78249-0658, 1998 A list of publications offered by the Center for Archaeological Research is available.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5: Maintaining Species in the South 113 Chapter 5
    TERRE Chapter 5: Maintaining Species in the South 113 Chapter 5: S What conditions will be Maintaining Species TRIAL needed to maintain animal species associations in the South? in the South Margaret Katherine Trani (Griep) Southern Region, USDA Forest Service mammals of concern include the ■ Many reptiles and amphibians Key Findings Carolina and Virginia northern are long-lived and late maturing, flying squirrels, the river otter, and have restricted geographic ■ Geographic patterns of diversity and several rodents. ranges. Managing for these species in the South indicate that species ■ Twenty species of bats inhabit will require different strategies than richness is highest in Texas, Florida, the South. Four are listed as those in place for birds and mammals. North Carolina, and Georgia. Texas endangered: the gray bat, Indiana The paucity of monitoring data leads in the richness of mammals, bat, and Ozark and Virginia big- further inhibits their management. birds, and reptiles; North Carolina eared bats. Human disturbance leads in amphibian diversity. Texas to hibernation and maternity colonies dominates vertebrate richness by Introduction is a major factor in their decline. virtue of its large size and the variety of its ecosystems. ■ The South is the center of The biodiversity of the South is amphibian biodiversity in the ■ Loss of habitat is the primary impressive. Factors contributing to Nation. However, there are growing cause of endangerment of terrestrial that diversity include regional gradients concerns about amphibian declines. vertebrates. Forests, grasslands, in climate, geologic and edaphic site Potential causes include habitat shrublands, and wetlands have conditions, topographic variation, destruction, exotic species, water been converted to urban, industrial, natural disturbance processes, and pollution, ozone depletion leading and agricultural uses.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Size and Recovery Criteria of the Threatened Lake Erie Watersnake: Integrating Multiple Methods of Population Estimation
    Herpetological Monographs, 20, 2006, 83–104 E 2006 by The Herpetologists’ League, Inc. POPULATION SIZE AND RECOVERY CRITERIA OF THE THREATENED LAKE ERIE WATERSNAKE: INTEGRATING MULTIPLE METHODS OF POPULATION ESTIMATION 1 RICHARD B. KING ,ALEJANDRO QUERAL-REGIL, AND KRISTIN M. STANFORD Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA ABSTRACT: The Lake Erie watersnake, Nerodia sipedon insularum, occurs only in the island region of western Lake Erie, an area less than 40 km in diameter. Restricted geographic distribution and declining population size resulted in this snake’s classification as Threatened in the U.S. and Endangered in Ontario and Ohio. A combination of mark-recapture methods, capture rate information, and interpolation were used to estimate the current U.S. population size of Lake Erie watersnakes. A total of 121 point estimates were generated using both ‘closed’ population (Lincoln–Petersen, Schumacher’s) and ‘open’ population (Jolly– Seber, Bailey’s triple-catch) methods to analyze data collected from 1980–2004. Paired t-tests, comparing estimates obtained using alternative methods, were consistently non-significant. Although standard errors and confidence intervals of individual estimates were often large, standard errors of mean estimates, obtained by averaging across methods and sets of consecutive years, were markedly smaller, averaging 14% (range 5 5– 25%). These analyses demonstrate the utility of mark-recapture methods even in cases where sample size and recapture rates are low, as may often be true for threatened and endangered species. Another 60 estimates were obtained by applying the Lincoln–Petersen method to samples collected in consecutive years. As expected if recruitment occurs between samples, these estimates were significantly larger than those obtained using other methods.
    [Show full text]
  • North Concho River Improvement/Bank Stabilization Project
    North Concho River Improvement/Bank Stabilization Project FINAL REPORT Upper Colorado River Authority San Angelo, Texas 76903 Funding Source: Nonpoint Source Program CWA §319(h) Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract 582.12.10082 Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Significance and Background .............................................................................................. 2 Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Construction Methods ................................................................................................................ 4 Sediment Load Reduction Volumetric Calculation Methods ...................................................... 4 Bacteria Load Reduction Estimation Methods ............................................................................ 4 NO3-N and P Load Reduction Estimation Methods..................................................................... 5 Potential Ancillary Improvements in DO ..................................................................................... 5 Results and Observations ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Applicant Information Project Name and Location
    2017 NOMINATION FORM: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM Additional program information can be found in TxDOT's 2017 Transportation Set-Aside Program Guide http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/public-transportation/bicycle-pedestrian.html NOTE: All attachments must be submitted in letter-sized (8.5" x 11") format. APPLICANT INFORMATION 1. Project Sponsor Name (Only one entity can act as project sponsor) 2. Jurisdiction Population City of San Angelo 93,200 (Based on 2010 US Census) 3. Type of Organization/Agency/Authority (Select from dropdown below) Small Urban Enabling legislation/ legislative authority for Project Sponsor (if applicable): 4. Project Sponsor Contact Information (Authorized representative) Contact Person: Rick Weise Title: Assistant City Manager Mailing Address: 72 W. College Ave Physical Address: 72 W. College Ave. City: San Angelo City: San Angelo Zip Code: 76903 Zip Code: 76903 Contact's Phone: 325-657-4241 Entity's Main Phone: 325-657-4241 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cosatx.us PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION 5. Project Name Downtown San Angelo Connectivity Project 6. Eligible Project Activity (Select the activity from the dropdown list that best describes the project) 7. Project Location Information TxDOT District: Texas County: Project location: Describe using street name, adjacent waterway, or other identifying landmark. On or adj. to: Chadbourne Street From: W. Beauregard Avenue (ex. 1st Avenue) (ex. Main Street) To: Concho River (ex. 3rd Avenue) If project involves multiple locations, describe primary location below (latitude/longitude) and provide total project length. Create a complete list of all improvement locations using the descriptive limits and beginning and ending latitude/longitude.
    [Show full text]