DOCSLIB.ORG

An Evaluation of Spring Flows to Support the Upper San Marcos River Spring Ecosystem, Hays County, Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Evaluation of Spring Flows to Support the Upper San Marcos River Spring Ecosystem, Hays County, Texas An Evaluation of Spring Flows to Support the Upper San Marcos River Spring Ecosystem, Hays County, Texas Kenneth S. Saunders Kevin B. Mayes Tim A. Jurgensen Joseph F. Trungale Leroy J. Kleinsasser Karim Aziz Jacqueline Renée Fields Randall E. Moss River Studies Report No. 16 Resource Protection Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas August 2001 Table of Contents An Evaluation of Spring Flows to Support the Upper San Marcos River Spring Ecosystem, Hays County, Texas Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1 Methods................................................................................................................................................6 Results................................................................................................................................................12 Segment Description........................................................................................................................12 Mesohabitat Description....................................................................................................................13 Hydraulic Models ..............................................................................................................................15 Macrophyte Data Summaries .............................................................................................................15 Fish Data Summary ...........................................................................................................................16 Suitability Criteria ..............................................................................................................................16 Instream Habitat Model......................................................................................................................17 Habitat Time Series...........................................................................................................................18 Critical Depths for Z. texana ...............................................................................................................20 Water Quality....................................................................................................................................20 Discussion..........................................................................................................................................23 Historical Hydrology ..........................................................................................................................24 Rich Biodiversity...............................................................................................................................24 Dominance of Run-type Mesohabitats................................................................................................25 Water Quality....................................................................................................................................25 Recreation .......................................................................................................................................28 Spring Flow and Ecosystem Characteristics........................................................................................28 Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................................30 References.........................................................................................................................................30 i List of Figures FIGURE 1.—Daily mean flow based on spring flows recorded at USGS Gage #08170000 (San Marcos Springs at San Marcos, TX) for the period of record 26 May 1956–30 September 1998. Monthly average naturalized flows were developed for the period from January 1934–December 1989 (HDR Engineering, Inc. 1993). Daily median equal to 157 ft3/s based on USGS record. ....................................3 FIGURE 2.—Flow frequencies are based on daily spring flows recorded at USGS Gage #08170000 (San Marcos Springs at San Marcos, TX) for the period of record 26 May 1956–30 September 1998. Bars represent frequency in bins (5 ft3/s) and solid line represents cumulative frequency percentage. There are 15,468 daily records for this period. ......................................................................................3 FIGURE 3.—Watershed of the upper San Marcos River................................................................................4 FIGURE 4.—Study area of the upper San Marcos River................................................................................7 FIGURE 5.—Bio-grid sampling sites used for habitat availability and utilization data collection on the upper San Marcos River................................................................................................................................9 FIGURE 6.—Normalized wetted width in pool, riffle, and run mesohabitats in relation to discharge in the upper San Marcos River. Data based on all modeled cross-sections in the main channel (upper) and in the natural channel (lower). Main channel wetted width normalized to long-term median spring flow (1956-1998). Natural channel wetted width normalized to 140 ft3/s.......................................................15 FIGURE 7.—Zizania texana percent weighted usable area (% WUA) in relation to spring flow in the upper San Marcos River main channel segments..........................................................................................18 FIGURE 8.—Heteranthera liebmannii percent weighted usable area (% WUA) in relation to spring flow in the upper San Marcos River main channel segments...........................................................................18 FIGURE 9.—Vallisneria americana percent weighted usable area (%WUA) in relation to spring flow in the upper San Marcos River main channel segments. ...............................................................................18 FIGURE 10.—Sagittaria platyphylla percent weighted usable area (% WUA) in relation to spring flow in the upper San Marcos River main channel segments. ...............................................................................18 FIGURE 11.—Potamogeton illinoensis percent weighted usable area (%WUA) in relation to spring flow in the upper San Marcos River main channel segments...........................................................................18 FIGURE 12.—Spring flow ranges that contribute to above average habitat conditions based on 75th percentile %WUA frequencies calculated from habitat time series. Vertical lines represent 25th and 75th percentile spring flows...............................................................................................................19 FIGURE 13.—Spring flow ranges that contribute to average habitat conditions based on 25th-75th percentile %WUA frequencies calculated from habitat time series. Vertical lines represent 25th and 75th percentile spring flows...............................................................................................................19 FIGURE 14.—Spring flow ranges that contribute to below average habitat conditions based on 25th percentile %WUA frequencies calculated from habitat time series. Vertical lines represent 25th and 75th percentile spring flows...............................................................................................................19 FIGURE 15.—San Marcos River, temperature by station, measured hourly, Nov-1994 through May-1997. Horizontal line in box: sample median. Box top and bottom: 75th and 25th percentiles. Upper and lower fences: limits of data.................................................................................................................21 FIGURE 16.—San Marcos River, summer conditions, temperature by station, measured hourly, May-1996 through Jul-1996. Horizontal line in box: sample median. Box top and bottom: 75th and 25th percentiles. Upper and lower fences: limits of data. .............................................................................21 FIGURE 17.—San Marcos River, winter conditions, temperature by station, measured hourly, Dec-1995 through Feb-1996. Horizontal line in box: sample median. Box top and bottom: 75th and 25th percentiles. Upper and lower fences: limits of data. .............................................................................21 ii FIGURE 18.—San Marcos River, dissolved oxygen (mg/L) by station, measured hourly, Nov-1994 through May-1997. Horizontal line in box: sample median. Box top and bottom: 75th and 25th percentiles. Upper and lower fences: limits of data.................................................................................................22 FIGURE 19.—San Marcos River, summer conditions, dissolved oxygen by station, measured hourly, May- 1996 through Jul-1996. Horizontal line in box: sample median. Box top and bottom: 75th and 25th percentiles. Upper and lower fences: limits of data. .............................................................................22 FIGURE 20.—San Marcos River, winter conditions, dissolved oxygen by station, measured hourly, Dec- 1995 through Feb-1996. Horizontal line in box: sample median. Box top and bottom: 75th and 25th percentiles. Upper and lower fences: limits of data. .............................................................................22
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, and Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas, and San Antonio Bays Basin and Bay Area Stakeholders Committee
    Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, and Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas, and San Antonio Bays Basin and Bay Area Stakeholders Committee May 25, 2012 Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, & Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas, & San Antonio Bays Basin & Bay Area Stakeholders Committee (GSA BBASC) Work Plan for Adaptive Management Preliminary Scopes of Work May 25, 2012 May 10, 2012 The Honorable Troy Fraser, Co-Presiding Officer The Honorable Allan Ritter, Co-Presiding Officer Environmental Flows Advisory Group (EFAG) Mr. Zak Covar, Executive Director Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Dear Chairman Fraser, Chairman Ritter and Mr. Covar: Please accept this submittal of the Work Plan for Adaptive Management (Work Plan) from the Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, and Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas and San Antonio Bays Basin and Bay Area Stakeholders Committee (BBASC). The BBASC has offered a comprehensive list of study efforts and activities that will provide additional information for future environmental flow rulemaking as well as expand knowledge on the ecosystems of the rivers and bays within our basin. The BBASC Work Plan is prioritized in three tiers, with the Tier 1 recommendations listed in specific priority order. Study efforts and activities listed in Tier 2 are presented as a higher priority than those items listed in Tier 3; however, within the two tiers the efforts are not prioritized. The BBASC preferred to present prioritization in this manner to highlight the studies and activities it identified as most important in the immediate term without discouraging potential sponsoring or funding entities interested in advancing efforts within the other tiers.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Lavaca Basin Highlights Clean Rivers Program Report
    2018 Lavaca Basin Highlights Clean Rivers Program Report Bald Eagle at LNRA Volkmer Barn Prepared by the Lavaca-Navidad River Authority (LNRA) PO Box 429, Edna, TX 77957 PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY The preparation of this report was financed in part through funding from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. PO Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711 1 LAVACA BASIN HIGHLIGHTS REPORT 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acronyms 3 2017 Highlights 4 Water Quality Monitoring 14 Water Quality Conditions 19 Stakeholder Participation and Public Outreach 22 LNRA Web Site 25 Figures: Figure 1 – Doppler image of Hurricane Harvey at Landfall 5 Figure 2 – Navidad River Below Spillway 6 Figure 3 – Water Released from Palmetto Bend Dam 6 Figure 4 – Sample Location on Rocky Creek 8 Figure 5 – Texana Cove Before Weevil Release 10 Figure 6 – Texana Cove 2 Years After Weevil Release 11 Figure 7 – Adult Salvinia Weevil 11 Figure 8 - Map of Impaired Streams in the Lavaca River 13 Figure 9 - FY 2017 Lavaca Basin Monitoring Sites 16 Figure 10 - Nature Camp 22 Tables: Table 1 – Monitoring Sites for FY 2017 17 2 Acronyms AU Assessment Unit BMP Best Management Practice(s) CFS Cubic feet per second CFU Colony Forming Unit CRP Clean Rivers Program DO Dissolved Oxygen (in water) EPA Environmental Protection Agency IR Integrated Report LNRA Lavaca Navidad River Authority mg/L Milligrams per Liter PPT Parts Per Thousand RUAA Recreational Use Attainability Analysis SH State Highway SWQM Surface Water Quality Monitoring TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TDS Total Dissolved Solids TIAER The Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research TPWD Texas Parks & Wildlife TWRI Texas Water Resources Institute UAA Use Attainability Analysis USDA United States Agriculture Department USGS United States Geological Survey WQS Water Quality Standards WPP Watershed Protection Plan 3 2017 Basin Highlights • The Lavaca-Navidad River Basin receives an average annual rainfall of approximately 42 inches per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Management Program 2013-2018 Appendix A
    Appendix A 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) As required under Sections 303(d) and 304(a) of the federal Clean Water Act, this list identifies the water bodies in or bordering Texas for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards, and for which the associated pollutants are suitable for measurement by maximum daily load. In addition, the TCEQ also develops a schedule identifying Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that will be initiated in the next two years for priority impaired waters. Issuance of permits to discharge into 303(d)-listed water bodies is described in the TCEQ regulatory guidance document Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (January 2003, RG-194). Impairments are limited to the geographic area described by the Assessment Unit and identified with a six or seven-digit AU_ID. A TMDL for each impaired parameter will be developed to allocate pollutant loads from contributing sources that affect the parameter of concern in each Assessment Unit. The TMDL will be identified and counted using a six or seven-digit AU_ID. Water Quality permits that are issued before a TMDL is approved will not increase pollutant loading that would contribute to the impairment identified for the Assessment Unit. Explanation of Column Headings SegID and Name: The unique identifier (SegID), segment name, and location of the water body. The SegID may be one of two types of numbers. The first type is a classified segment number (4 digits, e.g., 0218), as defined in Appendix A of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS).
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Matching the Hatch for the TX Hill Country[2]
    MATCHING THE HATCH FOR THE TX HILL COUNTRY Tying and choosing proper fly patterns to increase your success on the water. Matt Bennett Fly Geek Custom Flies [email protected] Why should you listen to me? • Fishing the Austin area since 2008 • LWFF – 2012 through 2015 • Fly Geek Custom Flies – 2015 – now • Past Austin Fly Fishers President • Current TX Council Vice President Overview of the TX Hill Country Llano River near Kingsland Guadalupe River at Lazy L&L Brushy Creek near Round Rock Characteristics of Hill Country Rivers ¨ There’s a bunch! Guadalupe, Comal, San Marcos, Colorado, Llano, Blanco, Nueces, Frio, Sabinal, Concho, Lampasas and associated feeder creeks ¨ Majority are shallow and wadeable in stretches ¨ Extremely Clear Water (some clearer than others) ¨ Sandy, limestone and granite bottoms with lots of granite boulders/outcroppings ¨ Extreme flooding events YEARLY on average. Sept 11, 1952 – Lake Travis rises 57 feet in 14 hours. 23-26” of rain Guadalupe River, July 17,1987 Llano River / Lake LBJ – Nov. 4 2000 Why does flooding matter to fishing? ¨ Because of the almost-annual flooding / drought cycle of our rivers, they are constantly changing ¨ Holes get filled in and dug out, gravel gets moved around, banks get undercut ¨ We have to constantly relearn our fisheries to stay successful on the water ¨ Choosing the right flies with the proper triggers is an important part of your success on the water Overview of our forage Baitfish, crawfish, insects, and other terrestrials Why is forage important? ¨ #1 rule of all fishing – know your forage! ¨ Knowing the common forage where you fish increases your chances of success as it clues you in on what flies you should be fishing ¨ Forage base will vary between water bodies, time of year, species targeted, and more, as well as year-to-year.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting December 7, 2018 10 A.M
    Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting December 7, 2018 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. CRP Coordinated Monitoring Meeting Texas Logperch (Percina carbonaria) https://cms.lcra.org/sch edule.aspx?basin=19& FY=2019 2 Segment 1911 – Upper San Antonio River 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 12909 SAR at Mulberry 12899 SAR at Padre16731 Road SAR Upstream 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 21547 SAR at VFW of the Medina River Confluence 12879 SAR at SH 97 Pterygoplichthys sp. 3 Segment 1901 – Lower San Antonio River 16992 Cabeza Creek FM 2043 16580 SAR Conquista12792 SAR Pacific RR SE Crossing Goliad 12790 SAR at FM 2506 Pterygoplichthys sp. 4 Segment 1905 – Upper Medina River 21631 UMR Mayan 12830 UMR Old English Ranch Crossing 21631 UMR Mayan Ranch 12832 UMR FM 470 5 Segment 1904 Medina Lake & 1909 Medina Diversion Lake Medina Diversion Lake Medina Lake 6 Segment 1903 Lower Medina River 12824 MR CR 2615 14200 MR CR 484 12811 MR FH 1937 Near Losoya 7 Segment 1908 Upper Cibolo Creek 1285720821 UCC NorthrupIH10 Park 15126 UCC Downstream Menger CK 8 Segment 1913 Mid Cibolo Creek 12924 Mid 14212 Mid Cibolo Cibolo Creek Upstream WWTP Schaeffer Road 9 Segment 1902 Lower Cibolo Creek 12802 Lower Cibolo Creek FM 541 12741 Martinez Creek21755 Gable Upstream FM Road 537 14197 Scull Crossing 10 Segment 1910 Salado Creek 12861 Salado Creek Southton 12870 Gembler 14929 Comanche Park 11 Segment 1912 Medio Creek 12916 Hidden Valley Campground 12735 Medio Creek US 90W 12 Segment 1907 Upper Leon Creek & 1906 Lower Leon Creek 12851 Upper Leon Creek Raymond Russel Park 14198 Upstream Leon Creek
    [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]
  • Pedernales Watershed Strategic Conservation Prioritization
    PEDERNALES WATERSHED STRATEGIC CONSERVATION PRIORITIZATION The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment, Texas State University Hill Country Alliance June 2018 Produced by Siglo Group Pedernales Watershed Strategic Conservation Prioritization Project Team: Jonathan Ogren, Ben Prince, Doug Wierman, and Kaitlin Tasker www.meadowscenter.txstate.edu, [email protected], 512.245.9200 Inspiring research and leadership that ensure clean, abundant water for the environment and all humanity. www.hillcountryalliance.org, [email protected], 512.263.9147 Bringing together an ever-expanding alliance of groups throughout a multi-county region of Central Texas with the long- term objective of preserving open spaces, water supply, water quality and the unique character of the Texas Hill Country. www.siglogroup.com, [email protected], 512.699.5986 Integrating Land Use and Natural Systems: Siglo Group uses the power of geographic information to help clients integre- ate land use with natural systems. Siglo specializes in conservation planning, regional analysis, site assessment, cartogra- phy, and spatial analysis. Their work has contributed to land being set aside in perpetuity for conservation, policies, and projects that work towards more sustainable land use, good development, and a greater understanding of the attributes and value of land. Contributors: Blue Creek Consulting, [email protected], 512.826.2729 Cover Image. The Pedernales River. Courtesy of The Hill Country Alliance, www.hillcountryalliance.org 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION 6 STUDY AREA 8 METHODS 12 FINDINGS 20 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS 22 SOURCES 26 1 Pedernales Watershed Strategic Conservation Prioritization PROJECT GOALS 1. Use the best data and analysis methods available to inform good decision making, for the efficientefficient useuse ofof hydrological,hydrological, cultural,cultural, andand ecologicalecological resourcesresources associatedassociated withwith conservationconservation inin thethe PedernalesPedernales Watershed.Watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • San Marcos River Data Report
    San Marcos River Data Report February 2011 Prepared by: Texas Stream Team River Systems Institute Texas State University – San Marcos This report was prepared in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and relevant Texas Stream Team Program Partners. Funding for the Texas Stream Team is provided by a grant from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Water Quality Parameters .......................................................................................................................... 2 Water Temperature ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Dissolved Oxygen .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Conductivity ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 pH ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Water Clarity ..........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Substantive Degree Program Proposal
    Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Proposal for a Doctoral Program Directions: This form requires signatures of (1) the Chief Executive Officer, certifying adequacy of funding for the new program; (2) the Chief Executive Officer, acknowledging agreement to reimburse consultants’ costs; (3) a member of the Board of Regents (or designee), certifying Board of Regents approval for Coordinating Board consideration; or, if applicable, (4) a member of the Board of Regents (or designee), certifying that criteria have been met for Commissioner consideration. Additional information and instructions are available in the Guidelines for Institutions Submitting Proposals for New Doctoral Programs found on the Coordinating Board web site, www.thecb.state.tx.us/newprogramscertificates. Institution officials should also refer to Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 5.46, Criteria for New Doctoral Programs. Note: Institutions should first notify the Coordinating Board of their intent to request the proposed doctoral program before submitting a proposal. Notification may consist of a letter sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Academic Quality and Workforce, stating the title, CIP code, and degree designation of the doctoral program, and the anticipated date of submission of the proposal. Information: Contact the Division of Academic Quality and Workforce at (512) 427-6200. Administrative Information 1. Institution Name and Accountability Group: Texas State University, Doctoral University-Higher Research Activity 2. Program Name: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) major in Applied Anthropology 3. Proposed CIP Code: CIP Code: 45020100 CIP Code Title: Anthropology CIP Code Definition: A program that focuses on the systematic study of human beings, their antecedents and related primates, and their cultural behavior and institutions, in comparative perspective.
    [Show full text]