Master Plan Calhoun County, Texas
1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many participants gave generously of their time, knowledge and resources to make this master plan a true community vision. Special thanks are given to the following contributors: Michael Pfeifer, Calhoun County Judge Kenneth Finster, Calhoun County Commissioner Precinct #4 Neil Fritsch, Calhoun County Commissioner Precinct #3 Vern Lyssy, Calhoun County Commissioner Precinct #2 Roger Galvan, Calhoun County Commissioner Precinct #1 Justin Bates, National Park Service – Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program Rus Miller, National Park Service – Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program Kathy Smartt, Smartt Grants Chris Enders, St. Edward’s University Kelly McNab, St. Edward’s University John Findeisen, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Brent Ortego, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Jason Singhurst, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Wilfred Korth, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Thomas Hill, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Norma Friedrich
Natural Resource Advisory Committee Members Mary Belle Meitzen, Calhoun County Historical Commission Todd Merendino, Ducks Unlimited Tommy Hill, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Wilfred Korth, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Tommy Schulte, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Todd Votteler, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Jeff Crosby, Guadalupe-Blanco River Trust Dan Alonso, San Antonio Bay Foundation James Dodson, San Antonio Bay Partnership Mark Dumesnil, The Nature Conservancy Kirk Feuerbacher, The Nature Conservancy Norman Boyd, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department John Findeisen, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Kevin Kriegel, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Brent Ortego, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Len Polasek, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Jason Singhurst, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Beau Hardegree, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Citizen Advisory Committee Members Shannon Salyer Janie Waghorne Jim Ward
2
June Cantrell Rhonda Cummins Dwana Finster
Bill Harvey Diane Nunley Susan Riley
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ABOUT GREEN LAKE
Green Lake County Park is Calhoun County’s newest and largest county park. Purchased in December 2012 and located on State Highway 35, approximately 13 miles southwest of Port Lavaca, this 6,434-acre park is comprised of a diverse assemblage of coastal prairie, salt flats, and woodlands that supports a wide range of plant and animal species and the largest natural freshwater lake entirely in Texas. Almost six million Texans live within a 3-4 hour drive of Green Lake. The park will be a gathering place for residents, a place to learn about local ecosystems, and a regional draw for tourists and visitors. Once developed, the property will be a major asset for Calhoun County. The Green Lake property contains unique types of habitat that are not normally seen along the Texas Coast. An area of shell-based bottomland habitat is a previously un-described vegetation type
3
for Texas and the Gulf Coast. Sections along the lake shore consist of Coastal Bend Slope Forest, a rare forest type that is a blend of eastern deciduous forests from eastern Texas and influences from the riparian woodlands of central and southern Texas. Two unique Coastal Bend Ox-bows and four natural marsh ponds can also be found on the property. Finding all these unusual features at one location makes Green Lake County Park a unique destination for future park visitors. Bird counts have been conducted regularly at Green Lake since April 2013. To date, these counts have identified over 190 species of birds on the property, including the endangered Whooping Crane, Piping Plover, and Bald Eagle. An island rookery supports at least 200 pairs of nesting birds each year. The dense marsh and thick shrubland habitat are utilized by hundreds of marsh and songbirds, and many different migratory bird species pass through the property during spring and fall migrations.
PLANNING PROCESS Starting in 2013, the County formed partnerships with the National Park Service’s Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program, local citizens, and environmental stakeholder groups to develop a vision for the park. In 2014, nearly 400 county residents, business owners, and frequent visitors to Calhoun County responded to a written survey on their hopes and concerns for the park. Insights gained from that survey were used to help guide the planning process and to prioritize project phasing. The survey results showed a strong preference for activities that an entire family could enjoy together, such as fishing, camping, and picnicking. Boating was listed as a preferred fishing option and as a way to explore the park. Wildlife viewing and education were highly valued over hiking, biking, and hunting. A group picnic shelter, a fishing pier, and a campground area were the most requested amenities. In addition to gathering public input, Calhoun County also worked closely with a group of natural resource advisors to ensure that plans for public access did not jeopardize the site’s unique natural resources. These advisors helped identify sensitive habitat areas and invasive species threats, and provided guidance on the placement and management of park facilities. Their insights helped craft development proposals that will both protect and enhance the habitats found at Green Lake. This master plan was thus developed by members of the community, stakeholder representatives, county staff, and natural resource advisors to serve as a guide for providing the recreational opportunities that Calhoun County residents desire while also protecting and showcasing Green Lake’s many natural assets.
4
PLAN VISION AND GOALS Green Lake will be a gathering place for residents, a place to learn about local ecosystems, and a regional draw for tourists and visitors. It will provide a diversity of recreational opportunities while also protecting and enhancing the property’s unique natural resources. Calhoun County will work closely with partner organizations to ensure that the property is managed in accordance with the best available science and current best management practices. Once developed, the property will be a major asset for Calhoun County and will further enhance residents’ quality of life.
Goal 1:
In providing public access, Calhoun County will ensure that the property’s unique natural and cultural features are protected, preserved, and enhanced.
Goal 2: Calhoun County will provide
recreational opportunities that meet the needs of residents and visitors while blending in seamlessly with the natural landscape.
Goal 3: Calhoun County will work to
develop and refine plans for the property that are sustainable within funding and management limitations.
5
“Green Lake will be a gathering place for residents, a place to learn about local ecosystems, and a regional draw for tourists and visitors.�
6
ON
LI
M
IT
ED
RE
CR
EA TI
This plan provides a conceptual framework for the development of Green Lake. The recommendations here divide the property into three zones, based on the goals and prescribed uses for these distinct areas. The three zones and their proposed improvements include:
ZO NE
PARK CONCEPT PLAN
PARK / VISITOR FACILITIES ZONE NATURAL RESOURCE/WILDLIFE MGMT ZONE
• Natural Resource And Wildlife Management Zone
550 acres of primarily lowland areas where natural resource management is the primary activity. These areas will have limited low-impact visitor use through activities like hiking and bank fishing. Recommended improvements include: • Expansion of existing bird island and/or construction of additional bird islands to create rookery opportunities • Creation of managed waterfowl impoundments that will expand habitat for waterfowl • Development of walking trails and minimal visitor facilities, such as boardwalks, bird blinds, and/or bank fishing access points • Management of wildlife and invasive species to protect and enhance habitat
• Park And Visitor Facilities Zone
• Development of a 100-site campground with tent and RV sites, restrooms, and other suitable infrastructure • Construction of a group picnic shelter and picnicking areas, with shade shelters, barbecue grills, and other amenities • Development of a new boat ramp, fishing pier, and associated parking facilities • Placement of bird blinds, observation towers, and other amenities that will highlight the incredible resources at Green Lake • Creation of walking trails highlighting unique and picturesque parts of the property
• Limited Recreation Zone
80 acres where limited recreational access will be the primary activity. This linear parkland along the levee separating Green Lake and the Victoria Barge Canal holds promise for limited, low-impact recreation such as walking trails, small picnicking areas, and bank fishing. Recommended improvements include:
• Development of walking trails, viewing areas, and bank fishing access points that will allow visitors to 150 acres of upland grassland where visitor use and experience both Green Lake and the Victoria Barge developed facilities will be concentrated. This area will Canal be the most intensively developed part of the park, where most visitors will spend a significant portion of time. The • Construction of a roadway and small parking area along the southern end of the levee, to provide zone will be home to campgrounds, picnic areas, fishing improved access to this zone pier and boat ramp, parking, and a potential visitor or • Development of picnic areas with shade structures, education center. Recommended improvements include: barbecue grills, and other amenities
7
WHAT’S NEXT?
Building a county park at Green Lake will be a longterm undertaking. This plan is meant to provide guidance throughout that process. As work is completed to open the property to the public, these plans may change to better reflect conditions on the ground. However, the overarching vision and goals of this document will continue to guide the County’s efforts.
To aid in implementation, the final sections of this plan provide recommendations on how park amenities can be phased in as funding is secured. They highlight potential funding sources and provide recommendations on management policy and park operations. Perhaps most importantly, they also include information about the many partners who can help support Calhoun County as it takes on this ambitious project.
For more information about Green Lake, visit
www.greenlaketx.com
8
PARK DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
9
ABOUT CALHOUN COUNTY, TEXAS
Located along the Texas mid-coast between Houston and Corpus Christi, Calhoun County spreads over 1,000 square miles along San Antonio, Espiritu Santo, Lavaca, and Matagorda Bays. The county is home to 21,797 residents (2014 estimate), making up roughly 7,900 households. As a primarily rural county, Calhoun County has a population density of ~ 42 people per square mile. Major towns in the county include Port Lavaca, Seadrift, and Port O’Connor. Victoria (population 65,098) is the nearest major city, approximately 15 miles north of the county line.
Park Des cription and Background
GREEN LAKE OVERVIEW Green Lake is located near the western edge of Calhoun County, approximately 13 miles southwest of Port Lavaca, near the intersection of State Highway 35 and the Victoria Barge Canal. The lake was initially formed as a northern inlet of San Antonio Bay. As the Guadalupe River shifted westward about 2,500 years ago, it deposited silt that eventually created a natural delta.
By 2,200 years ago, this delta extended completely across the bay, severing the northern extension from the bay system and forming the present-day Green Lake, the largest natural freshwater lake located entirely in Texas. The Green Lake property is bordered by the Victoria Barge Canal to the north and east; by State Hwy 35 to the south; and by
Green Lake County Park Boundary
private property and Guadalupe Blanco-River Trust property to the south and west. The water in Green Lake is mostly overflow from the Guadalupe River. The bottom is generally flat and averages about 4 feet (1.2 m) in depth. The lake is about 13 miles (21 km) in circumference and about 2 miles (3.2 km) wide. Whenever the lake rises above average height due to river overflow or excessive rain, the lake overflows into Hog and Goff Bayous, which feed the San Antonio Bay system. As part of the Guadalupe River Delta, Green Lake affects the health of Mission Lake, Guadalupe Bay, and San Antonio Bay. Freshwater inflow, both in terms of quality and quantity, are crucial to the health of the bay system and to the extensive oyster, shrimp, and finfish commercial fisheries in the bays.
yellow-crowned night heron susan riley
10
Park Des cription and Background
PROPERTY HISTORY Martin De Le贸n established a colony in the Green Lake area in 1824 when Texas was still a part of Mexico. De Le贸n was one of several empresarios in Texas who were granted colonization contracts under the Mexican government. The colonists established claims near the bluff of the lake, but ignored the lake itself and the Guadalupe River bottomland. After the war with Mexico, everyone who had fought for Texas was given free land. The Traylor Ranch was formed as a result of this benefit and received the unclaimed land that surrounded Green Lake. A surveyor named L. A. Gueringer was hired in 1912 to partition off Traylor Ranch. While doing the survey, Gueringer noticed there was no state patent on the lake, which created a vacancy in the survey. Gueringer applied to the Texas General Land Office for a patent for the vacancy, but did not receive a response. He therefore divided the land into two sections and included their measurements in his final survey. The north section became part of the Welder Ranch.
bill harvey
Vacant land normally belongs to the State, and in 1917 state officials sued the Welder Ranch for ownership of the lake bottomland. The Welders claimed ownership based on the Stream Act, which said that if a stream ran dry, the adjacent landowners owned to the middle of the stream. Green Lake frequently ran dry during this time period. There were even stories of an abandoned steam plow in the lake, caught by a sudden rise of the river. The court ruled that the Act did not apply to a water body of this size. The lake was declared state
residents at green lake, norma friedrich
11
property and put up for sale. The Kenyon Estate eventually purchased it. Kenyon heirs owned the lake until 1968, when the Indianola Company bought the lake and surrounding areas for investment purposes. The Indianola Company was liquidated in 1983, but retained Green Lake and sections of adjoining land. Calhoun County obtained two grants from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service under its Coastal Impact Assistance Program to purchase Green Lake. The Indianola Liquidated Trust sold the property to Calhoun County in December 2012 for $3.5 million. The purchase consisted of 6,434 acres: 5,420 acres of open water, 864 acres of ephemerally inundated lowlands and 150 acres of wooded/coastal prairie uplands.
Park Des cription and Background
OTHER CONSERVATION AND RECREATION RESOURCES
• Matagorda Island Wildlife Management Area (Texas General Land Office and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Consisting of 56,688 acres of offshore barrier island and bayside marshes, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department manages this property as the Matagorda Island National Wildlife Refuge and a State Natural Area. The 38-mile island varies in width from less than a mile to about four and a half miles, and supports a wide variety of migratory birds, white-tailed deer, alligators and other wildlife.
Calhoun County has a number of significant natural and recreational resources within or adjacent to its guadalupe delta wma boundaries. These include: • Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department). Comprised of four units totaling ~7,400 acres, this wildlife management area protects important freshwater marshes. Public hunting is permitted for waterfowl and migratory shore birds, alligators, and other wetland • Powderhorn Ranch (Texas Parks wildlife. and Wildlife Foundation). Purchased in August 2014, the 17,351-acre ranch is expected to become a state aransas national wildlife refuge park and wildlife management area. Comprised of unspoiled forests of • Aransas National Wildlife coastal live oak and thousands of Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife acres of freshwater wetlands and Service). The winter home of the salt marshes, the property is perfect only wild flock of endangered habitat for hunting, fishing, hiking, Whooping Cranes, the refuge is matagorda island paddling and bird watching. surrounded by several shallow bays Green Lake Proximity Map GreenPark Lake Park Proximity Map that support a range of habitat types, including marshes, oak savannah, sandy prairies, and oak woodlands. Victoria These coastal woodlots provide important habitat for many species of wildlife, including neotropical birds migrating between North and Central America. Port Lavaca aR ac
La v
ive
r
Gu
a
da l
e up r
12
San Ant o
ve Ri
• Guadalupe-Blanco River Trust-owned land. The Trust owns approximately 640 acres of coastal habitat, riparian forest and floodplain to the south of Green Lake. The property is comprised of approximately 93% palustrine wetlands and four miles of riparian stream.
ni o River
Seadrift
Legend Green Lake Park
San Antonio Bay
Guadalupe Delta WMA Aransas National Wildlife Refuge Powderhorn Ranch
¯
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
0
5
10
20 Miles
Kelly McNab National Park Service 10/20/2015 Source: ESRI Streaming Map - TWDB Datum: NAD 1983 State Plane Texas South Central
Other Conservation and Recreation...continued
Park Des cription and Background
• Welder Flats Wildlife Management Area (Texas General Land Office). This 1,480-acre preserve contains submerged aquatic vegetation, saltwater marshes, mud flats, ponds, and lagoons. The Texas General Land Office leases the property to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for management as a preserve. Public hunting and fishing are allowed. Green Lake Soil Types
NATURAL RESOURCES The 6,434-acre Green Lake property is a diverse assemblage of coastal prairie, salt flats, woodlands, and open water that supports a wide range of plant and animal species. The ~1,000 acres of land on the property can be divided into three relatively distinct sections: (1) The southwestern edge of the property, fronting on State Hwy 35, includes 800+ acres of seasonally inundated floodplain salt flats and wetlands, overlayed Topography of Green Lake Park
on Austwell and Velasco clay soils. These areas are approximately 3-5 feet above sea level. (2) The property includes a dry upland area, approximately 35 feet above sea level and ~150 acres in size, immediately east of the salt flats. This area is characterized by a ~30-foot tall bluff, running roughly north-south, rising up from the bottomland. This area is overlayed primarily on Laewest clay and Dacosta-Contee complex soils, with a small area of Telferner Fine Sandy Loam. (3) The third and final portion of the property is a ~2.7-mile long levee that separates Green Lake and the Victoria Barge Canal, along the property’s eastern boundary. The levee ranges from 100-400 feet wide with a caliche, single-lane roadway along its spine.
13
Park Des cription and Background
Green Lake Hydrology Drainage Area
Green Lake Hydrology GBRA
bill harvey
HYDROLOGY Green Lake is characterized by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality as a natural depression. This “natural depression” can hold up to 20,000 acre-feet of water, but is estimated to contain approximately 16,000 to 18,000 acre-feet in recent years. Although the drainage area of the lake historically was ~56 square miles, the construction of the Victoria Barge Canal in the early 1960s reduced it to only 19 square miles. See the image above for a map of the lake’s current drainage area. The reduction in the lake’s watershed has not significantly impacted inflows to the lake, however. The majority of these inflows are still contributed by overflow from the Guadalupe River at river
14
levels over 6,000 cfs. Periodic overflows allow the lake to maintain a fairly consistent elevation, except during periods of infrequent overflow from the river, extreme droughts, and floods. Anecdotes suggest that Green Lake has run completely dry at points in the past. During times of flooding, Green Lake overflows out of a depression along the southeast shore of the lake and into either the GBRA diversion canal or Goff Bayou. See Appendix A for further information.
Park Des cription and Background
PLANT COMMUNITIES The Green Lake property includes a diverse assemblage of plant communities. While the majority of the property is a large, shallow lake with minimal vegetation (due to turbidity and wind-driven mixing), the ~1,000 acres of land include coastal prairie, salt flats and marshes, and scattered woodlands. These assemblages are driven by the range of soil types, slopes, soil moisture, and the historic use of the property. In March 2013, Jason Singhurst and Dr. Brent Ortego with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department conducted an ecological survey of Green Lake terrestrial plant communities. According to this study (included as Appendix B), major plant assemblages on the property include:
Floodplain Salt Flats, Marsh Ponds, and Oxbow Lakes
Coastal Bend Chenier A small area of Coastal Bend Chenier runs along the southeastern edge of the lake and separates the lowlying floodplain from the lake. This habitat type sits atop a linear shell ridge that forms a natural terrace. The shell-based bottomland habitat was previously an un-described vegetation type for Texas and the Gulf Coast--making this a unique destination for Green Lake visitors. This plant community is dominated by bottomland hardwoods and follows the majority of the southern lake edge. The dominant species include green ash, sugarberry, black willow, great leadtree, sweet acacia, and Jerusalem thorn. The major understory species include palmetto, Carolina wolfberry, lime pricklyash, eastern baccharis, false indigo bush, and bushy seaside tansy.
15
Much of the terrestrial property at Green Lake is a low-lying floodplain, bisected by Goff Bayou, which lies between the lake and State Highway 35. This area is extremely flat, infrequently flooded, and interspersed with salt flats (due to hypersaline soils). The plant community is dominated by gulf cordgrass, but also includes shoregrass, saltgrass, wolfberry, and seaside daisy. Four natural marsh ponds occur in this landscape. These isolated wetlands are dominated by panicgrass, cutgrass, sand spikesedge, and California bulrush. The property’s large floodplain also includes two unique Coastal Bend Ox-bows. These wetland environments typically contain permanent freshwater, and are thus utilized by a range of wildlife, including birds, amphibians, and invertebrates. These communities are dominated by green ash, black willow, swamp privet, button bush, and palmetto. photo cred: salt flats (bottom right) bill harvey
Park Des cription and Background
LiVe Oak Sand Terrace
The property has one small area of Live Oak Sand Terrace, located roughly in the center of the 150acre upland area. This habitat type, overlaid on fine sandy soils, is dominated by coastal live oak, sugarberry, anacua, and gum bully.
Spoil Unit The upland area of the property also includes a large spoil unit, leftover from construction and dredging of the Victoria Barge Canal. This large area is characterized by a high berm that rings its perimeter. Currently, the spoil unit has been invaded by a dense shrubland thicket dominated by mesquite, huisache, Jerusalem thorn, and eastern baccharis.
16
Coastal Bend Slope Forest
Coastal Praire Uplands
This rare forest type is a blend of eastern deciduous forests from eastern Texas and influences from the riparian woodlands of central and southern Texas. On the Green Lake property, Coastal Bend Slope Forests form a linear band along the northeastern side of the lake, on erosive slopes of 3-8%. They are extremely diverse and provide important habitat for migrating Neotropical bird species.
Coastal prairie would have historically made up the highest proportion of the Green Lake property’s upland areas. However, because of extensive grazing on the property, these areas are now dominated by non-native grasses, specifically K.R. bluestem (and a smaller portion with Bermudagrass). These uplands are also covered with early successional shrubs such as mesquite, huisache, desert olive, spiny hackberry, lie prickly ash, Brazilian bluewood, Texas persimmon, and gummy bumelia.
This plant community is dominated by cedar elm, anacua, coastal live oak, sugarberry, and gum bully. The understory woody plant layer is dominated by lime pricklyash, Texas torchwood, Texas persimmon, desert olive, blackbrush, red mulberry, and infrequent occurrence of bois d’ arc.
Woody plant control and/ or prescribed burning will be necessary in order to maintain these open prairies and prevent conversion to a thicket shrubland.
Park Des cription and Background
Type Native floating vegetation Native emergent vegetation
Aquatic Vegetation
Exotic vegetation Exotic vegetation
Species American lotus, Spatterdock Bulrush, Cattail, Common reed, Sawgrass Water lettuce Water hyacinth
Because of wave action and turbidity, Green Lake does not have significant aquatic vegetation. However, it does have approximately ~275 acres of native and exotic vegetation, mostly around its margins. The following chart describes aquatic vegetation found at Green Lake: Key Habitat Boundaries
17
Acres 211 42.6 15.1 .5
Park Des cription and Background
INVASIVE SPECIES The management of invasive plant species—both terrestrial and aquatic—is important to the ecological health and integrity of the Green Lake property. Green Lake’s diversity of habitat types provides opportunities for a number of exotic, invasive species to colonize the property. These invasives (both native and exotic) could significantly alter many of the property’s unique habitat types. Huisache and mesquite, for example, will completely colonize the property’s open prairies if left unchecked. Several studies were done to catalog the extent of the invasive species threat at Green Lake. The Invasive Species Management Plan highlights the major threats and methods for controlling them. See Appendix C for further information. Primary invasive species threats on the property include:
Species
Common Name
Chinaberry Tree
Plant Type
Habitat
Spread
Control Method
Tree
Roadsides, Disturbed Areas
Seeds Roots Sprouts
Basal Bark Cut Stump (Triclopyr)
Basal Bark Cut Stump (Triclopyr)
Stem Spray Leaf Spray (Triclopyr)
Melia azedarach
Chinese Tallow
Tree
Open Fields
Seeds Roots Sprouts
Huisache
Thorny Shrub
Grasslands, Disturbed Areas
Seeds Basal Sprouts
Triadica sebifera
Acacia farnesiana photo credits: chinaberry, paolo fisicaro
18
Park Des cription and Background
INVASIVE SPECIES Species
Common Name
Black Mimosa
Plant Type
Thorny Shrub
Habitat
Spread
Control Method
Floodplains
Seeds Basal Sprouts
Basal Bark Cut Stump (Picloram)
Grasslands
Seeds Basal Sprouts
Root Plowing Basal Bark (Garlon Ultra, Picloram)
Seeds
Prescribed Burning Mowning Herbicide (Picloram)
Roots and seeds
Prescibed Burning Herbicide (Glyphosphate)
Seeds
Mowning Prescribed Burning Herbicide (Glyphosphate)
Seed
Tilling Herbicide (Glyphosphate)
Mimosa pigra
Honey Mesquite
Thorny Shrub
Prosopis glandulosa
Rose Hedge
Thorny Shrub
Grasslands
Rosa bracteata
Austrailian Bluestem
Grass
Roadsides
Bothriochloa bladhii Kings Ranch (KR) Bluestem
Grass
Roadsides
Bothriochloa ischaemum
Johnson grass
Grass
Roadsides
Sorghum halepense photo credits: black mimosa,wibowo djatmiko; mesquite, don a.w. carlson; rose hedge, cillas; austrailian
19
bluestem, macleay grass man; kr bluestem, stefan lefnaer; johnson grass, matt lavin
Park Des cription and Background
TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC FAUNA
Bird Species Bird counts have been conducted regularly at Green Lake since April 2013. To date, these counts have identified over 190 species of birds on the property. Endangered Whooping Crane and Piping Plover were both found using Green Lake as a stopping area after a recent drought caused a lowering of the lake level to less than one foot. Often, Whooping Crane can be spotted on their way to the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. Whooping Crane annually migrate between Canada and Texas. They begin their fall migration south to Texas in mid-September and begin their spring migration north to Canada in late March or early April.
Ot h e r b i r d s s e e n o n t h e p r o p e r t y in recent c ounts include:
Grand Whitefronted Goose
Snow Goose
Balck Bellied Whistling Duck
Gadwall
American Wigeon
Blue-winged Teal
bay-breasted warbler
belted kingfisher
red bellied woodpecker
great egret
Redhead
Lesser Scaup
Surf Scoter
Pied-billed Grebe
Eared Grebe
Am. White Pelican
Anhinga
Am. Bittern
Least Bittern
Little Blue Heron
Tricolored Heron
Cattle Egret
White Ibis
White-faced Ibis
Roseate Spoonbill
White-tailed Kite
Bald Eagle
Northrn Harrier
Broad-winged Hawk
Swainson’s Hawk
White-tailed Hawk
King Rail
Virginia Rail
Sora
brown-headed cowbirds
lincoln’s sparrow
roseate spoonbill
Sandhill Crane
20
great horned owl
Black-necked Stilt
American Golden Plover
Park Des cription and Background Important or notable bird habitat on the property include: Floodplain, Marsh Ponds, and Oxbows The dense moist soil plant communities of the floodplain support high populations of Marsh and Sedge Wrens, sparrows, and rails. Waterfowl occur in ponds and drainages within these wetlands. The floodplain also supports a variety of raptors, which include Bald Eagle, Osprey, Northern Harrier, Red-shouldered Hawk, and Red-tailed Hawk. Resource experts have advised that portions of these floodplain areas could be successfully converted into waterfowl impoundments. The lowland wetlands (including marsh ponds and Coastal Bend Ox-bows) are utilized by ducks and a variety of marsh birds, indicating that they have value for wildlife. Small strips of trees bordering Goff Bayou and the GBRA diversion canal provide habitat for songbirds. Riparian woodlands within the floodplain are used extensively by passerines both as residents and as migrants. Open Water, Lake Island, and Shoreline Green Lake is generally too turbid to support submergent vegetation, but still holds a low density of waterbirds, including waterfowl, pelicans, cormorants, gulls, terns, and grebe. Due to the size of the lake, the low density equates to a large number of waterbirds overall. The lake margin, which is made up mostly of cutgrass and bullwhip, supports a few rails and other marsh birds.
spotted sandpiper
white ibis
One of the most interesting birding sites on the property is an old oil well pad that creates a ~0.4-acre island. This island serves as rookery that supports at least 200 pairs of nesting birds each year, and is usually surrounded by alligators during breeding season. Upland Prairie and Woodlands While non-native grasslands (including mottes and scattered trees) make up the largest portion of the upland area, these areas primarily support resident birds in low densities. The Coastal Bend Slope Forest that rings the eastern edge of the lake is the primary area for migrating songbirds on the property.
black-necked stilt
bird photos submitted by susan riley, brent ortego, and bill harvey
21
Park Des cription and Background
Terrestrial Species
yellow garden spider nine-banded armadillo
feral hogs
gray fox
Terrestrial species present at the Green Lake property include feral hogs, white-tailed deer, coyotes, armadillos, rodents, raccoons, javelina, rabbits, hares and other species common to the Guadalupe River delta and nearby coastal prairies and marshes.
photo credits: bill harvey, us fws
22
Park Des cription and Background
Aquatic Species
american alligator
The Green Lake property benefits from access to both freshwater Green Lake and the saltwater Victoria Barge Canal, providing fishing opportunities that are unique in Calhoun County. The primary freshwater sport fish in the lake include blue catfish, channel catfish, white crappie, alligator gar, sunfish, and largemouth bass. Primary saltwater sport fish include red drum, spotted seatrout, and southern flounder. The lake also has a large population of alligators.
crawfish
“The Green Lake property benefits from access to both freshwater Green Lake and the saltwater Victoria Barge Canal...� 23
Park Des cription and Background Existing Network of Roads and Trails- Green Lake Park
existing infrastructure
The property currently has a well and septic field, sized for single-family use. Additionally, an elevated 20’ x 24’ temporary office structure and a small restroom have been placed on the bluff. These temporary structures will be removed after permanent buildings and visitor infrastructure are constructed. The property also includes an extensive network of formal and informal roadways. The majority of these are made up of single-lane caliche roads, and many are partially impassable during times of flooding or heavy rain.
existing entrance
24
temporary structure
master Planning process
PLANNING PROCESS In August 2013, Calhoun County, assisted by Smartt Grants, applied for planning assistance from the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program of the National Park Service. The RTCA program provides free planning assistance to community-led natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation projects across the nation. Because of the project’s goals to expand recreational access, protect natural resources, and engage local community members, Calhoun County was awarded RTCA assistance beginning in March 2014.
The planning process that followed sought to: (1) establish the site constraints and necessary limits needed to protect the property’s natural resources; (2) understand the recreational needs of Calhoun County residents, visitors, and business owners; (3) determine potential site designs that provide recreational amenities at Green Lake while protecting natural resources; and (4) identify the management and implementation strategies necessary to build and operate Green Lake as a county park.
25
master pl anning pro cess
Citizen and Natural Resource Advisory Committees Two informal advisory committees were established at the outset of the planning process in order to guide planning efforts, evaluate proposals, and represent the wide range of stakeholders that have an interest in, or expertise related to, Green Lake. The Natural Resource Advisory Committee was comprised of representatives of local park or conservation organizations, scientists and natural resource experts, and other individuals who could provide guidance on the management of Green Lake’s abundant natural resources. Individuals who participated with this group included: • Mary Belle Meitzen, Calhoun County Historical Commission • Todd Merendino, Ducks Unlimited • Tommy Hill, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority • Wilfred Korth, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority • Tommy Schulte, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority • Todd Votteler, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority • Jeff Crosby, Guadalupe-Blanco River Trust • Dan Alonso, San Antonio Bay Foundation • James Dodson, San Antonio Bay Partnership • Mark Dumesnil, The Nature Conservancy • Kirk Feuerbacher, The Nature Conservancy • Norman Boyd, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department • John Findeisen, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department • Kevin Kriegel, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department • Brent Ortego, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department • Len Polasek, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department • Jason Singhurst, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department • Beau Hardegree, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
26
The Citizen Advisory Committee was established to provide a diverse range of viewpoints by potential future park users. The Citizen Advisory Committee was critical for establishing the vision, goals, and objectives for the planning process and both determining and overseeing public engagement for the park planning effort. Individuals who participated with this group included: • June Cantrell • Rhonda Cummins • Dwana Finster • Bill Harvey • Diane Nunley • Susan Riley • Shannon Salyer • Janie Waghorne • Jim Ward
master pl anning pro cess
“Once developed, the property will be a major asset for Calhoun County and will further enhance residents’ quality of life.”
bill harvey
PARK VISION Almost six million Texans live within a 3-4 hour drive of Green Lake. Public wildlife areas such as Powderhorn Ranch, Matagorda Island Wildlife Management Area, Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area, and Welder Flats Coastal Preserve are located nearby. However, these properties are managed by Texas Parks & Wildlife Department and entrance is often restricted.
27
Green Lake will be the largest park in Calhoun County. The park will be a gathering place for residents, a place to learn about local ecosystems, and a regional draw for tourists and visitors. It will provide a diversity of recreational opportunities while also protecting and enhancing the property’s unique natural resources. Calhoun County will work closely with partner organizations to ensure that the property is managed in accordance with the best available science and current best management practices. Once developed, the property will be a major asset for Calhoun County and will further enhance residents’ quality of life.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goal 1:
In providing public access, ensure that the property’s unique natural and cultural features are protected, preserved, and enhanced. Objectives: • Determine the property’s key natural assets and identify opportunities to improve them. • Work with partner organizations to develop plans for plant and animal management on the property. • Identify opportunities for restoration and enhancement of targeted areas.
master pl anning pro cess
Goals and Objectives continued
Goal 2: Provide recreational opportunities that meet the needs of residents and visitors while blending in seamlessly with the natural landscape.
Objectives: • Work with residents to prioritize the types of activities and development they want to see on the site. • Develop site design plans that provide recreational amenities while minimally disturbing priority natural areas. • Identify potential user conflicts and develop management strategies that minimize them.
Goal 3:
Develop plans for the property that are sustainable within funding and management limitations.
Objectives: • Identify funding sources and strategies for park development, maintenance, and ongoing operations. • Ensure that all proposed development could be maintained over time.
PUBLIC OUTREACHCOMMUNITY SURVEY Public input and community support are critical in ensuring that the park is sustainably developed to provide for visitor enjoyment, and that the health and integrity of the property is preserved for future generations. In 2014, nearly 400 county residents, business owners, and frequent visitors to Calhoun County responded to a written survey on their hopes and concerns for the park. Most respondents were long-term residents who expected to visit Green Lake between once per month and 5-8 times per year. Insights gained from this survey were used to help guide the planning process and to prioritize project phasing. The following reflects the data obtained from the survey.
W h at i s yo u r r e l at i o n s h i p w i t h Calhoun C ount y? Ple ase check all that apply. Answer Options Resident of Calhoun County Work in Calhoun County Frequent visitor to Calhoun County Calhoun County business owner Other (please specify) Answered Question Skipped Question
28
Response Percent 81.7% 34.0% 14.0% 10.8% 8%
Response Count 303 126 52 40 29 371 18
master pl anning pro cess I f yo u a r e a c o u n t y r es i d e n t, how long have you lived in Calhoun C ount y? Answer Options 20+ years 11-20 years 3-10 years 0-2 years Not a county resident Answered Question Skipped Question
Response Percent 57.4% 9.8% 8.7% 6.1% 18.0%
Response Count 217 37 33 23 68 378 11
Preferred Activities and Amenities
To best determine the type of infrastructure that should be considered in developing the park, respondents were asked to indicate their preference for a variety of recreational activities and to identify the amenities they were most likely to utilize. The results showed a strong preference for activities that an entire family could enjoy together, such as fishing, camping, and picnicking. Boating was listed as a preferred fishing option and as a way to explore the park. Wildlife viewing and education were highly valued over hiking, biking, hunting, and off-road vehicle use. A group picnic shelter, a fishing pier, and a campground area were the most requested amenities.
To b es t d e t e r m i n e w h i c h pa r k a menities are important to include at green l ake, ple a s e r at e t h e fo l l o w i n g a m e n i ties based on how important e ach amenitiy is to you. Answer Options Group picnic Shelter Fishing pier Campground Boat Ramp Observation deck/ observation towers Outdoor education classroom Wildlife viewing blinds Answered Question Skipped Question
29
Not Somewhat Important Important 28 39 27 48 35 48 34 47
Important 126 128 116 125
Very Important 162 161 155 142
Response Count 354 363 354 347
36
89
131
112
364
49
68
120
110
346
67
96
123
69
355 383 6
master pl anning pro cess
Fees and Funding Options
In order to reduce the tax burden on local residents, it is necessary to identify viable alternative funding options, including grants, donations, and fees for the construction and maintenance of park amenities. The majority of respondents favored supplementary funding from state and federal grants, but also agreed that fees should be charged for specific services such as camping, picnic pavilion rental, and boat launches. Collection of entrance fees received less support (66%) despite a willingness to pay an average of $6.00 per vehicle. Both residents and non-residents indicated a willingness to pay similar amounts for park entrance and amenity fees. Requests were made to consider senior citizen discounts and picnic pavilion refundable deposits when determining fee amounts.
w h i c h o f t h e fo l l o w i n g f u n ding s ourced should be used for Green L ake? P l e a s e C h ec k a l l t h e s o u r ces you think c ount y officials should use? Answer Options Grants (state, federal, private) Fees for certain uses/activities, such as a camping fee or boating ramp fee Donations Entrance fees County funds (general funds, capital improvement funds, etc.) Revenue from hunting on the property Other Answered Question Skipped Question
Response Percent 84%
Response Count 324
77.8%
298
75.2% 66.3%
288 254
55.6%
213
47.0%
180
8.6%
33 383 6
to m i n i m i z e t h e b u r d e n o n l o c a l ta xpayers, s ome fees may be required. Ple ase indic at e t h e m a x i m u m a m o u n t o f d oll ars you would be willing to pay for e ach use. Answer Options Grants (state, federal, private) Fees for certain uses/activities, such as a camping fee or boating ramp fee Donations Entrance fees County funds (general funds, capital improvement funds, etc.) Revenue from hunting on the property Other Answered Question Skipped Question
30
Response Percent 84%
Response Count 324
77.8%
298
75.2% 66.3%
288 254
55.6%
213
47.0%
180
8.6%
33 383 6
master pl anning pro cess
Comments and Concerns
Ensuring that as many interests as possible were represented in the development of the park was the primary intention of the survey. Respondents were given the opportunity to express any concerns or opinions that the Calhoun County Commissioners Court should consider when developing Green Lake into a county park. Most comments focused on the desire for the long-term success of the park and for assurance that a clear planning process was established to develop an affordable tax and fee structure, to conserve the natural integrity of the property, and to address the ongoing need for maintaining cleanliness and enforcing regulations. Many respondents were worried about trash accumulation and visitors disrespecting the area by “not keeping the park clean.” Safety was also mentioned as a key concern due to the proximity of chemical plant release zones and aggressive wildlife
such as alligators, hogs, and snakes. Hunting was discouraged; in the words of one respondent: “I love hunting, but I don't think a park where families go would be safe for hunting.” Some respondents felt that it was important to offer a variety of amenities for groups to enjoy and to promote stewardship by highlighting the cultural and natural history of the park. Many called for the establishment of an educational center and a large pavilion to promote these aims. Off-road vehicle use received mixed comments. Concerns were voiced regarding the impact to the environment as a result of this use and for the overall visitor experience for those not interested in this activity.
PUBLIC OUTREACH – COMMUNITY MEETINGS Two public meetings were held in November 2014 to present findings from the community survey, answer questions, and gather additional input from members of the public. Approximately 60 people attended the meetings. Questions and concerns addressed at the meeting included the timeline of developing Green Lake, the types of uses and activities that would be allowed on the property, the need to provide interpretation of the site’s history and natural resources, and possible funding and implementation of site improvements.
31
PROPOSED PARK CONCEPT PLAN • LIMITED RECREATION ZONE 80 acres where limited recreational access will be the primary activity. The linear parkland along the levee separating Green Lake and the Victoria Barge Canal holds promise for limited, low-impact recreation such as walking trails, small picnicking areas, and bank fishing. Some improvements are recommended to improve access to this area of the property. (Purple area on map)
The following concept plan is based on the extensive input and guidance provided by members of the community, survey respondents, stakeholder representatives, county staff, and natural resource advisors. The concepts proposed below will provide the recreational opportunities that Calhoun County residents desire while also protecting and showcasing Green Lake’s many natural assets. The concept plan divides the property into three distinct zones, based on the goals and prescribed uses for each area. Those zones include:
• PARK AND VISITOR FACILITIES ZONE 150 acres of upland areas where visitor use and developed facilities will be concentrated. These areas will be home to campgrounds, picnic areas, fishing pier and boat ramp, parking, and a potential visitor or education center. This will be the most developed area of the property. (Light orange area on map)
32
ZO ON AT I CR E RE ED IT LIM
550 acres of primarily lowland areas where natural resource management is the primary activity. These areas will have limited low-impact visitor use through activities like hiking and bank fishing. Primary improvements will aim to protect and enhance habitat for wildlife and waterfowl. (Green area on map)
NE
• NATURAL RESOURCE AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ZONE
PARK / VISITOR FACILITIES ZONE NATURAL RESOURCE/WILDLIFE MGMT ZONE
Natural Resource and Wildlife Management Zone
Park and Visitor Facilities Zone
Limited Recreation Zone
proposed park c oncept pl an
NATURAL RESOURCE AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ZONE Natural Resource and Wildlife Management Zone
Much of the land surrounding Green Lake is made up of seasonally inundated floodplains, salt flats, and wetlands. These areas are often wet (or submerged), have limited vehicular access (without significant improvements), and offer few locations for year-round visitor facilities. Because of this, these ~550 acres are proposed to maximize habitat protection and enhancement and provide limited visitor services. Key activities and proposals for the Natural Resource and Wildlife Management Zone include:
Creation of Waterfowl Impoundments
Wetland acreage has continued to decline across the Gulf Coast states, with coastal marsh loss in Texas (combined with the disappearance of rice farming and years of drought) impacting critical wintering grounds for a number of waterfowl species. Because of its size, turbidity, and minimal aquatic vegetation, Green Lake has limited value for these species. The floodplain salt flats that make up much of the ~550 acre Natural Resource and Wildlife Management Zone could be utilized for the creation of waterfowl impoundments, also known as moist soil units or moist soil impoundments. These impoundments are made up of levees and water control structures that allow land managers to flood targeted areas during fall and winter and dewater them during spring and summer.
33
ducks unlimited
Creation of Waterfowl Impoundments continued
proposed park c oncept pl an
The process of flooding and dewatering provides foraging habitat, cover, and rich food sources for waterfowl and other waterbirds. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, “Sites too wet for consistent production of row crops or establishment of upland vegetation, yet too dry for the management of aquatic plants, are especially well suited for development of moist-soil impoundments (Fredrickson & Taylor 1982).”1 Much of the lowlands at Green Lake fit this characterization.
usace
According to several sources, the optimum impoundment size is 5 to 100 acres, with a maximum individual impoundment size of 400 acres. Smaller units are easier to manage because of the ability to precisely manage water levels. Constructing a number of independent impoundments (minimum of five within a 10-mile radius) allows for the complex to be managed for a diversity of waterfowl. Creation of moist soil units would create important waterfowl habitat, enhance the natural resources on the property, and provide a valuable draw for visitors to the park. Construction of levees could also provide opportunities for year-round hiking trails that could provide visitor access to the property’s extensive lowlands.
“Creation of moist soil units would create important waterfowl habitat, enhance the natural resources on the property, and provide a valuable draw for visitors to the park.” 34
1 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel99-11.pdf
usace
proposed park c oncept pl an
bird island, brent ortego
Creation of Artificial Rookery Islands
The property’s small oil pad island is one of its most interesting birding locations. Natural resource advisors for the project recommend enhancing or expanding the existing bird island, and potentially creating additional islands. Both actions would further enhance the bird habitat on the property. This plan proposes (1) the addition of wooden platforms adjacent to the existing ~0.4-acre bird island, and (2) the creation of additional small islands at an equal or greater distance from shore. Further study is needed to determine the location, size, and construction methods for each of these habitats; partnerships with other governmental or non-profit partners are recommended to ensure that projects are cost effective, easy to manage, and function ecologically. Around each of these potential rookeries, care will need to be taken to minimize human disturbance from boat traffic. See the “Management” section for further discussion on managing boating on Green Lake.
bird nesting structure
Limited Marsh Terracing
Green Lake’s large size, turbidity, and typical wave action prevent marsh vegetation from establishing in much of the shallow lake. In some water bodies, such as nearby Alligator Slide Lake (in Guadalupe Delta WMA), marsh terracing has been effectively used to reduce wave action, decrease turbidity, and create conditions favorable for the establishment of marsh vegetation. Marsh terracing involves the construction of earthen terraces in the lake. Terraces are approximately 40 feet wide at their base, 10 feet wide at the top, and typically sit approximately two feet above water level. They are
35
generally constructed in a “V” shape to ensure calm water on the downwind side of the terrace, regardless of wind direction. Conversations with natural resource advisors suggest that Green Lake’s size makes a significant amount of marsh terracing infeasible. However, the southwestern area of the lake provides an opportunity to utilize this practice to create additional marsh habitat. This plan recommends the creation of marsh terraces to block the southwestern corner of the lake.
proposed park c oncept pl an Marsh terracing in Alligator Slide Lake on Gaudalupe Delta WMA
us fws
These terraces will slow wave action in this sheltered cove and allow the establishment of additional marsh vegetation that will attract a wide range of waterfowl. Additional planning and design will be required to ensure that terraces are built to withstand Green Lake’s considerable wave action.
Walking Trails and Other Improvements
Public access to the Natural Resource and Wildlife Management Zone will be primarily by foot. Hiking trails throughout this area will need to be constructed in a way that reflects the areas moist soils, sensitive habitat areas, and intermittent flooding. Destinations could include the Coastal Bend Chenier along the lakeshore, and viewpoints of Goff Bayou or other wetland areas that provide good birding opportunities. Boardwalks or other elevated walking/viewing structures could be considered in limited areas. Other minimal improvements that could be considered in this zone include benches or picnic tables in the Coastal Bend Chenier area, and bird blinds/bird observation areas near wetland and riparian bird habitat. levee trail
36
proposed park c oncept pl an
Wildlife and Invasive Species Management
Invasive species management and wildlife population control will be important components for maintaining the Natural Resource and Wildlife Management Zone. Special attention should be paid to fast-spreading invasive species, such as black mimosa, which can have a strong negative impact on Green Lake’s lowlands. Managing wildlife, including the lake’s alligator population and a significant number of feral hogs, is an important task that requires further study. Natural resource advisors have recommended that allowing limited archery hunting for hogs and annual harvesting of alligators can be compatible with public access and recreation at Green Lake. However, before Calhoun County allows these activities, management strategies such as temporary park closures should be considered in order to ensure the safety and comfort of park visitors. For more information, see the “Management” section of this plan.
PARK AND VISITOR FACILITIES ZONE The ~150-acre upland abutting State Highway 35 is a largely open and flat area that was heavily impacted by grazing and other previous uses of the property. This previous impact, along with its easy access from the highway, makes it an ideal location for development of more intensive visitor facilities and activities. Key activities and proposals for the Park and Visitor Facilities Zone include: Park and Visitor Facilities Zone
37
proposed park c oncept pl an
Property Entrance
The main access to the Green Lake property will continue to be off State Highway 35, just east of the transition zone between uplands and lowlands. Improvements will likely be required to improve traffic safety at the entrance. The Texas Department of Transportation has reviewed the site, and recommends the addition of two 615-foot deceleration (turn) lanes in the existing right of way, as well as one 923-foot acceleration lane.
existing entrance
Entry Station
In order to control access to the property, collect fees, and provide information about activities and facilities, a small entry station is recommended. Depending on staffing levels, expected visitor traffic, and county needs, this can range in size from a one-person kiosk to a larger visitor center-type building with attached restrooms, small gift shop, office space, etc. The entry station should be located far enough into the property to allow vehicles to queue without spilling over onto SH-35. entrance station example, bob dollins
Campground
Both community survey respondents and project advisors see a strong need for a campground at Green Lake. A campground will provide a number of benefits to the future park: it will attract visitors to the property year-round, provide an around-the-clock presence by county staff and/or campground hosts, and it will provide a potential revenue stream for the park. The Park and Visitor Facilities Zone proposed in this master plan includes a campground of approximately 30 to 40 acres on a portion of the upland area. This campground, subject to further site planning, is projected to contain between 75-100 sites. It is recommended that these sites include a mixture of RV and tent sites, with utility hookups available at all RV sites and at a select number of tent sites. Calhoun County may also want to consider including a limited number of screened camping shelters.
38
The area identified for the campground is characterized by isolated trees, mottes, and shrubs. To the greatest extent possible, these natural features will be used to screen campsites from each other and provide a sense of privacy. Multiple campground loops are recommended in order to best utilize the natural features of the site.
proposed park c oncept pl an Campground Infrastructure
back-in campsite example, wilfred korth
Construction of a campground at Green Lake will require significant additional infrastructure. In addition to roadways and campsites, the campground will require utilities, utility hookups, toilet/ shower buildings, dump station(s), and waste management facilities. Most campgrounds consist of a series of one-way loop roads (approximately 12’ in width), with two basic site designs—back-in and pull-through sites—arranged around each loop. Ideal designs provide approximately 70’-100’ between sites, and use natural features to screen each site from its neighbors. Sites should include approximately 500 square feet or more of “living area”—space for a picnic table, fire ring, and tent pads, in addition to the parking pad. Group spaces should be larger and have parking for at least four vehicles. In general, pull-through sites are preferred for RVs and trailers. Pull-through sites range from 55’-100’ in length, with turning radii that support today’s larger RVs. Pull through sites are typically placed on the right side of the road so that the RV entry faces into the campsite.
39
pull-through campsite example, blm
Back-in sites can be used for both tent sites and RVs, and typically can be constructed for lower cost. These sites should be angled 45-60 degrees from the roadway, with a parking area that is 16’ wide at a minimum. The parking spur should have a 20’ long parking pad, at a minimum (for tent/car camping sites), and can have a parking pad upward of 75’ long (for larger trailers). A mixture of parking spur lengths reduces costs, but limits the number of spaces available to RVs. Screened shelters should be considered at some sites to provide camping options during the extended mosquito/fly seasons on the property.
proposed park c oncept pl an
Campground Infrastructure continued
“A campground will provide a number of benefits to the future park: it will attract visitors to the property year-round, provide an around-the-clock presence by county staff and/or campground hosts, and it will provide a potential revenue stream for the park.�
This plan recommends that the campground includes a mix of both non-utility and full-hookup sites. All pullthrough sites should have full hookups for RV camping. The exact mixture of sites should be determined based on projected use and financial sustainability. Most guidelines recommend 8 to 12 toilets (plus additional urinals) for a 100-site campground. These facilities should ideally be located within 1,000 feet of each campsite, which often necessitates multiple buildings. Including showers in at least one auxiliary building often increases the attractiveness of a campground for potential visitors. The associated septic system will have to be sized accordingly. Each campsite within the campground should also have easy access to potable water. A campground of this size will likely require approval and operation as a transient non-community water system, regulated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
screened shelter example, tpwd
Group Picnic Shelter and Picnicking Areas
A group picnic shelter was identified by survey respondents as the most desired facility at the future park; most respondents also identified picnicking as one the activities they would most enjoy. Because of this, the Park and Visitor Facilities Zone includes several proposals for picnicking and group use.
picnic pavillion example, tpwd
40
proposed park c oncept pl an Picnic Area A main picnicking area is proposed for the area at the top of the slope, southeast of the existing boat ramp. This area provides copious shade in an open, park-like setting with easy access to the lake. This picnic area would utilize parking associated with the boat ramp and future visitor center, and could serve as a key trailhead location in the Park and Visitor Facilities Zone. Each of these picnic locations could include a shaded picnic shelter and barbecue grill; trash receptacles should be placed evenly throughout the area. Calhoun County could consider some screened shelters that could be rented to park visitors. Consideration should be given to including a play structure or natural play area in this area to provide additional opportunities for recreation on the property.
Group Shelter A future picnic pavilion/group shelter (available for rent) is proposed for one of two locations: (1) near the high point on the property or (2) at the former house site. Both sites provide advantages. The high point site, to the west of the entrance roadway, provides a breezy location that would be largely separated from other park uses and would provide privacy for family gatherings, weddings, and other events. Targeted clearing could open up limited views to the lowlands. The former house site, on the other hand, offers expansive views over the lowlands and a pavilion/group shelter there could serve as an informal visitor center and classroom space. However, given the proximity of other visitor activities (trails, observation tower, picnic area), this site would provide more limited privacy. A large group picnic shelter/pavilion should have access to electricity, water, and nearby restrooms. It should also be screened to provide for year-round use.
shaded picnic table example
“A large group picnic shelter/ pavilion should have access to electricity, water, and nearby restrooms. It should also be screened to provide for yearround use.� screened group shelter examples, tpwd
41
proposed park c oncept pl an
Boat Ramp and Parking Area
Boating access to the lake was another key priority for residents and stakeholders. Currently, the property has a small boat ramp on a peninsula contained within the Park and Visitor Facilities Zone. While this boat ramp is functional, the narrow peninsula is poorly suited for the trailer traffic that is projected for public use of Green Lake. A new boat ramp is thus proposed near the base of this peninsula, on the western side. Construction of a boat ramp in this location will potentially require dredging or partial widening of the peninsula, in order to ensure adequate water depth and suitable staging areas for launching. Partially widening the peninsula will provide additional space to separate fishing pier users (see fishing pier, below) from trailer traffic. The utmost care must be taken to minimize conflicts between boat trailers and other park users in this location. Best practices for boat ramp design specify that the number of trailer parking spaces generally limits capacity and dictates the number of boat ramp lanes needed. A parking lot of 30 spaces (up to 50 spaces) can be serviced by a single-lane boat ramp, while a parking lot of 50 spaces (up to 100 spaces) requires two lanes. Trailer parking spaces should be roughly 12’ wide by 40’ long, with minimal grades (2-5%) and cross-slopes (1-2%). Travel lanes in these parking areas are generally 25-30 feet in width, with one-way traffic circulation.
two lane boat ramp, afishionados
Parking areas for the boat ramp are proposed on the slopes just south of the peninsula, in open areas on both sides of the existing access road. The proposed parking areas should include normal car parking spaces in addition to trailer spaces, as this area will also be used by park day users. Design of these parking areas should respect existing vegetation and seek to minimize tree removal.
Fishing Pier
A fishing pier was highly desired by Calhoun County residents and other survey respondents. A long pier would provide excellent fishing access to the lake, while minimizing the number of fishing points required along the shore. A fishing pier is proposed to extend beyond the boat ramp peninsula, towards the existing rookery island. Combined with the nearby boat ramp, this will create unique fishing opportunities for visitors. The pier will also provide outstanding views of the rookery
42
island. Because of this, the pier should have a large platform at its terminus to minimize conflicts between fishermen, birders, and other visitors. Fishing pier users will park in the boat ramp parking area, just south of the base of the peninsula. A separated walking trail is needed to direct visitors from the parking area to the pier and separate these pedestrians from vehicle and boat traffic.
Fishing Pier continued
proposed park c oncept pl an
The intensity of use at the boat ramp, fishing pier, and adjacent picnic area will require Calhoun County to consider additional amenities in this area. Restrooms should be located nearby, and the County may want to consider installing fish cleaning stations, trash collection, benches, or other amenities.
Observation Tower
The eastern edge of the Park and Visitor Facilities zone provides outstanding views across the lowlands, the southern edge of Green Lake, and the existing rookery island. To capitalize and expand upon these views, an observation tower is proposed at this location. The observation tower will provide opportunities to view the proposed rookery islands, observe waterfowl in the proposed moist soil impoundments, and take in a commanding view of all 5,000+ acres of Green Lake.
The ultimate use of this portion of the site will depend on the level of development desired by Calhoun County. The most highly developed scenario, a small visitor center and park headquarters, could provide interpretive exhibits, classroom space, and a small bait or gift shop, as well as restroom facilities for day use visitors. A less intensive option would see this site developed with a signature picnic pavilion/group Visitor/Education Center shelter, also with associated restrooms. This structure (or Pavilion) could serve dual purpose as educational/classroom The former house site provides an outstanding location space for weekday school field trips. A small addition to for a visitor/education center, park headquarters, or the structure could provide space for park operations, signature picnic pavilion/group shelter. Locating key such as a visitor information booth or fee collection facilities in this location will allow Calhoun County to station. greet park visitors, offer information about the park, guide visitors to park amenities, and educate guests Both options would include a small parking area along about this unique property. From this location, visitors the access road south of the proposed site. This parking have ready access to all of Green Lake’s activities and area would also serve the adjacent picnic area and trails. amenities, and expansive views of the lake and lowlands.
signature picnic pavilion example, fort gordon
43
proposed park c oncept pl an
Trail System
A trail system is an integral part of the Park and Visitor Facilities Zone. This trail network will provide convenient walking routes between all of the zone’s key destinations, including the campground, boat ramp, picnic area, and visitor/education center. From the boat ramp zone, trails will wind along and through the slope forest that rings the south end of the lake. These trails will be designed to maximize opportunities to view the Neotropical bird species that use this forest during the spring and fall migration. A ~2 mile loop would wind through this habitat before climbing to the top of the spoil unit, cutting across open grasslands to the live oak sand terrace, then winding through mottes and shrub back to the main picnic area. This particular trail route would provide opportunities to educate visitors about Green Lake, its various habitats, and its history. The trail could eventually be extended into the Limited Recreation Zone. Park and Visitor Facilities Zone Trail System
Maintenance Area
A maintenance area is needed to manage operations at this large park. Other, similar-sized parks have maintenance areas that range in size from less than one, to slightly more than two acres. There are two potential locations for a maintenance area in this zone. The first is directly adjacent to the entrance station. This area is currently screened by two hedgerows and a slope from the remainder of the property. However, because of its proximity to the entrance, a maintenance area in this location would have to be constructed in such a way that it minimized the visual impact on visitors entering the park. Storage buildings should be attractive and face away from the entry
44
Maintenance Area continued
road (screening maintenance operations). Open work or storage areas should be screened from view, either by attractive fencing or vegetation. Trees and other screening should be planted between these areas and the entry road in order to reduce the visual impact on park guests. A second, alternative option for the maintenance area would be to place it north of the campgrounds and east of the proposed picnic areas. This area has large existing trees that would shield buildings from view. However, the Park and Visitor Facilities Zone’s trail network is threaded through this area, and care would have to be taken to direct trails away from the maintenance area. The slope forest in this area is also key bird habitat, and maintenance operations may provide conflicts. Calhoun County should study these two alternatives further to determine which best meets the County’s goals and the operational needs of the park.
proposed park c oncept pl an
Natural Resource Enhancement
Two locations in the Park and Visitor Facilities Zone offer unique opportunities for habitat creation. The spoil unit in this area is well suited for creating a waterfowl impoundment, or moist soil unit, because of its existing exterior berm (see the Natural Resource and Wildlife Management Zone section for more information about waterfowl impoundments). Similarly, the low, moist area adjacent to the levee has been used for waterfowl habitat in the past, and could be improved with a yearround water source. Both of these locations would provide a unique opportunity to create outstanding birding opportunities adjacent to main visitor areas.
ducks unlimited
45
proposed park c oncept pl an
LIMITED RECREATION ZONE The ~2.7-mile levee that separates Green Lake from the Victoria Barge Canal, along the eastern edge of the property, presents challenges for visitor access and management. In places, this levee is only 100-feet wide in total, with steep slopes and dense vegetation comprising a majority of that width. Because of this, the opportunities for extensive visitor use along the levee are limited. Key activities and proposals for the Limited Recreation Zone include: Limited Recreation Zone
small pier
Walking Trails, Viewing Areas, Bank Fishing Access
Dependent on adequate staff to monitor the area, the levee will provide excellent opportunities for a linear hiking/walking trail system. The existing roadbed’s reasonable grade and firm surface provides an easy walking route that could be utilized to provide views of both Green Lake and the barge canal. Highlights could include views of the existing, expanded, or additional rookery island(s); shore access to the lake and barge canal; and numerous birding opportunities. Potential improvements could include trails that deviate from the existing roadway—potentially cutting through the mesquite shrubland and slope forest on both sides of the levee in order to provide a diversity of terrain, views, and habitat types. Viewing platforms, bird blinds, and/or benches should be incorporated into the trail design to provide visitors with destination points and opportunities for interpretive signs and other learning opportunities.
46
proposed park c oncept pl an
Walking Trails, Viewing Areas...continued
levee area
Because of the high demand for fishing access at Green Lake, these trails could also include a number of well-defined bank fishing locations. These locations may require small piers, jetties, or other infrastructure to provide access to suitable fishing locations along the lakeshore. Along the canal side, fishing access points should be located in a way that man-made improvements are not required.
Picnic Area
There are several beautiful, open areas that provide excellent views of the Victoria Barge Canal along the levee. One of these locations would be well suited for a picnic area comprised of a small number of covered picnic tables and associated infrastructure (trash cans, barbecue grills). However, this is dependent on County staff ’s ability to monitor and maintain the area, particularly during and after busy holiday weekends. A successful and well-utilized picnic area would also require a small parking area and roadway expansion to facilitate vehicle access to the site. The County may phase in a picnic area in this location by first installing tables, then adding shelters, grills, and other amenities as access to the area is improved.
open area along barge canal
Road Expansion and Small Parking Lot
In order to provide greater access to the Limited Recreation Zone in later phases of park development, the existing roadway will need to be expanded and improved. This concept plan recommends a two-lane roadway that travels ~0.75-miles north (or less) along the levee, where a small parking area of ~0.5 acre or less can provide access to trails, picnic areas, and fishing opportunities. These improvements would open the Limited Recreation Zone up to visitors who have a harder time walking or who would like to park near their picnic table.
Small Fishing Pier
Given the importance of fishing access for county residents, the levee may provide opportunities for an additional fishing pier. Ideally, this pier would be located in close proximity to the road extension, parking area, and picnic area. It would provide additional fishing access to the lake for visitors without a boat. In the immediate future, only bank fishing will be allowed on the barge canal side of the levee.
small pier
ro
47
ad
t ex
en
sio
n
Implementation
PROJECT PHASING Due to the large size of the property and the realities of park funding, it is recommended that park development activities be conducted in phases. These phases are meant as a guide to identify park development priorities and assist with grant applications and other funding sources. Completion of a phase will depend on identifying and securing funding, county management capacity, and community support/interest. The following phasing is proposed for each of the park zones, with the Park and Visitor Facilities Zone having highest priority for initial improvements. Improvements in different zones may occur concurrently, dependent on funding and staff capacity.
Phasing – Park and Visitor Facilities Zone
The Park and Visitor Facilities Zone is arguably the most important part of the park for visitors. Because of this, this plan recommends that Calhoun County work to open portions of this zone first. Doing so will allow limited visitor access to a manageable portion of the property, open up potential revenue streams for the park, and provide scenic views and unique experiences that will inspire park visitors. Below is a possible approach for phasing in amenities in the Park and Visitor Facilities Zone. Each phase will require further design and engineering. Phasing of Improvements in Park and Visitor Facilities Zone 1. Install perimeter fencing and gates to control access to property 2. Develop entry station, maintenance yard, and park roads 3. Design and install utility infrastructure on site 4. Construct campground with ~100 sites and associated restrooms 5. Develop main picnic area and parking area 6. Construct observation tower and small parking area 7. Develop limited trail network throughout the zone, connecting campground to picnic area and observation tower 8. Develop fishing pier and expand picnic area parking to accommodate additional visitors 9. Construct boat ramp and finalize boat ramp/pier/picnic area parking facilities 10. Design and construct group picnic shelter, with associated restrooms 11. If separate, design and construct visitor center/educational facility 12. Finalize parking areas, add any additional amenities 13. Develop marsh/wetland habitat in spoil unit and low area adjacent to campgrounds
48
imple mentation
Phasing–Natural Resource and Wildlife Management Zone
Because of the limited amount of public access allowed in Natural Resource and Wildlife Management Zone, the phasing of improvements is less important in this area. The development of this zone will depend largely on funding sources and partnerships developed by the County. However, included below is a possible approach for phasing in improvements so that visitors can experience the many resources in this area of the park. Each phase will require further design, engineering, and associated partnerships with natural resource advisors. Phasing of Improvements in Natural Resource and Wildlife Management Zone 1. Manage invasive species and wildlife population to preserve ecological health 2. Develop limited trails and bank fishing access points in highest/driest areas. Close these areas when lake rises to minimize impact. 3. Expand trail network and add boardwalk sections to points of interest (marsh ponds, oxbows, etc.) 4. Construct nesting platforms adjacent to existing rookery island 5. Construct waterfowl impoundments and expand trail network along levees 6. Develop artificial bird islands off southern shoreline 7. Construct marsh terracing in southwestern corner of lake to reduce turbidity and create additional freshwater marsh habitat
Phasing – Limited Recreation Zone
The Limited Recreation Zone provides the greatest challenges for visitor access. The improvements in this zone are recommended only after Calhoun County has the management capacity to properly oversee these far-flung locations. The phasing outlined below emphasizes low-impact recreational improvements (such as hiking/walking trails) first, followed by improvements that will open up this area to a wider range of visitors. Each phase will require further design and engineering before construction. Phasing of Improvements in Limited Recreation Zone 1. Develop a limited trail network that follows the levee and provides views and access to both Green Lake and the Victoria Barge Canal. Develop bank fishing access points on the southern end of the levee, particularly along the barge canal. Consider restricting access to at least half of the levee 2. Place limited picnicking facilities (picnic tables) in open area along the barge canal, approximately 0.75 miles from the southern end of the levee 3. Extend 2-lane roadway 0.75 miles north along the levee and construct small parking area 4. Further improve trail network north of new parking area; open access to entire 2.7-mile levee 5. Develop formal picnic area adjacent to new parking area 6. Identify locations for additional fishing piers/ fishing access along lake side of levee 7. Consider construction of bird blinds, observation decks, or other viewing platforms in scenic or noteworthy locations
PROJECT COSTS An estimate of project costs is included as an appendix to this plan. At this stage of planning, however, it is difficult to estimate true project costs. Most projects identified in this document require additional design and engineering before costs can be accurately estimated.
PROJECT FUNDING The majority of survey respondents favor using funding from state and federal grants to develop the park. Typically, matching funds are required for grants. When required, a decision as to the source of matching funds must be made before a grant application is submitted.
49
imple mentation The following table provides possible grant funding opportunities.
Entity RESTORE Council U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adm Marine Fisheries Natural Resources Conservation Service Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Department of Agriculture Soil & Water Conservation Board Water Development Board
50
Website
Funding Program(s)
restorethetexascoast.org fws.gov/grants
boem.gov/Revenue-Sharing
Deep Horizon Oil Spill Conservation Grants Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program Endangered Species Grants North American Wetlands Conservation Act Partners for Fish and Wildlife Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program 2006 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act
coast.noaa.gov/funding
National Sea Grant Program
mmfs.noaa.gov/mb/grants nrcs.usda.gov/wps rurdev.usda.gov/RD_Grants tceq.state.tx.us/agency/ funding
tpwd.state.tx.us/business/ grants
Community-Based Restoration Program Various Emergency Watershed Protection Utilities grants Clean Rivers Program Texas Nonpoint Source Management Water Pollution Control Section 6 of Endangered Species Act Outdoor Recreation Small Community Community Outdoor Outreach Recreation Trail Boating Access Community Development Block Grants
texasagriculture.gov/ GrantsServices Texas Nonpoint Source Management Program tssweb.texas.gov/en/ programs/grants twdb.texas.gov/search/index. Water Research asp Regional Water Plans/ Planning Agricultured Water Conservation Flood Protection Water Conservation
imple mentation
POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIPS Possible partnerships with major local non-profits and businesses should be explored to help the County fulfill its vision for the park. These include: Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Guadalupe-Blanco River Trust West Calhoun County Navigation District San Antonio Bay Foundation San Antonio Bay Partnership Ducks Unlimited The Nature Conservancy of Texas Texas Audubon Society Calhoun County Independent School District Mid-Coast Chapter Texas Naturalists Ineos Nitriles Calhoun Chemical Formosa Plastics Dow Chemical Alcoa Seadrift Coke
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION RULES AND REGULATIONS Some of the natural and cultural resources found at Green Lake are protected by local, state, and/or federal regulations. The majority of the proposed improvements and activities included in this plan will have no impact on these resources. However, Calhoun County will work with the proper authorities to ensure that these important resources are protected during park design, construction, and operation.
Ground Disturbance
The Antiquities Code of Texas requires political subdivisions of the state to notify the Texas Historical Commission (THC) of ground-disturbing activity on public land, including the construction of recreational parks. THC must be notified prior to commencing any project that will involve five or more acres of ground disturbance, 5,000 or more cubic yards of earth moving, or will affect a recorded archeological site. The Antiquities Code can be found at Texas Natural Resource Code, Title 9, Chapter 191. Additional information about THC rules and regulations can be found at www.thc.state.tx.us.
Wetland Disturbance
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for protecting the integrity of the nation's waterways through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which is a program established to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States. Filling for commercial development, public infrastructure (including parks), dams, and conversion of wetlands for farming are some of the activities regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Regulated activities in wetlands and waters of the U.S. are controlled by a permit review process administered by the USACE, and the objective of the program is to insure no discharge of dredged or fill material be permitted if the nation's waters would be significantly degraded or if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment. More information about USACE rules and regulations can be found at http://www.usace.army.mil.
51
Project Construction Rules and Regulations continued
imple mentation
Endangered Species Protections
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides a program for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. The lead federal agencies for implementing ESA are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. The FWS maintains a worldwide list of endangered species. Species include birds, insects, fish, reptiles, mammals, crustaceans, flowers, grasses, and trees. Several threatened or endangered species have been observed at Green Lake, including Bald Eagles, Piping Plovers, and Whooping Cranes. The law requires federal agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the NOAA Fisheries Service, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. The law also prohibits any action that causes a "taking" of any listed species of endangered fish or wildlife. “Takings” can include alteration of habitat used by the species of concern, both on public and private land.
PARK MANAGEMENT
Opening a park of Green Lake’s size will be a new undertaking for Calhoun County. The following management considerations will be important as the County embarks on this ambitious project:
County Park Board
It is recommended that the Calhoun County Commissioners Court establish a county park board to oversee the maintenance and operation of Green Lake County Park. Complete information on the establishment, duties and powers of Texas park boards can be found in the Texas Local Government Code, Title 10, Subtitle B, Chapter 320, attached as Appendix C. In the alternative, it is recommended that a park supervisor be hired to oversee the maintenance and operation of the park.
Rules and Regulations Park rules and regulations are needed for the health, safety and comfort of all park users. The lake’s safety and protection of visitors, wildlife, natural large size, shallow depth, and choppy conditions resources, and property within the park. Typical can be extremely hazardous, and active patrols of areas of concern that will need to be addressed by the the lake may be necessary. The County also does Calhoun County Commissioners Court or county park not own the entire shoreline; property boundaries board include: will have to be clearly marked to avoid trespassing • Hours of operation on adjoining properties. • Weapons, firearms, fireworks • Natural habitat protection • Hunting The County will need to maintain exclusion zones Discussions by natural resource advisors around the existing bird island and any additional recommended that limited archery hunting (deer, sensitive bird habitat. These zones should be clearly feral hog) be allowed in lowland areas, and that marked with buoys, and advertised on boat ramp alligator harvesting continue to occur. However, signage. waterfowl hunting was not recommended due to • Alligators, wildlife potential conflicts with public use of the property. To prevent conflicts between visitors and wildlife, • Water safety rules or regulations may need to be enforced to Limiting the size of motors allowed on Green Lake prevent the feeding or handling of wildlife. has been discussed, as a method of ensuring the • Littering, solid waste
52
imple mentation
Rules and Regulations continued
• Fires • Pets • Alcohol use • Archeological sites • Noise limits • Vandalism • Off-road travel, all-terrain vehicles Off-road travel will need to be prohibited to ensure the ecological integrity of Green Lake’s many different habitat types • Camping, picnicking
http://tpwd.texas.gov/spdest/parkinfo/rules_and_regulations See for an example of possible rules and regulations to be implemented.
Fees
Most public parks of Green Lake’s size charge fees for entrance and certain activities. These fees are typically used to support park operations, fund new improvements at the site, and/or cover staff salaries. Over 75% of surveyed county residents supported the collection of fees for certain park activities (such as camping) at Green Lake. Roughly two-thirds of respondents also supported the collection of entrance fees. While these fees will ultimately have to be set and collected by a county parks board, survey results suggested that the following median amounts would be supported by county residents:
Law Enforcement
Local, county, state and federal law enforcement officers ensure the safety of the public and the protection of natural resources. They address illegal activities, including poaching, taking of endangered species, dumping of trash, illegal operation of all terrain vehicles, trespassing, and more. Texas game wardens hold federal commissions issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Commerce for purposes of enforcing federal fisheries and wildlife laws in Texas. A cooperative working relationship with local law enforcement officers is vital for the success of the park.
53
Fee Type Day use (per car) Annual pass Tent camping RV camping Picnic pavilion
Medium Amount (county resdient survey results) $5.00 $50.00 $10.00 $25.00 $35.00
imple mentation
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Maintaining Green Lake’s abundant and diverse natural resources will be a key challenge for Calhoun County. County staff will need to combat invasive and exotic species, actively manage constructed wetlands, maintain coastal prairie, balance wildlife populations, and combat the impacts of public access and use. Additional information on many of these actions can be found in the attached appendices. Calhoun County should also call on natural resource advisors, including other public land managers, local master naturalists, and academic institutions, as they work to manage the property.
Vegetative Invasive Species
The Green Lake site supports a diverse plant community. Unfortunately, not all of types of plants on the site are beneficial. Green Lake’s natural resources and economy can be degraded by invasive species if left unchecked. These unwanted invaders are often unintentionally introduced through the everyday activities of visitors, wildlife, and birdlife. However they arrive, once invasive species are established, they have the potential to change the Green Lake ecosystem forever. For more information about the invasive species found at Green Lake, please refer to the “Invasive Species” section earlier in this document. Key threats include fast-spreading invasives like black mimosa, and native successional species like huisache and mesquite. Many methods are available to manage the invasive plants and rehabilitate sites at Green Lake. A successful plan of attack depends on integrated management that considers all methods relative to the site and its invaders. These methods, including techniques to ensure water quality protection, are presented in greater detail in Appendix D.
Alligator Management
A large population of alligators currently exists at Green Lake. The American alligator is federally classified as “threatened due to similarity of appearance” to other endangered and threatened crocodilians. This provides federal protection for alligators but allows state-approved management and control programs. Alligators can be legally taken in Green Lake but only by individuals with proper licenses or permits issued by the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. For information about alligator tag issuance and requirements, contact the J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management office.
54
Feral Hogs
Feral hogs (wild hogs) can be found at Green Lake. Because of their destructive feeding habits and potential to spread disease, feral hogs are a threat to native wildlife and habitat. Feral hogs are not a game or non-game species in Texas. Instead, they are considered exotic livestock and fall under the ownership of the landowner and not the citizens of the state. Calhoun County or its agents are allowed to kill feral hogs at Green Lake without a hunting license if the hogs are causing damage. However, a valid Texas hunting license is required for trapping or snaring hogs as these activities could affect other wildlife species. Additional information about controlling and managing feral hogs can be found at www.feralhogs. tamu.edu/publications and www.tpwd.texas.gov/ huntwild/wild/nuisance/feral_hogs.
WHAT’S NEXT? Building a county park at Green Lake will be a long-term undertaking. This plan is meant to provide guidance throughout that process. As work is completed to open the property to the public, plans may change to better reflect conditions on the ground. However, the overarching vision and goals outlined by this document will continue to guide the County’s efforts.
For more information about Green Lake, visit
www.greenlaketx.com 55
APPENDICES Appendix A: Green Lake Hydrology Survey Appendix B: Ecological Survey of Green Lake Terrestrial Plant Communities Appendix C: Park Board Regulations Appendix D: Invasive Species Management Plan Appendix E: Bird Counts Appendix F: TxDOT Road Design Recommendations Appendix G: Estimated Project Costs
56
Appendix A
Wain of hill: 933 Eall (oHl SIres - SEl,jUIn,Texa; 78155 830-379-5822 - 800-413--4130 - 830-319-9718lal - "'If. glraDrg
MEMORANDUM TO: Judge Michael
FROM:
Thomas
J. Pfeifer,
Calhoun
County
D. Hill, P.E.
SUBJECT: Green Lake Hydrology DATE:
August 7,2013
This memo is to document the known facts regarding the hydrology on Green Lake. This area has not been studied extensively but the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) performed a limited study in the 1970's and 1980's which helped shed some light on the hydrology. GBRA also performed a limited flow study in the early 2000's which provided some basic understanding
of flow patterns in the region.
BACKGROUND The early history of Green Lake was mired in legal controversy for a number of years. Green Lake was owned by the State of Texas until 1913. The Calhoun County Surveyor provided field notes to the General Land Office (GLO) in July 1913, at a time when the Lake was dry. Mr. Elmer Yates obtained ownership of the Lake in July 1918 based on the field notes established 5 years earlier. Ownership was established following a lawsuit which began in June 1914 and is referred to as State vs. Welder. A second lawsuit occurred in 1946 with the State bringing legal action against Austin Bryan, owner of the Lake at that time. The State lost both cases but established the fact that the hydrology of Green Lake is tied to overflow from the Guadalupe River. In 2011, Calhoun County purchased the Lake from Indianola limited Partnership with the assistance of a grant from the GLO. Facts brought to light over the years include: 1)
Green Lake is characterized by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as a natural depression and has an impounding capacity of approximately 20,000 acre-feet. In recent years, GBRA estimated the Lake to contain approximately 16,000 to 18,000 acre-feet of water.
2)
During the adjudication process in 1975, the Texas Water Commission (predecessor to TCEQ) determined the Lake was a reasonably permanent body of water which goes dry only in times of drought or infrequent overflow from the Guadalupe River. The Texas Water Commission rejected the claim of a water right associated with Green Lake.
3)
The Victoria Barge Canal was constructed in the early 1960's which bifurcated the drainage area. Construction of the barge canal was routed around the Lake to the east and left the Lake
perimeter virtually unchanged. A large earthen levee was constructed on the northern end to completely isolate the barge canal from the Lake. 4)
A diversion canal located on the southern edge of the Lake was first constructed ih 1948 and is part of the Calhoun County Canal system (now owned by GBRA). The canal system initially delivered water to rice farms and later added industrial, municipal and environmental uses in Calhoun County. GBRA acquired the system in 1963 from the West Side Calhoun County Navigation District. Please note the diversion canal operates independently from Green Lake. Overflow from Green Lake into the diversion canal does occur during floods events.
5)
Chester Burton assumed the role of manager of canal operations in 1951, and continued work for the system as a GBRA employee until the late 1970's. Mr. Burton confirmed that Green Lake was dry or very close to dry during the peak of the 1950's drought. During this time, the canal system attempted to divert the remaining Green Lake water into the diversion canal by use of a "dragline". The exact quantity of water diverted is unknown but is thought to be minimal. Mr. Burton also indicated he had heard that part of Green Lake bottom was farmed at some point during the major droughts of the early 1900's.
6)
Under typical weather condition, outflow from Green Lake is discharged through an erosion control structure known as the "Green Lake Box". The original box is believed to have been built in the late 1950's or early 1960's and consisted of wooden timbers and a 12 foot overflow weir set at an elevation of 2.0 feet msl. Two 36 inch diameter metal pipes connected the box to the diversion canal. This structure was replaced in the early 1990's with a metal box. In the summer of 2009 the discharge piping was removed due to damage from vandals and has not functioned as an outlet since that time.
7)
During times of abundant rainfall, Green Lake flood waters discharge as overland flow out of a depression along the southeast side of the Lake and into either the diversion canal or the headwaters of Goff Bayou. The southern edge of the Lake ranges in elevation from 4.5 feet to 6.5 feet. Since removal of the Green Lake Box in 2009, all outflow passes overland into the diversion canal or Goff Bayou.
8)
Based on surveys performed by GBRA in the year 2002, the Lake was found to have a fairly consistent bottom elevation of -2.0 feet msl. The surveys consisted of measuring the water depth at a few locations from a small flat-bottom boat.
9)
GBRA conducted a series of 20 to 25 field surveys in the Guadalupe Delta during the time period from 2001 to 2003. Based on observation from these surveys, GBRA concluded that Guadalupe River overflow did not reach Green Lake until the Guadalupe River exceeded between 4,500 cfs to 7,000 cfs. This is fairly rough estimate based on a few visual observations. A graphic representation of flow patterns in the Guadalupe Delta was prepared in 2004 and is included in Appendix A.
10) GBRA staff inspected the Green Lake Box in September 2011 (a dry period) and found the water level in Green Lake to be 2.3 feet below the weir elevation. This observation would indicate the Lake surface was at approximately -0.7 msl. See picture in Appendix B 11) In 2003 the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) as a part of a nationwide program captured aerial photography ofthis region. A printout of the Green Lake photo can be found in Appendix 2
J. The photo captured a major flood event occurring at Green Lake with inflow from the toeditch at the base of the Victoria Barge Canal levee. Unfortunately the exact data of the aerial flight has not been determined but efforts continue to determine the date. flight had to have occurred between January 2002 and February 2004:
It is known that the
12) GBRA installed a pressure transducer at the Green Lake Box in December of 2012 to monitor lake levels, and plans to retrieve the data in August or September of 2013 for additional analysis. WATERSHED Green Lake is characterized by TCEQ as a natural depression. Based on archaeological work by the University of Texas in 1999, Green Lake was completely contained within the upper end of San Antonio Bay in the distant past. Over the years, river sediment enclosed the area, converting it into a freshwater lake. The study found the delta region which includes Green Lake has changed little in the last 400 years. Based on USGStopographic maps produced prior to the construction of Victoria Barge Canal, the natural drainage area encompassed 54 square miles and included the Blacks Bayou watershed. With the construction of Victoria Barge Canal in the early 1960's, the majority of the contributing drainage area was cut off and now drains to the Barge Canal. The Green Lake drainage area is now estimated at 19 square miles. However, from the standpoint of a watershed needed to support a 6,000 acre reservoir, this reduction in contributing area has minimal impacts. Green Lake is supported almost entirely from overflow from the Guadalupe River. A watershed map prior to the construction of the Victoria Barge Canal has been included in Appendix C and a post-construction watershed map is provided in Appendix D.
HYDROLOGY Without detailed topography and surface water models, the ability to develop an accurate hydrologic model of Green Lake is limited. Typical modeling software programs, like the United States Army Corps of Engineer's one-dimensional HEC-RASmodel cannot handle the complexities of the area around Green Lake which is deltaic in nature. A two-dimensional hydraulic model is necessary to adequately explain the flow patterns in the delta reach that contribute flow to Green Lake. Several attempts have been made to obtain a federal grant of at least $1.2 million for this type of modeling, but to date efforts have been unsuccessful. In light of the fact that a hydrologic model may take years to develop, this memo will document the known hydrology based on available data and personal observations.
Green lake level: In 1974, the TWDB initiated a project to develop a hydrodynamic model of the lower delta. As a part of the project, TWDB commissioned the installation of a stage data logger within Green Lake. The USGSwas hired to install and maintain the level sensor and data logger, and the site was identified by the USGSas 08188770. Station information and a location map of the level recorder have been included in Appendix E. The sensor was located along the southern boundary of the Lake at Latitude 28째28'10" and Longitude 96째48'55". The stage data was recorded hourly and the daily average can be found in Appendix F. GBRA converted the hourly readings to daily readings. Please note the data does not appear to have undergone any quality control checks, and it is obvious some of the data is not correct. However, this is the best available information and most of the data appears adequate for this level of study. 3
•. Green lake Inflow: As determined by TCEQ during the adjudication process, the drainage area is not sufficiently large enough to contribute much inflow to the Lake. The majority of the inflow is due to overflow from the Guadalupe River in the area to the northwest
of Bloomington.
A comparison of stage
increases in Green Lake vs. Guadalupe River Flow has been provided in Appendix G. The results of the table indicate the Guadalupe River will overflow into Green Lake when the maximum daily flow in the river is over 6,000 cfs. For purposes of this analysis, the maximum daily flow is defined as the sum of the daily flow at the USGSGuadalupe River Gage at Victoria, the USGSSan Antonio River Gage at Goliad, and the flow from the USGSColeto Creek Gages near Victoria. This approach did not attempt to incorporate the travel time differences between the gauges nor the incremental inflow below the USGSriver gages. Inflow Deficit: The consistency of Green Lake surface level will be governed by timely overflow events from the Guadalupe River. A long duration between overflow events will produce draw-down in the Lake level due to natural evaporation. A table has been provided in Appendix H that documents the peak Guadalupe River flow for each month from 1949 to 2012. The reported flows are based on the sum of flow at the upstream USGSgages previously described. Peak flow values less than 6,000 cfs were eliminated, revealing five events in which inflow to Green Lake did not occur for at least 15 months. The six time periods with no net monthly inflow to Green Lake were:
1) Nov 1953 through Feb 1957 - Total of 42 months of no inflow 2) July 1962 through Dec 1964 - Total of 29 months with only one month of inflow over 6000 cfs 3) Jan 1966 through August 1967 - Total of 20 months of no inflow 4) July 1988 through March 1990 - Total of 21 months of no inflow 5) October 2007 through March 2009 - Total of 18 months of no inflow 6) October 2010 through December 2011- Total of 15 months of no inflow Evaporation: The evaporation rate for this area was obtained from the TCEQ Water Availability Model (WAM) which is based on data from 1941 through 1989. Evaporation data from the WAM model is provided in Appendix I. The 60 year annual average amounts to a net evaporation rate of 2.26 feet or 27 inches per year. During major droughts there is more sunlight and higher temperatures, resulting in an evaporation rate approaching 38 to 40 inches per year. Summing the net evaporation indicate the total evaporation the results is:
for each month during these low inflow periods identified above, would ranges from 6.0 feet up 10.9 feet during major droughts. A summary of
1) Nov 1953 through Feb 1957 - Total evaporation of 10.9 feet 2) July 1962 through Dec 1964 - Total evaporation of 7.22 feet 3) Jan 1966 through August 1967 - Total evaporation of 3.54 feet 4) July 1988 through March 1990 - Total evaporation of 6.0 feet 5) October 2007 through March 2009 - not available 6) October 2010 through December 2011- not available It is assumed an accumulated net evaporation approaching 4 to 5 feet will result in a significant reduction in the elevation of Green Lake. This assumption can only be confirmed with an accurate hydrology model of the area.
4
Summary Based on this crude analysis, Green Lake is believ'ed to'remain at a fairly consistent elevation except during extreme droughts and moderate floods. The record high stage is 9.0 feet msl, which was recorded by the TWDB with their level loggers. During the October 1998 flood it is likely that the stage at Green Lake approached the 14 feet msl elevation recorded at the USGSTivoli gauge, however no data is available for this event to confirm this assumption. The lowest known elevation occurred in the 1950's when the Lake was completely dry. However during the Drought of 1963-1964, Drought of 19891990, Drought of 2007-2010 and Drought of 2010-2011 the Lake was most likely severely below normal levels (approaching 3 or 4 feet drop in stage). This indicates that although Green Lake typically remains at a fairly constant level, the Lake has the potential to experience drops in water surface elevation or dry up entirely during extended dry periods.
5
ATTACHMENTS Appendix A.1- Guadalupe Delta Flow Patterns at 100 to 1,800 cfs without GBRA Diversion Appendix A.2 - Guadalupe Delta Flow Patterns at 100 to 1,800 cfs with GBRA diversion Appendix A,3 - Guadalupe Delta Flow Patterns at 1,800 to 2,500 cfs Appendix A.4 - Guadalupe Delta Flow Patterns at 2,500 to 4,500 cfs Appendix A.5 - Guadalupe Delta Flow Patterns at 4,500 to 7,000 cfs Appendix B - Photo of Green Lake in May 2011 Appendix C - Green Lake Watershed Map Prior to Construction
of Victoria Barge Canal
Appendix D - Green Lake Watershed Map After Construction of Victoria Barge Canal Appendix E.- USGS08188770 Green Lake Station Information
and Location Map
Appendix F - Daily Average Stage Data for USGS0818770 Green Lake Appendix G - Green Lake Stage Increase vs. Guadalupe River Flow Appendix H - Maximum Daily Flow in Guadalupe River at Salt Water Barrier by Month Appendix 1- TCEQ Water Availability
Model Evaporation Data
Appendix J - USGSAerial Photo
6
/
I
1111
1 ,I
t
s I ,0
/,'" / \
" \
\
r Ilkt'
\
\
II,kt'
1i~!'i(l" I jf -.-
Legend
=
SA San Antonio River GA = Guadalupe River HG = Hog Bayou GF = Goff Bayou
= =
SW Schwings Bayou BL Buffalo Lake Bayou D = Diversion Canal AG = Alligator Slide Lake VTC = Victoria Barge Canal
,. ' \
,
All 51w 11
APPENDIX A.1 Flow Network Flow 100 -1800 cfs - Without GBRA Diversion
I
I I 0.5 1 Miles I
I
I
2
,.
N
/
,/ /
W*" s
I
o ",
I
I I 0.5 1 Miles I
I
\,
.•.
\
1iSStLl,r
L, "
Legend SA = San Antonio River GA = Guadalupe River HG = Hog Bayou GF = Goff Bayou SW = Schwings Bayou BL = Buffalo Lake Bayou
=
D Diversion Canal AG = Alligator Slide Lake VTC = Victoria Barge Canal
., Just .,
we-l1
APPENDIX A.2 Flow Network Flow 100 - 1800 cfs - With GBRA Diversion
I 2
N
W($}1i
/
Itflllll~L
,
S
I
J.
a
I
I
0.5
I
I
I 2
I
1 Miles
\
\.
\lu>um
Irk.'
Legend SA = San Antonio River GA = Guadalupe River HG = Hog Bayou GF = Goff Bayou SW = Schwings Bayou BL = Buffalo Lake Bayou D = Diversion Canal AG = Alligator Slide Lake VTC = Victoria Barge Canal
Auslw
11
')
APPENDIX A.3 Flow Network Guadalupe Delta Flow Patterns at 1,800 -2,500 cfs
,/
s I
,
o
"'
I
I I 0.5 1 Miles I
I
.., ...•.
, lllOsttJrf
LrJ. '
Legend SA = San Antonio River GA = Guadalupe River HG Hog Bayou GF = Goff Bayou
CAlli,'; 1..
=
SW = Schwings Bayou BL = Buffalo Lake Bayou
= Diversion AG = Alligator D
Canal
Slide Lake VTC = Victoria Barge Canal
'.
j
,
\
,
Auslw
II
APPENDIX A.4 Flow Network Guadalupe Delta Flow Patterns at 2,500 to 4,500 cfs
.
I 2
N ,. W~.E
W S
I
o
I
I
0.5
I
I
..
\
.\1 I$s:nrr 1ir .,'
Legend SA = San Antonio River GA = Guadalupe River HG = Hog Bayou GF = Goff Bayou
=
SW Schwings Bayou BL = Buffalo Lake Bayou D = Diversion Canal AG = Alligator Slide Lake VTC = Victoria Barge Canal
Auslw
~
II
APPENDIX A.5 Flow Network Guadalupe Delta Flow Patterns at 4,500 to 7,000 cfs
I
1 Miles
I 2
N
wtJ" S
I
::.
'.
o
'.
[111" lit ~
.-l/lu~.'
'f
1.1~'
" I
" " ./ I
J / ./ I
Legend
\
CJ
Drainage Area of Green Lake Prior to Construction of the Victoria Barge Canal
--
Streams
J_
J
,,"'".•.. ~:: .\-
"
.',-
<"j ./,:~J'
Waterbodies '----------
,
-,,-
-1 (_~,.
APPENDIX C Green Lake Watershed Before Construction of the Victoria Barge Canal
I I
I I I
Miles
I 1.5
I
o
[fUlI.
.-li1f.t:01r Jd1.
•.•
\
,
/
.,.
I
( I j
Legend
.0
Current Drainage Area of Green Lake
i---'
,,
--
Drainage Area of Victoria Barge Canal ••• above Green Lake
.
, \ ,.\
, '-
~ j
Streams Waterbodies
APPENDIX D Green lake Watershed Drainage After Victoria Barge Canal Construction
I I I
I I I
Miles
I 1.5
APPENDIX E
United States Department GEOLOGICAL
of the Interior
SURVEY
WATER RESOURCES DIVISION FEOERAL.
BUILDING
300 EA.&T 8TH STREET AUSTIN. TEXAS 78701
Station
Description prepared Checked and approved District review
8-25-75 ~ 7- '-76
by IGR by by HIm"
m
No. 08188770
Description
of tide-level
Location.--Lat ~OODl, Long Mott.
station
for
Establishment and history.--Jan. gage at this site. ~.--Digital -- fnstrument
GREENLAKENEARLONGMDn, TEXAS
28.31'10", long 96.48'55" (determined Calhoun County, attached to retaining 3D, 1975,
from USGS topographic map, Green Lake Quadrangle, 1952 edition, scale wall piling on the south shore of Green Lake and 4.' miles northwest of
to
:
On Jan.
water-stage recorder housed in a 20- x 20- x 28-inch shelf over a 4-inch aluminum pipe well.
Datum of gage
Is 0.24
Recorder
function
will
ft above National
Geodetic
from 1.3 to 12.5 Elevation
Vertical
galvanized
in a 1.5-inch
of various
plug
features
recorder
is equipped
with
in well
a float
of a 4-lnch
mounted
tape,
--Condit
Cooperati
on. -- Texas Water Development
Classification.--The
ions
are
station
favorable
for
hinged
to a 3/4-inch
attached
to a piling
plywood
(50 percent
land
1.59 1.59 12.55
ft ft ft
3.662 10.422
ft ft
aluminum pipe well.
graduated
obta I ni ng good stage
80ard
is classified
gage
on a 2- x 6-inch
Crest-stage 9a~: The crest-s ge gage is a 2-inch galvanized steel pipe that gage, see "Elevation of various features above datum of gage." Accuracy.
shelter
tide-level
above datum of gage:
opening shelf
in the bottom
Outside gaae: Standar USGS staff gage (range a to 6.7 ftl 2 ft north of centerli ne of the gage. Float tate: The d gital
metal
a recordin9
Datum.
Crest-stage Tage Top of bo t through cres t-stage Top of crest-stage gage pipe hole
the USGS established
ft.
Shelter and well Bottom of well Bottom of intake Top of instrument
Intake: ~/16-inch
3D, 1975,
redwood backing
to hundredths,
and set
forms one support
leg for
to read with the shelter.
2 ft
the outside
east
and
gage.
For elevations
of
records. Geelogi ca 1 Survey
(50 percent).
as -C7-----2.
Justification.--The station was requested by the Texas Water Development fnundation of marsh areas, and for mathematical model calibration.
Board to aid
in the determination
of flow patterns,
Reference marks.--R.M. 1: A chiseled square on the downstream left end of the bridge on the curb over Victoria Barge Canal. EJevation above datum of gage, 55.472 ft. R.M. 2: A chiseled square on the upstream right end of the bridge on the curb over Victoria Barge Canal. Elevation above datum of gage, 53.192 ft. R.M. 3: Destroyed. R.M. 4: A chiseled mark "X" 1.5 ft east and 3 ft south of centerline of the gage. R.M. 5: Standard USGS WR bronze tablet set on top of piling 1.5 ft east and 1.5 ft north of centerline of the gage. Elevation above datum of gage, 7.237 ft. aM V-593: A standard disk stamped "V 593 1942", 1.0 mile north along State Highway 35 from the junction of State Highway 113 at Tivoli, at a T-road junction, and 22 ft east of centerline of the highway at a large concrete culvert in the top of the north end of the east headwall about level with the highway. Elevation above mean sea level, 38.298 ft, supplementary adjustment of 1943, unadjusted for land-surface subsidence. Aerial photo.--Aerial Agriculture.
photo
No. MO 48057 173-31 was taken
1-26-73.
This
photo
was obtained
from the U.S. Department
of
1975
Appendix F.1 Green Lake Site - Daily Average Stage (ft) Lat: 28-31-10
Long: 96-48-55
TWOS Data Logger (O&M by USGS) Jan-75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Average Maximum
Feb-75 2.52 2.48 2.42 2.42 2.43 2.53 2.85 2.85 2.53 4.55 5.26 5.281 5.26 5.08 4.94 4.81 4.71 4.75 4.74 4.76 4.75 4.81 4.78 4.67 4.48 4.48 4.4
3.65 3.57 3.59 3.47 3.44 3.46 3.23 3.16 3.08 3.01 2.98 2.8 2.76 2.721 2.71 2.65 2.61 2.49 2.39 2.46
4.25
2.6 2.6 2.47 2.37
4.06 5.28
3.14 4.18
2.5 2.5 2.50 2.50
Mar-75 4.18 4.01 3.91 3.88 3.79 3.73 3.71
Apr-75 2.37 2.37 2.24 2.19 2.18 2.15 2.14 2.18 2.19 2.17 2.16 2.11 2.19 2.38 2.42 2.46 2.61 2.75 3.09 3.19 3.251 3.23 3.2 3.19 3.14 3.02 2.97 2.95 2.84 2.81
2.60 3.25
May-75
Jun-75
2.671 2.77 2.97 3.27 3.6 3.95 4.16 4.21 4.22 4.17 4.19 4.33 4.57 6.21 6.46 6.461 6.22 5.91 5.59 5.31 3 4.75 4.61 4.46 4.4 4.73 4.7 5.42 6.79 7.78 4.73 7.78
7.891 7.53 7.08 6.76 6.581 6.41 6.09 5.48 5.38 5.34 5.09 5.03 5.5 5.79 5.961 5.82 5.6 5.39 5.27 5.11 4.94 4.64 4.52 4.42 4.31 4.24
5.62 7.89
Datum of gage is 0.24ft NAD27 Purple indicates site vist by USGS and possible datum change
Page 1
Jul-75 4.33 4.5 4.82 4.93 4.951 4.94 4.9 4.8 4.68 4.53 4.53 4.28 4.23 4.23 4.18 4.12 4.08 4.04 3.97 3.91 3.86 3.78 3.7 3.63 3.55 3.46 3.39 3.28 3.16 3.05 2.97 4.09 4.95
Aug-75 2.88 2.81 2.78 2.76 2.67 2.63 2.59 2.61 2.63 2.66 2.66 2.61 2.57 2.52 2.47 2.43 2.39 2.37 2.36 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.38 2.45 2.49 2.51 2.5 2.54 2.53 2.88
Sep-75 2.59 2.62
Oct-75
Nov-75
Dec-75
1976
Appendix Green Lake Site - Daily Average Stage (ft) Lat: 28-31.10 Long: 96-48-55 TWOS Data Logger (O&M by USGS) Jan-76 Feb-76 Mar-76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Average Maximum
Apr-76
May-76 4.77 4.73 4.79 4.81 4.75 4.64 4.27 4.07 4.01 4.1 4.38 5.05
Jun-76 5.53 5.88 5.66 5.3 4.99 4.85 4.85 4.86 4.72 4.5
6.2 6.221 6.09 6.02 5.99 5.75 5.46 5.19
6.12 5.86 5.45 5.18 4.92 11.64 5.51 6.12
4.83 4.59 4.61 4.6 4.46 4.39 4.52 0 4.76 6.22
4.12 3.98 3.84 3.68 3.55 3.4 3.25 3.11 2.96 2.88 2.83 2.7 2.72 2.67 2.57 2.49 2.4 2.31 2.23
3.75 5.88
F.2
Jul-76 2.13 2.04 2 1.98 1.97 1.98 1.97 1.99 2.11 2.43 2.62 2.75 2.9 3.24 3.54 3.76 3.79 3.79 3.83 3.89 3.9 3.87 3.82 3.77 3.7 3.57 3.44 3.29 3.13 2.97 2.61 2.99 3.90
Datum of gage is 0.24ft NAD27 Purple indicates site vist by USGS and possible datum change
Page 1
Aug-76 2.48 2.38 2.34
Sep-76
Oct-76 1.82 1.91 2 2.08 2.39 2.32 2.18
Nov-76
Dec-76
#DIV/O! 0.00
#DIV/O! 0.00
1.93 1.97 2.01 1.87 1.78
2.40 2.48
1.91 2.01
2.10 2.39
1977
Appendix Green Lake Site â&#x20AC;˘ Daily Average Stage (ft) Lat: 28-31-10 Long: 96-48-55 TWOS Data Logger (O&M by USGS) Jan-77 Feb-77 Mar-77 1 4.15 3.7 2 4.06 3.59 3 4.1 3.6 4 4.15 3.6 5 3.94 4.29 349 6 3.9 4.39 3.42 7 3.81 4.43 3.31 8 3.73 4.43 3.23 9 3.71 4.36 3.15 10 3.58 4.31 3.06 11 3.46 4.28 3.08 12 3.4 4.35 3.02 13 3.47 4.51 2.95 14 3.19 4.88 2.88 15 3.49 5.33 2.85 16 3.54 2.79 17 2.71 3.61 5.941 18 3.72 5.86 2.68 19 3.81 5.19 2.63 20 3.87 4.87 2.52 21 3.86 4.63 2.48 22 3.84 4.55 2.44 23 3.83 4.5 2.44 24 3.76 4.34 2.43 25 3.76 4.17 2.43 26 3.84 4.13 2.44 27 3.99 3.95 2.58 28 4.19 3.84 2.63 29 4.28 2.65 30 4.29 2.68 31 4.22 2.63 Average Maximum
3.78 4.29
4.52 5.94
14.05 349.00
Apr-77 2.63 2.64 2.66 2.72 2.55 2.54 2.52 2.51 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.54
May-77
Jun-77
F.3
Jul-77
2.55 2.72
Datum of gage is 0.24ft NAD27 Purple indicates site vist by USGS and possible datum change
Page 1
Aug-77
Sep-77
Oct-77
Nov-77
Dec-77
1978
Appendix F.4 Green Lake Site - Daily Average Stage (tt) La!: 28-31-10 Long: 96-48-55 TWDS Data Logger (O&M by USGS) Jan-78 Feb-78 Mar-78 1 2.45 2 2.44 3 2.44 4 2.44 5 2.44 6 2.44 7 2.44 8 2.56 9 2.54 10 2.54 11 2.56 12 2.56 13 2.54 14 2.54 15 2.54 16 2.54 17 2.54 18 2.54 19 2.57 20 2.54 21 2.54 22 2.54 23 2.54 24 2.54 25 2.64 26 2.3 27 28 29 30 31 Average Maximum
Apr-78
May-78
2.51 2.64
Jun-78
2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58
2.58 2.58
Jul-78 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.581 2.58 2.58
2.58 2.58
Datum of gage is 0.24ft NAD27 Purple indicates site vist by USGS and possible datum change
Page 1
Aug-78 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.6 2.96 3.31 3.581 3.76 3.99 4.17 4.39 4.52 4.6 4.68 4.76 4.8 4.83 4.84 4.851 4.85 4.85 4.79
Sep-78 4.65 4.52 4.43 4.33 4.2 4.1 4.04 4.04 4.03 4.09 4.42 4.76 6.09 7.44 7.94 7.861 7.54 7.18 6.91 6.62 6.22 5.8 5.46 5.27 5.18 5.11 4.96 4.77 4.59 4.45
Oct-78 4.33 4.21 4.14 4.08 4.03 3.97 3.9 3.84 3.8 3.75 3.7 3.67 3.641 3.56 3.52 3.49 3.43 3.39 3.36 3.32 3.27 3.22 3.18 3.15 3.11 3.15 3.14 3.1 3.08 3.05 3
Nov-78 2.97 2.96 2.95 2.95 2.95 3.11 3.08 3.03 3.03 3.06 3.21 3.35 3.391 3.38 3.35 3.33 3.29 3.24 3.2 3.19 3.17 3.16 3.14 3.12 3.09 3.09 3.06 3.03 3.01 2.98
Dec-78 3.02 3.07 3.11 3.1 3.07 3.09 3.05 3 2.95 3.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92
3.62 4.85
5.37 7.94
3.53 4.33
3.13 3.39
2.99 3.95
1979
Appendix Green Lake Site - Daily Average Stage (ft) La!: 28-31-10 Long: 96-48-55 TWOS Data Logger (O&M by USGS) Jan-79 Feb-79 Mar-79 1 2.92 3.99 3.871 2 2.93 4.01 3.85 3 2.93 4 3.89 4 2.93 3.95 3.85 5 2.96 3.95 3.86 6 3.28 4.15 3.9 7 3.74 4.17 3.92 8 4.01 4.35 3.88 9 4.16 4.61 3.85 10 4.32 5.02 3.83 11 4.75 5.5 3.8 12 5.21 3.74 5.751 13 6.17 5.61 3.69 141 5.3 3.67 6.511 15 6.48 5 3.56 16 6.48 4.7 3.53 17 6.39 4.51 3.52 18 5.98 4.44 3.5 19 5.5 4.4 3.49 20 5.19 4.4 3.48 21 4.82 4.34 3.54 22 4.65 4.25 3.63 23 4.68 4.21 3.62 24 4.61 4.17 3.58 25 4.59 4.09 3.65 26 4.56 4.01 3.82 27 4.45 3.95 4.24 28 4.3 3.94 4.72 29 4.18 5.12 30 4.16 5.32 31 4.09 5.36 Average Maximum
6.51
5.75
5.36
Apr-79 5.361 5.29 5.11 4.94 4.78 4.78 4.97 5.23 5.23 5.32 5.27
May-79
6.91 6.811 6.47 5.98 5.5 5.08 4.75 4.21 4.22 4.11 4.06 4.04 4.04 4.01 3.97 3.94
5.36
F.5
Jun-79 3.96 3.951 4.04 4.13 4.45 5.04 5.42 5.63 6.11 6.52 6.67 6.761 6.61 6.24 5.83 5.41 5.07 4.85 4.73 4.65 4.48 4.31 4.18 4.09 4.02 3.95 3.88 3.82 3.761 3.69
6.91
6.76
Jul-79 3.62 6.551 6.51 3.49 3.51 3.45 3.55 3.52 3.49 3.46 3.5 3.51 3.48 3.44 3.41 3.4 3.38 3.34 3.3 3.28 3.25 3.23 3.2 3.17 3.2 3.43 3.87 4.19 4.31 4.25 4.22
6.55
Datum of gage is 0.24ft NAD27 Purple indicates site vist by USGS and possible datum change
Page 1
Aug-79 4.24 4.22 4.15 4.09 4.02 3.95 3.89 3.83 3.77 3.72 3.68 3.63 3.59 3.53 3.49 3.45 3.44 3.38 3.34 3.3 3.27 3.21 3.231 3.25 3.21 3.17 3.13 3.11 3.11 3.1 3.09
4.24
Sep-79 3.11 3.31 3.36 3.38 3.39 3.4 3.38 3.33 3.3 3.27 3.24 3.21 3.18 3.13 3.08 3.05 3.03 3.09 3.71 4.28 5.08 5.86 5.891 5.47 4.98 4.61 4.41 4.24 4.13 4.06
.5.89
Oct-79 3.99 3.92 3.86 3.78 3.68 3.632 3.57 3.52 3.49 3.43 3.34 3.29 3.26 3.19 3.15 3.13 3.1 3.06
2.95 2.9 2.85 2.81 2.78 2.75 2.74 2.68 2.66 2.76
3.99
Nov-79 2.71 2.66 2.65 2.6 2.58 2.61 2.58 2.55 2.7 2.54 2.53 2.53 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.51 2.51 2.5 2.5 2.51 2.48 2.47 2.47 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46
Dec-79 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.44 2.44 2.44
2.71
2.46
.: 1980
Appendix F.G Green lake Site - Daily Average Stage (ft)
Lat:28-31-10 Long: 96-48-55 TWDS Data Logger (O&M by USGS) Jan-80 Feb-80 1 2.44 2.63 2 2.44 2.63 3 2.49 2.63 4 2.52 2.31 5 2.52 2.59 6 2.52 7 2.52 8 2.52 9 2.52 10 2.52 11 2.51 12 2.51 13 2.2 14 2.2 15 2.49 16 2.49 17 2.48 18 2.47 19 2.47 20 2.47 21 2.53 22 2.68 23 2.8 2.48 241 2.841 2.48 25 2.84 2.45 26 2.83 2.45 27 2.79 2.45 28 2.74 2.45 29 2.76 2.45 30 2.75 31 2.64 Average Maximum
2.56 2.84
2.50 2.63
Mar-80 2.44 2.44 2.44 3.44 2.44 3.44 2.44 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43
Apr-80 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.44 2.45 2.54 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
May-80 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
2.50 3.44
2.47 2.54
2.50 2.50
Datum of gage is 0.24ft NAD27 Purple indicates sitevistby USGS
and possible datum change
Jun-80 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.27 3.24 3.2 3.14 3.1 3.06 3.05 2.97 2.9 2.88 2.87 2.83 2.79 2.76
2.74 3.27
Jul-80 2.73 2.71 2.68 2.65 2.62 2.59 2.55 2.52 2.48 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47
Aug-80 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.5
2.51 2.73
2.47 2.50
Sep-80
2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.56 2.56 2.57 2.59 3.07 3.281 3.26 3.26 3.25 3.24 3.23 3.22 3.21 3.2 3.18 3.17 3.33 3.41 3.4 3.44
2.97 3.44
Oct-80 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.43 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.43 3.43 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.43 3.44 3.44 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.44 3.43 3.42 3.42 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.42
Nov-80 3.42 3.41 3.41 3.4 3.4 3.39 3.8 3.38 3.7 3.37 3.36 3.36 3.35 3.36 3.35
Dec-80 3.21 3.21 3.2 3.2 3.19 3.18 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.16 3.15
3.43 3.44
3.43 3.80
3.18 3.21
1981
Appendix F.7 Green Lake Site - Daily Average Stage (ft) Lat: 28-31-10 Long: 96-48-55 TWDS Data Logger (O&M by USGS) Jan-81 Feb-81 Mar-81 1 2 3 2.65 4 2.65 5 2.64 6 2.64 7 2.63 8 2.62 9 2.61 10 2.6 11 2.6 12 2.59 13 2.59 14 2.59 15 2.59 16 2.58 17 2.58 18 2.57 19 2.56 20 2.56 21 2.55 22 2.55 23 2.55 24 2.54 25 2.53 26 2.53 27 2.52 28 2.52 29 2.52 30 2.51 31 2.51 Average Maximum
2.58 2.65
Apr-81 2.51 2.5 2.5 2.49 2.48 2.48 2.47 2.47 2.471 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.47 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46
2.47 2.51
May-81 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.64 3.75 4.66 5.081 5.12 5.03 4.72 4.53 4.38 4.28 4.171 4.09 4.04 4 3.95 3.84 3.751 3.7 3.66 3.61 3.73 3.73 3.68 3.64 3.65 3.77 3.84
Jun-81 4.08 4.3 4.44 4.71 5.11 5.44 5.85 5.981 5.79 5.51 5.42 5.41 5.58 6.91 7.811 7.63 7.42 7.34 7.39 7.77 8.031 7.95 7.84 7.8 7.8 7.64 7.33 7.03 6.74 6.49 0
Jul-81 6.36 6.26 6.11 5.96 5.82 5.68 5.52 5.51 5.64 5.75 5.67 5.51 5.44 5.44 5.42 5.21 5.02 4.79 4.62 4.5 4.38 4.27 4.18 4.1 4 3.95 3.91 3.88 3.83 3.76 3.7
Aug-81 3.65 3.58 3.51 3.461 3.44 3.43 3.43 3.45 3.43 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.43 3.44 3.43 3.41 3.4 3.4 3.41 3.3 3.25 3.12 3.01 2.58 2.58 2.57 2.57 2.56 2.58 2.58 2.63
Sep-81 2.67 2.89 5.78 9.931 9.38 8.63 7.83 6.98 6.13 5.45 4.94 4.57 4.3 4.12 4.07 3.93 3.8 3.68 3.6 3.54 3.47 3.43 3.42 3.37 3.3 3.251 3.18 3.12 3.07 3.05
Oct-81 3.04 3.06 3.031 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.04 3.06 3.04 3.03 3.03 3.02 3.02 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.04 3.08 2.98 2.83 2.82 3.06 3.23 3.18 3.21 3.241 3.2 3.18 3.14 3.12 3.86
Nov-81 5.25 7.73 7.441 6.89 6.47 6.22 6.17 6 5.28 4.57 4.21 3.94 3.8 3.67 3.58 3.49 3.41 3.33 3.27 3.18 3.11 3.06 3.02 2.97 2.91 2.88 2.82 2.78 2.73 2.73
6.28 8.03
4.97 6.36
3.19 3.65
4.63 9.93
3.09 3.86
4.23 7.73
3.83 5.12
Datum of gage is 0.24ft NAD27 Purple indicates site vist by USGS and possible datum change
Page 1
Dec-81 2.73 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.63 2.64 2.64 2.62 2.61 2.62 2.64 2.66 2.64 2.62 2.64 2.6 2.58 2.57 2.6 2.65 2.65 2.64 2.63 2.61 2.63 2.65 2.64 2.63 2.63 2.73
1982
Appendix Green Lake Site - Daily Average Stage (tt) Lat: 28-31-10 Long: 96-48-55 TWDS Data Logger (O&M by USGS) Jan-82 Feb-82 Mar-82 1 3.331 5.261 2 3.32 5.14 3 3.32 4.81 4 3.32 4.56 5 3.42 3.32 4.33 6 3.41 3.31 4.19 7 3.44 3.31 4.04 8 3.45 3.31 3.93 9 3.42 3.31 3.86 10 3.43 3.31 3.79 11 3.45 3.31 3.73 12 3.43 3.31 3.69 13 3.44 3.3 3.58 14 3.43 3.3 3.66 15 3.41 3.3 3.66 16 3.41 3.3 3.66 17 3.41 3.29 3.66 18 3.41 3.29 3.66 19 3.41 3.29 3.65 20 3.41 3.29 3.65 21 3.41 3.29 3.65 22 3.4 3.29 3.65 23 3.39 3.29 3.65 24 3.38 3.29 3.65 25 3.38 3.37 3.65 26 3.37 3.46 3.65 27 3.36 3.5 3.65 28 3.64 3.351 4.491 29 3.35 3.64 30 3.34 3.64 31 3.34 3.64 Average Maximum
3.40 3.45
3.36 4.49
3.89 5.26
Apr-82 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.631 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.621 3.62 3.62
3.63 3.64
May-82 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.97 5.08 6.25 6.61 6.44 6.09 5.65 5.33 5.34 5.88 6.241 6.02 5.66 5.25
Jun-82 4.87 4.56 4.34 4.2 4.07 3.95
4.56 6.60
F.B
Jul-82
Aug-82
Sep-82
2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51
Oct-82 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.511 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51
2.54 2.76
2.51 2.51
2.76 2.7 2.64 2.6 2.56 2.53 2.51
4.33 4.87
Datum of gage is 0.24ft NAD27 Purple indicates site vist by USGS and possible datum change
Page 1
Nov-82 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.78 3.541 3.5 3.48 3.48 3.44 3.44 3.44
2.74 3.54
Dec-82 3.44 3.44 3.18 3.45 3.41 3.45
3.40 3.45
1983
Appendix F.9 Green Lake Site - Daily Average Stage (ft) Lat: 28-31-10 Long: 96-48-55 .TWDB Data Logger (O&M by USGS) Jan-83 Feb-83 Mar-83 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3.44 21 3.43 22 3.43 23 3.44 24 3.44 25 3.43 26 3.44 27 3.44 28 3.45 29 3.73 30 4.1 31 4.48 Average Maximum
3.60 4.48
Apr-83 4.721 4.55 4.37 4.3 4.24 4.15 4.07 4.01 3.95 3.9 3.78 3.74 3.74 3.69 3.67 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.65 3.65 3.65
3.86 4.72
May-83 3.65 3.65 3.66 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68
Jun-83 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.671 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67
Jul-83 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 4.15 5.68 6.321 6.06 5.65 5.25 4.91 4.64 4.46 4.32 4.21 4.12 4.06 3.97 3.92
3.67 3.67
4.21 6.32
3.68 3.69
Datum of gage is 0.24ft NAD27 Purple indicates site vist by USGS and possible datum change
Page 1
Aug-83 3.89 3.85
3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.48 3.89
Sep-83 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45
Oct-83 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44
Nov-83
3.44 3.45
3.45 3.45
3.45 3.46
3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46
Dec-83 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.45 3.45 3.44 3.44 3.43 3.42 3.46 3.46
1984
Appendix F.10 Green lake Site - Daily Average Stage (tt)
Lat:28-31-10
Long: 96-48-55 by USGS) Jan-84 Feb-84 3.42 3.42 3.24 3.24 3.24 3.24 3.24 3.24 3.31 3.61 3.3 3.28 3.34 3.34 3.31 3.27 3.25 3.33 3.32 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.26
TWOS Data Logger (O&M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Average Maximum
3.29 3.61
Mar-84 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.41 3.4 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.59 3.5 3.4 3.39 3.39 3.44 3.39 3.9 3.39 3.63 3.39 3.39 3.39
Apr-84 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39
May-84 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
Jun-84 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
3.43 3.90
3.39 3.39
3.40 3.41
3.40 3.40
Datum of gage is0.24ft NAD27 Purple indicates sitevistby USGS
Jul-84 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 -3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.40 3.40
and possible datum change
Page 1
Aug-84 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
Sep-84 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
Oct-84 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43
Nov-84 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43
Dec-84 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43
3.40 3.40
3.40 3.40
3.41 3.43
3.43 3.43
3.43 3.43
1985
Appendix F.11 Green lake Site - Daily Average Stage (tt) La!: 28-31-10 Long: 96-48-55 TWDS Data Logger (O&M by USGS) Jan-85 Feb-85 Mar-85 1 3.43 3.43 3.42 2 3.43 3.43 3.42 3 3.43 3.43 3.42 4 3.43 3.43 3.42 5 3.43 3.43 3.42 6 3.43 3.43 3.42 7 3.43 3.43 3.42 8 3.43 3.43 3.42 9 3.43 3.43 3.42 10 3.43 3.43 3.42 11 3.43 3.43 3.42 12 3.43 3.42 3.42 13 3.43 3.42 3.42 14 3.43 3.42 3.42 15 3.43 3.42 3.42 16 3.43 3.42 3.421 17 3.43 3.42 3.42 18 3.43 3.42 3.98 19 3.43 3.42 4.38 20 3.43 3.42 4.93 21 3.43 3.42 5.35 22 3.43 3.421 5.461 23 3.43 3.42 5.43 24 3.43 3.42 5.291 25 3.43 3.42 5.16 26 3.43 3.42 5.04 27 3.43 3.42 4.99 28 3.43 3.42 4.92 29 3.43 4.85 30 3.43 4.85 31 3.43 4.75 Average Maximum
3.43 3.43
3.42 3.43
4.11 5.46
Apr-85 4.69 4.63 4.56 4.49 4.49 4.41 4.38 4.32 4.26 4.28 4.44 4.63 4.93 5.35 5.57 5.611 5.55 5.44 5.31 5.19 5.07 5.08 5.26 5.361 5.29 5.27 5.15 5.06 5.03 4.96
4.94 5.61
May-85 4.91 4.83 4.74 4.67 4.61 4.56 4.5 4.47 4.43 4.36 4.29 4.25 4.2 4.22 4.19 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.1 4 4.15 4.11 4.13 4.11 4.09 4.08 4.07 4.07 4.061 4.06 4.06
Jun-85 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.04 4.14 4.181 4.13
Jul-85 4.12 4.1
3.68 3.65 3.59 3.53 3.47 3.41 3.34 3.29 3.25 3.22 3.2 3.17 3.15 3.14
Aug-85 3.13 3.12 3.11 3.1 3.09 3.08 3.07 3.06 3.06 3.05 3.05 3.04 3.04 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 3 3 3 3
4.05 4.18
3.46 4.12
3.04 3.13
4.29 4.91
Datum of gage is 0.24ft NAD27 Purple indicates site vist by USGS and possible datum change
Page 1
Sep-85 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98
2.99 3.00
Oct-85 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.96 2.96 2.97 2.98
Nov-85 2.97 2.96 2.961 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.96 3.56
2.98 3.56
Dec-85 4.86 5.77 6.091 6.01 5.67 5.34 5 4.7 4.44 4.25 4.33 4.19 4.06 3.94 3.88 3.82 3.79 3.75 3.68 3.64 3.6 3.6 3.56 3.52 3.52 3.44 3.41 3.37 3.34 3.32 3.32 3.31 4.17 6.09
1986
Appendix F.12 Green lake Site - Daily Average Stage (ft) Lat: 28-31-10 Long: 96-48-55 TWOS Data Logger (O&M by USGS) Jan-86 Feb-86 Mar-86 1 3.31 3.28 3.27 2 3.31 3.28 3.27 3 3.3 3.28 3.27 4 3.3 3.28 3.27 5 3.3 3.28 3.27 6 3.3 3.28 3.27 7 3.3 3.28 3.27 8 3.29 3.28 3.27 9 3.29 3.28 3.27 10 3.29 3.28 3.27 11 3.29 3.28 3.27 12 3.29 3.28 3.27 13 3.29 3.27 3.27 14 3.29 3.27 3.27 15 3.29 3.27 3.27 16 3.29 3.27 3.27 17 3.29 3.27 3.27 18 3.29 3.27 3.27 19 3.29 3.27 3.27 20 3.29 3.27 3.27 21 3.29 3.27 3.27 22 3.28 3.27 3.27 23 3.28 3.27 3.27 24 3.29 3.27 3.27 25 3.29 3.27 3.27 26 3.28 3.27 3.27 27 3.28 3.27 3.27 28 3.28 3.27 3.27 29 3.28 3.27 3.27 30 3.28 3.27 31 3.28 3.27 Average Maximum
3.29 3.31
3.27 3.28
3.27 3.27
Apr-86 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27
May-86 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27
3.27 3.27
3.27 3.27
Jun-86 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.26 3.6 4.27 7.861 5.3 5.49 5.35 5.06 4.72 4.52 4.31 4.13 4.01 3.94 3.92 3.99 4.09 4.1 4.01 3.92 3.82 3.74
4.12 7.86
Jul-86 3.66 3.61 3.55 3.48 3.41 3.39 3.38 3.36 3.36 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.32 3.32 3.32
Aug-86 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32
3.37 3.66
3.32 3.32
Datum of gage is 0.24ft NAD27 Purple indicates site vist by USGS and possible datum change
Page 1
Sep-86
3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.311
3.31 3.31
Oct-86 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.3 3.3
3.3 3.37 3.61 3.84 3.94 4 4.05 4.061 4.04 3.52 4.06
Nov-86
Dec-86 3.48 3.47 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.46 3.68 3.97 4.43 4.54 5.32 6.19 6.52 6.64 7.01 7.311 7.18 4.25 7.31
1987
Appendix F.13 Green lake Site â&#x20AC;˘ Daily Average Stage (ft) Lat: 28-31-1 0 Long: 96-48-55 TWOS Data Logger (O&M by USGS) Jan-87 Feb-87 Mar-87 1 6.62 2 6.13 3 5.8 4 5.56 5.45 5 6 5.35 7 5.28 8 5.21 9 5.13 10 5.03 11 4.95 12 4.9 13 4.75 14 4.66 15 4.54 16 4.51 17 4.5 18 4.59 19 4.52 20 4.52 21 4.58 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Average Maximum
5.08 6.62
#DIV/O! 0.00
#DIV/O! 0.00
Apr-87
Jun-87 3.55 3.53 3.77 4.17
3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44
May-87 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.48 3.56 3.57
3.44 3.45
3.45 3.57
3.76 4.17
Jul-87
Aug-87
4.65 4.58
#DIV/O! 0.00
Datum of gage is 0.24ft NAD27 Purple indicates site vist by USGS and possible datum change
Page 1
Sep-87
Oct-87
Nov-87
Dec-87
Appendix G Green Lake Stage Increase vr. Guadalupe River Flow DATE
Guadalupe
@Tivoli msl 7.9 9.6 7.6 7.5 8.0 7.2 7.4 8.2 7.1 7.9 7.8 7.2
05-Jun-76 05-Nov-81 21-Jan-79 25-May-79 30-Jul-79 06-Aug-75 26-Apr-81 10-0ct-81 15-0ct-84 27-0ct-84 1 19 1985 2 27 1985 lOlL
r
~::IO:>
1 -MaH~4 12-Feb-82 6/26/1985 29-Nov-78 29-Sep-76 21-Jan-80 09-Feb-79 19-Jun-81 16-Jan-77 03-Feb-77 4/2171985 26-Jan-77 09-Nov-78 18-0ct-81 1271871986 05-Apr-79 30-May-81 15-Feb-77 08-Jun-79 16-Apr-75 13-Sep-80 30-Jun-75 12/27/1986 21-Sep-79 25-May-82 16-Jun-75 4/11/1985 11-Jul-76 12-May-76 02-May-75 11-Jan-79 3/16/1985 25-Mar-79 27-Feb-82 11-May-75 31-0ct-81 12-Jun-81 09-Aug-78 31-May-75 04-May-81 11729/1985 18-May-82 09-May-82 08-Feb-75 15-Sep-78 04-Sep-81 16-Jul-83
*
Total
*
Flow (CFS) 9,673 18,684 7,340 4,727 6,850 4,452 4,848 8,039 4,226 4,124 5562 4313 7597
Time -to Peak Stage (Days)
GreenLake
Prior-stage (ft) 4.99 6.22 4.82 4.06 4.25 2.63 4.46 3.03 3.40 3.43 3.43 3.42 2.97 ""T.4U 3.29 4.04 2.98 1.87 2.68 5.50 7.77 3.60 4.15 5.08 3.99 3.06 3.00 3.44 4.78 3.84 5.33 6.11 2.60 2.57 4.24 6.52 5.08 5.33 5.03 4.63 2.75 5.05 2.97 5.20 3.98 3.82 3.50 4.33 5.25 5.58 2.58 5.42 2.64 3.56 3.97 3.62 2.53 4.42 5.78 1.50
GreenLake
Peak stage (ft) 4 4~7 3 6.00 3 4.61 5 3.97 4 4.22 3 2.63 4 4.46 5 3.03 5 3.40 4 3.43 4 3.43 4 3.42 8 4 L.97 1.1 I,Ulb ~ 3.43 8.1 7,473 3 3.37 8.1 8966 5 4.12 7.4 6,590 3 3.07 7.8 4,978 4 2 7.9 7,661 3 2.84 8.0 13,040 1 5.75 9.0 36,890 2 8.03 7.9 6,015 4 3.87 7.9 7,423 4 4.43 7.5 8894 3 5.36 8.0 8,013 4 4.29 8.1 9,390 4 3.39 7.9 5,082 7 3.40 7.9 9837 4 3.97 7.9 10,730 5 5.32 8.0 7,410 4 4.44 8.0 14,193 2 5.94 8.3 24,984 4 6.76 7.7 6,426 5 3.25 8.1 13,747 7 3.26 8.2 8,446 5 4.95 8.8 29140 3 7.31 8.4 12,309 3 5.89 8.2 19,100 3 6.24 8.2 14,524 4 5.96 8.3 8090 5 5.61 8.0 7,920 5 3.76 8.4 19,040 4 6.22 7.6 8,599 5 4.16 8.2 19,730 3 6.51 8.3 8140 6 5.46 8.0 11,048 5 5.36 8.2 14,030 5.26 8.0 16,550 6 6.46 9.5 28,070 3 7.44 8.4 22,480 3 7.81 8.0 10,075 18 4.85 9.2 33,592 3 7.89 8.4 11,530 5 5.12 8.2 18305 4 6.09 8.2 23,876 3 6.60 7.7 6,730 4 6.32 8.1 15,120 4 5.26 9.0 20,040 2 7.94 11.5 101,375 2 9.93 14,065 4 6.32 Sum of Victoria, Goliad and Coleta Creek USGS River gauges
Stage
Increase (ft) -0.29 -0.22 -0.21 -0.09 -0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Remarks
do not use do not use do not use Questionable
Questionable
No Overflow
t !
U I u.uestionaOTe U.U3 0.08 0.08 Questionable 0.09 0.13 Questionable 0.16 0.25 0.26 Overflow 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.33 0.40 Questionable 0.53 0.54 0.60 0.61 0.65 0.65 0.69 0.71 0.79 0.81 0.91 0.93 0.98 1.01 1.17 1.19 1.31 1.48 1.54 1.76 2.13 2.19 2.23 2.27 2.47 2.48 2.53 2.63 2.70 2.73 3.52 4.15 4.82
l
1
j
II
App_~n_dix ~
I _ I
I
Maxiumum Daily Flow in Guadalupe River at Salt Water Barrier Gr-eat~r than 600-0 ~f-s) I r ~ 1 ) _ I
- -IT
Jan
Feb-
Mar
Apr
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
10710
10710
j
1
May
1
Jun
(cfs)
(Cl$)
I
(cfs)
28690
2~960
I'
!
Jul
I
(ofs)
I
I
[
Aug (cfs)
- -
19491 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 19581 16544 1959 19601 19611 9430
62~91
I
-I
105401
I
I
I 1
I
-i
Sep (cfs)
I I
9246
134601 [ 14900 I 12160 8721 16370 ~
I
112001
I
I
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
(cfsl
(cfs)
(cfs)
Months
I
18360
I 75091 33800j' 13186
~ 6962
-
I
42
34~551 ~3~0 11460 - - j 117801 _1_~14881 9274
41135 139491
8291
1962] 1963 1964 19651 1966 1967 1968 63266 1969 1970 1971 1972 6410 1973 1974 10855 -_.-1975 1976 -- 1977 8013 1978 -----1979 19730 1980 7265 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 -1987 8984 1988 1989 1990 1991
29
15388
J.324!_]1 __ ) 10881
[9712_3_4-68-0 !_54_3_1 6902 !3724 19470 14430 8813 13778 12936 7471 9343
64900
10402 --- --6426 33592 17970 18680 65040 12337
----
15120 -
-
6183 28363
14193 ---
13040
11048
19540
-
14080 6022
-
9820 7016 8595
---
19785~ -----21882
---
8894
32000 12547 11530 22970 8625
8150) 45802 20270 20502 9627 10486 --11202 ---24984 36890
12715 14435 14624 113776 9878
17720
6600
7200 -32390 6761 782~1 13772 1
!
8041 6730
16244
-
10075 6850 10580
22830 12309 13747 8450 101375 9579
1~~~~1
--
7550 20402 --~--
20451 10580 9390
_2~~f~1 21910 ---
12628
20
7232 7000 21483 --------
-----
-
-
12276 -
6715
-
--
-
-
---
7591, 18305
14625
717~-291~~
10999
-
21
I
I
__ L~ppendix
L____ -1
I
_H_
j I Maxiumum- Daily- Flow in Guadalupe River at Salt Water Barrier -_. --_. ---LG!~~!:~~h_~~ 6i>QO cfs) -
-
I
Jan
-
-~--
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
(efs)
(efs)
(efs)
(efs)
(efs)
(efs)
42820 -27260 --22727
~63591 32789 19787
Jul
Aug
-
(efs)
(efs)
Sep
Oct
Nov
(efs)
(efs)
(efs)
Dec
Total
---
----
(efs)
Months
I 199~1 34610 1993/ 1994 -1995 92 -1996 -1997 -1998 -1999 -2000 2001 7748 --I 2002 -2003 10560 -2004 -2005 8525 -2006 2007 -2008 -20101 2011 -2012 -2013
82601
--1
11580
1
2009
430i171 387801
62020 -8399
--
11761
6235 31831
9266
---
9426
-
----
18776
6435 -16284
10070
12540
21170 10866 8365 --31648 ---
--1--
-------
--
14084 -
-
10080 2489 15702 --27700 324790
-- ----
6023 9604
--
-
12320 -9363
27012
40240
7611
-
128607
----
19110
29055
10646
6234 -
-
9035 2483 --10003 --
22504
52810 12535
---------
9050 -11310
12805
34200 -7292
60310 16137 ---10540
23433
16813 --17184 13130 ---38681 64641 20680 ----7969 1679 -----15946 110266 12321 --
- ---
--
-
-
18 15
Appendix I Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Net Evaporation Data* in feet * Derived using methods documented in: TWDB, "Monthly Reservoir Evaporation Rates for Texas, 1940-1965," Report 64, October, 1967.
**
Includes
Year
1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
1
1
1
Avg Max
all of Calhoun
JAN
FEB
0.01 -0.01 0.18 -0.06 -0.37 0.15 -0.09 -0.05 -0.07 0.02 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.19
-0.01 -0.08 -0.18 0.08 0.08 0.06 -0.02 0.14 -0.17 -0.19 -0.02 0.12 -0.12 -0.03
-0.07 0.15
-0.06 0.14
County MAR
0.17 -0.11 0.18 0.08 -0.23 0.03 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.03 0.23 0.01 0.18 0.2
0.24 0.23
and portions
of Aransas,
Jackson,
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
0.23 -0.13 0.16 0.27 0.27 -0.14 0.11 -0.03 0.16 -0.28 0.08 0.28 0.04 0.32
0.3 -0.08 0.28 0.16 -0.21 0.33 0.1 -0.2 0.14 0.26 0.24 -0.06 0.14 -0.28
0.18 0.09 0.18 0.28 0.41 0.14 -0.04 0.37 0.42 0.33 0.19 0.25 0.31 0.2
0.28 0.07 -0.48 0.18 0.53 0.18 0.24 0.51 0.42 0.18 0.31 0.46 0.21 0.59
0.22 -0.04
0.33 0.34
-0.14
0.24
Matagorda,
AUG
0.43 0.28 0.12 0.52 0.3 -0.49 0.12 0.13 0.41 0.36 0.38 0.74 0.5 -0.28
0.3
Refugio,
and Victoria
Counties
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
0.38 0.06 0.07 0.08 -0.05 0.43 -0.23 0.43 0.03 0.18 0.28 -0.28 -0.12 0.48
-0.25 -0.3 0.2 0.46 0.33 0.11 -0.16 0.23 0.38 -0.7 0.41 0.17 0.42
-0.14 0.12 0.26 -0.06 0.02 0.28 -0.09 -0.01 0.18 0.29 0.28 0.16 -0.24
-0.15 0.09 0.14 -0.13 -0.07 0.02 0.12 -0.12 0.18 -0.16 0.21 0.18 -0.01
-0.31 0.29 0.41 -0.24
0.43
-0.03
0.13
Annual Total
1.43 0 1.11 1.86 1.01 1.1 0.14 1.49 2.16 0.32 2.67 2.16 1.48 1.58 3.27 3.22 3.97 1.53 2.19 1.67 1.27 1.35 2.64 3.15 2.28 2.42 1.72 1.89 2.03 2.62 2.05 3.46 2.47 2.14 2.29 2.53 2.63 2.98 2.69 1.64 3.58 2.29 3.45 2.62 3.43 3.54 2.95 2.64 3.95 3.31 3.08
~:i~1-~~!I _~:~~I~:HI g~!1 g4il ml ~}~I ~:~!I :~ilt~ilI~il O.
t~:1-~:~;I~:~~I t~fl o~i~1~:gl ~::~I ~:nlI::I
-0.04 0.14 -0.06 0.23 0.05 0 -0.04 0.08 0.17 -0.04 -0.04 -0.07 -0.01 0.02 0.15 0 -0.02 0.09 0.11 0.03 0.11
0 -0.11 0.07 0.17 0.12 -0.02 0.2 0.12 0.27 0.09 -0.04 -0.05 0.1 0.03 -0.08 -0.03 0.22 0.07 0.18 -0.06 0.11
0 0.1 0.1 0.33 0.22 0.17 0.12 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.29 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.16 0.1 0.22 0.12 0.34 0.3 0.17
0.1 -0.02 0.03 0.28 0.3 0.11 0.3 0.23 0.09 0.17 0.16 0.03 0.38 0.25 0.18 0.4 0.47 0.22 0.36 0.44 0.27
0.08 0.13 -0.15 0.38 0.03 0.41 0.07 0.16 0.24 0.27 0.5 0.09 0.17 0.04 0.14 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.14 0.4
-0.14 0.48 0.31 0.51 0.34 0.06 0.31 0.24 0.49 0.22 0.26 0.24 0.74 0.11 0.57 0.34 0.64 0.37 0.22 0.13 45 0.
0.42 0.64 0.54 0.72 0.41 0.55 0.61 0.36 0.2 0.51 0.43 0.15 0.6 0.37 0.72 0.21 0.52 0.58 0.81 0.27
0.75 0.61 0.51 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.49 0.45 0.61 0.35 0.52 0.39 0.61 0.47 0.55 0.75 0.53 0.51
0.29 0.41 0.13 0.01 0.24 -0.06 0.22 0.28 0.25 0.4 0.08 0.01 0.27 0.47 0.55 0.21 0.34 0.44 0.36 0.32
~:~~I ~:~~~ ~:~~~
0.31 0.11 0.03 0.15 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.19 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.18 0.25 0.25 -0.14 0.22 -0.05 0.44
0.13 0.13 0.35 0.32 0.07 0.3 0.04 0.24 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.18 -0.01 0.03
0.13 0 0.19 0.02 0.15 0.18 0.02 0.05 -0.03 0.27 0.03 0.11 0.16 0.07 0.18 0.12 0.09 0.17 -0.05 0.09
~:;~I ~:g ~:;!I Hil -~:~:Io~oil o~AI ~:~:~
ml H!I ml ~~il
0.033 0.28
0.2 0.55
0.029 0.27
0.149 0.34
0.165 0.47
0.184 0.5
1
0.285 0.74
0.431 0.81
0.406 0.75
Drought Total
0.186 0.46
0.133 0.38
0.063 0.27
2.264 3.97
10.91
7.22
3.54
6.0
Appendix B
An Ecological Survey of Green Lake Terrestrial Plant Communities, Calhoun County Jason R. Singhurst, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas Dr. Brent Ortego, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Victoria, Texas
20 March 2013
Fig. 1. Green Lake, Calhoun County, Texas.
An ecological survey of natural plant community associations of Green Lake (Figure 1, 2), land owned by Calhoun County was conducted to support natural resource planning, public use, and conservation of significant ecological features. Green Lake is a natural lake in Calhoun County, Texas, on the Guadalupe River flood basin, known for its greenish waters, from which its name derives. This survey was focused on describing the natural and mostly undisturbed plant communities on the south side of Green Lake.
Figure 2. Location of Green Lake.
Summary of Plant Community Associations An association is defined as â&#x20AC;&#x153;a plant community of definite floristic composition, uniform habitat conditions, and uniform physiognomyâ&#x20AC;? (see Flahault and Schroter 1910 in Moravec 1993). Four plant community associations were described during this survey and two are regionally rare and only found within the Coastal Bend (mid coast of Texas). The associated flora follows Lehman et al. (2005) and Hatch et al. (1999).
Plant Community Associations Documented
1. Coastal Bend Chenier The southeastern side of Green Lake shore line contains a shell based bottomland terraces with features that are similar to Cheniers (sandy or shell beach ridge that is part of a strand plain) in the upper coast of Texas. The Coastal Bend Chenier (Figure 3, 4) is unique and until this report was an un-described vegetation type for Texas and the Gulf Coast. This linear shell ridge layer forms a natural terrace and is overlain on Austin Clay,
salty bottom soils. This plant community is dominated by bottomland hardwoods and follows the majority of the southern lake edge. The dominant species include green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), black willow (Salix nigra), great leadtree (Leucaena pulverulenta), sweet acacia (Acacia farnesiana) and Jerusalem thorn (Parkinsonia aculeata). The understory woody plant layer is dominated by palmetto (Sabal minor), Carolina wolfberry (Lycium carolinianum), lime pricklyash (Zanthoxylum fagara), eastern baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia), false indigo bush (Amorpha fruticosa), and bushy seaside tansy (Borrichia frutescens). A few recent arrivals of the non-native Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) are present and can easily be removed. Understory vines included Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quenquifolia), mustang grape (Vitis mustangensis), Guadeloupe cucumber (Melothria pendula), dewberry (Rubus riograndis), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The understory herbaceous flora is dominated by wax crowfoot sedge (Carex crus-corvi), Turks cap (Malvaviscus arboreus), Drummond's hedgenettle (Stachys drummondii), and largeflower baby blue eyes (Nemophila phacelioides). Other herbaceous flora included yellow puff (Neptunia lutea), western ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), carpet grass (Axonopus sp.), sumpweed (Iva annua), dock (Rumex sp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), herb of grace (Bacopa monnieri), plantain (Plantago sp.), evening primrose (Oenothera speciosa), Carolina geranium (Geranium caroliniana), sow thistle (Sonchus asper), Venus looking glass (Triodanis perfoliata), Carolina nightshade (Solanum carolinensis).), beggars lice (Torvilis nododsa), lime brookweed (Samolus ebracteatus), black medic (Medicago sp.), nightshade cockroach berry (Solanum capsicoides), prickly fanpetals (Sida spinosa), flatsedge (Cyperus sp.), and Nealley's globe amaranth (Gomphrena nealleyi).
Figure 3. Coastal Bend Chenier.
Figure 4. Coastal Bend Chenier.
2. Coastal Bend Slope Forest The northeastern side of Green Lake shore line contains a slope forest that is blend of eastern deciduous forests in eastern Texas and influences from riparian woodlands of central and southern Texas. The Coastal Bend Slope Forest (Figure 5, 6) is unique and was just recently recognized as a distinct endemic plant community association in the Coastal Bend region of Texas where only a few other examples exist nearby along the Guadalupe and San Antonio River deltas in Refugio and Victoria Counties. This is the first report of this rare slope forest type in Calhoun County, Texas. This linear slope forest forms a natural bluff with primary and secondary terraces and is underlain on Leanest Clay with 3 to 8 % slopes that are naturally moderately to highly erosive. This plant community is dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), anacua (Ehretia anacua), coastal live oak (Quercus virginiana), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), and gum bully (Sideroxylon lanuginosum). The understory woody plant layer is dominated by lime pricklyash (Zanthoxylum fagara), Texas torchwood (Amyris texana), Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana), desert olive (Forestiera angustifolia), blackbrush (Acacia rigidula), red mulberry (Morus rubra), and infrequent occurrence of bois d’ arc (Maclura pomifera). We are not certain about bois d’ arc’s nativity to this site as it was frequently spread my Native Americans and early settlers. Other shrubs included spiny hackberry (Celtis ehrenbergiana), Brazilian bluewood (Condalia hookeri), western soapberry (Sapindus saponaria), common hoptree (Ptelea trifoliata), palmetto (Sabal minor), yucca (Yucca sp.), and lantana (Lantana urticoides). Understory vines included mustang grape (Vitis mustangensis), Carolina snailseed vine (Cocculus caroliniana), bluebill (Clematis pitcheri), sawtooth greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox), and dewberry
(Rubus riograndis). The understory herbaceous flora is dominated by Drummond's hedgenettle (Stachys drummondii), twoflower melicgrass (Melica mutica), Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus), largeflower baby blue eyes (Nemophila phacelioides), and frost weed (Verbesina virginica). Other herbaceous flora included cayenne pepper (Capsicum annuum), small coastal germander (Teucrium cubense), Turks cap (Malvaviscus arboreus), wood sorrel (Oxalis stricta), sedge (Carex sp.), white prickly poppy (Argemone albiflora), four oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; clock (Mirabilis nyctaginea), tropical sage (Salvia coccinea), yellow passion flower (Passiflora incarnata), bearded swallow-wort (Cynanchum barbigerum), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), and bristlegrass (Setaria sp.).
Figure 5. Coastal Bend Slope Forest.
Figure 6. Coastal Bend Slope Forest.
3. Coastal Bend Ox-bow Two natural ox-bows were documented at Green Lake. These isolated wetlands have strong floristic affinities to ox-bow or old river channel scars in eastern Texas and represent some of the more southerly examples of it in Texas. The Coastal Bend Ox-bow (Figure 7, 8) is unique as this plant community typically contains permanent freshwater and therefore is utilized by lots of wildlife including birds, amphibians, and invertebrates. These wetlands are underlain on Austin Clay soils. This plant community is dominated by green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra), swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata), button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and palmetto (Sabal minor). Dominant herbaceous flora includes crowfoot sedge (Carex crus-corvi), shoreline sedge (Carex hyalinolepis), cutgrass (Zizaniopsis miliacea), smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides), water primrose (Ludwigia peploides), and spiny chloracantha (Chloracantha spinosa). Other herbaceous flora includes spider lily (Hymenocallis liriosme), spot flower (Acmella oppositifolia), bur reed (Echinodorus cordifolius), water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), duckweed (Lemna sp.), and sand spikerush (Eleocharis montevidensis).
Figure 7. Coastal Bend Ox-bow.
Figure 8. Coastal Bend Ox-bow.
4. Coastal Live Oak Sand Terrace A small patch Coastal Live Oak Sand Terrace was documented at Green Lake. This upland woodland community (Figure 9, 10) developed on Telferner very fine sandy loam. This plant community is dominated by coastal live oak (Quercus virginiana), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), anacua (Ehretia anacua), and gum bully (Sideroxylon lanuginosum). Woody understory flora includes desert olive (Forestiera angustifolia), pricklyash (Zanthoxylum fagara), Texas torchwood (Amyris texana), Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana), lantana (Lantana urticoides). Woody vines include dewberry (Rubus riograndis) and Carolina snailseed vine (Cocculus caroliniana). Dominant herbaceous flora includes inland woodoats (Chasmanthium latifolium), sedges (Carex spp.), Turks cap (Malvaviscus arborea), Texas crabgrass (Digitaria texana), Drummond's hedgenettle (Stachys drummondii), and fringeleaf wild petunia (Ruellia humilis).
Figure 9. Coastal Live Oak Sand Terrace.
Figure 10. Coastal Live Oak Sand Terrace.
5. Coastal Prairie Uplands (converted to non-native grasses) The highest upland portion of the Green Lake tract historically would have comprised of coastal prairie developed on Lewsest clay (0-1% slope) and Docasta Contee complex (1-3% slope) (Figure 11). However, due to prior land use activities (over grazing), these areas are now dominated by non-native grasses, specifically K.R. bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum) and a smaller portion with Berumdagrass (Cynodon dactylon). These uplands are covered in early successional shrubs such as mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), huisache (Acacia farniseana), desert olive (Forestiera angustifolia), spiny hackberry (Celtis ehrenbergiana), lie prickly ash (Zanthoxylum fagara), Brazilian bluewood (Condalia hookeri), Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana), and gummy bumelia (Sideroxylon lanuginosa). Without woody plant control or prescribed burning, these woody plants will most likely close in the uplands into a thicket shrubland.
Figure 11. Coastal Prairie Uplands (converted to non-native grasses). 6. Spoil Unit We took a quick look at the impenetrable shrubland thicket that has now invaded the spoil unit (Figure 12). The shrubland is dominated by mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), huisache (Acacia farniseana), Jerusalem thorn (Parkinsonia aculeata), and eastern baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia). We decided not to survey this highly invaded site.
Figure 12. Spoil Unit.
7. Floodplain Salt Flats A very flat floodplain (Figure 13 & 14) landscape lies just east of the Coastal Bend Chenier and south of the Coastal Bend Slope Forest. This floodplain is interdigitated with salt flats. This plant community is irregularly flooded on hypersaline soils of Austwell clays and Harris Complex. This plant community is dominated by gulf Cordgrass (Spartina spartinae). Other important plant species includes shoregrass (Monanthochloe littoralis), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), wolfberry (Lycium carolinianum), seaside daisy (Borrichia frutescens), turtleweed (Batis maritima), bristle grass (Setaria parviflora), flat sedges (Cyperus spp.), and southern sea-blite (Suaeda linearis).
Figure 13. Floodplain Salt Flats.
Figure 14. Floodplain Salt Flats.
8. Marsh Ponds Four natural marsh ponds occur through the floodplain salt flat landscape. These isolated wetlands are dominated by panicgrass (Paspalidium geminatum), cutgrass (Zizaniopsis miliacea), sand spikesedge (Eleocharis montevidensis), and California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus). Other wetland plants frequenting the pond banks and mudflats included frog-fruit (Phyla nodiflora), dwarf spikerush (Eleocharis parvula), burhead (Echinodorus berteroi ), herb of grace (Bacopa monnieri), dotted smartweed (Persicaria punctataum), Drummond rattlebox (Sesbania drummondii), jointed flatsedge (Cyperus articulatus), fragrant flatsedge (Cyperus odoratus), green flatsedge (Cyperus virens), sweetscent (Pluchea odorata), manyflower marshpennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata), waterthread pondweed (Potamogeton diversifolius), and spotflower (Acmella oppositifolia).
Figure 15. Marsh Pond.
Figure 16. Marsh Ponds.
9. Goff Bayou
Due to time constraints we did not document Goff Bayou. We encourage natural resource documentation off this bayou at a later date.
Literature Cited Lehman, R, L., R. Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Burien, and Tammy White. 2005. Plants of the Texas Coastal Bend. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas. 352 pp. Hatch, S.L., J. L. Schuster, and D. Lynn Drawe. 1999. Grasses of the Gulf Prairies and Marshes. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas. 355 pp. Flahault, C., and C. Schroter. 1910. Rapport sur la nomenclature phytogeographique. Proceedings of the 3rd International Botanical Congress, Brussels, 1910, 1: 131164. Moravec, J. 1993. Syntaxonomic and nomenclatural treatment of Scandinavian-type associations and sociations. Journal of Vegetation Science 4:833-838.
RESOURCES CHAPTER 320. PARK BOARD AND PARK BONDS: COUNTIES WITH POPULATION OF 5,000 OR MORE
Appendix C
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec.A320.001.AAELIGIBLE COUNTIES.
The commissioners court
of a county with a population of 5,000 or more by order may adopt this chapter for the purpose of acquiring, improving, equipping, maintaining, financing, and operating one or more public parks. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.002.AADEFINITION.
In this chapter, "board" means
the board of park commissioners. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.003.AACREATION
OF
PARKS
BOARD.
(a)
The
order
adopting this chapter must specify whether the powers and duties provided by this chapter will be exercised and performed by the commissioners
court
or
by
a
board
of
park
commissioners
to
be
created for that purpose. (b)AAIf a board is created, the commissioners court shall transfer to the board jurisdiction and control of the parks with respect to which the commissioners court adopted this chapter. (c)AAThe commissioners court may from time to time adopt this chapter with respect to one or more other parks and may appoint another board for those parks. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.004.AAEXERCISE OF POWERS BY COMMISSIONERS COURT. (a)
If a board is not created, the commissioners court shall
exercise
the
references
in
powers this
and
perform
chapter
to
the
the
duties
board
are
of
the
board,
considered
to
and be
acts
of
the
board
are
considered
to
have
been
acts
of
the
(a)
The
by
the
commissioners court. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
SUBCHAPTER B. BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS
Sec.A320.021.AACOMPOSITION; board
must
be
composed
of
TERM;
seven
QUALIFICATIONS.
members
appointed
commissioners court. (b)AAMembers of the board serve for terms of two years, with the terms of three or four members expiring February 1 of each year. In appointing the initial board, the commissioners court shall designate three members to serve for a term expiring February 1 following their appointment and four members to serve for a term expiring the next February 1.
The commissioners court shall make
the necessary appointments each January. (c)AAA park commissioner must be a qualified voter of the county.
A park commissioner may not be an officer or employee of
the county or of a municipality in the county. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.022.AAVACANCY.
A vacancy on the board shall be
filled by appointment of the commissioners court for the unexpired term. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.023.AAOATH; date
a
qualify
park by
commissioner
taking
the
BOND. is
(a)
Within 15 days after the
appointed,
official
oath
and
the by
commissioner filing
a
good
must and
sufficient bond with the county clerk. (b)AAThe bond must be: (1)AApayable to the county judge; (2)AAin an amount prescribed by the commissioners court
in the commissioner â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity as park commissioner. (c)AAThe board shall pay the cost of the bond. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.024.AACERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT.
A certificate of
appointment executed by the county judge and attested by the county clerk
shall
be
filed
in
the
office
of
the
county
clerk.
The
certificate is conclusive evidence of the proper appointment of the park commissioner. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.025.AAORGANIZATION;
MEETINGS.
(a)
The board shall
elect from its membership a chairman, vice-chairman, secretary, and treasurer, except that the first chairman of the board shall be designated by the commissioners court at the time of appointment of the first board.
The member designated as the first chairman serves
in that capacity until the expiration of the term to which the member was appointed or until the member vacates office during that term. (b)AAThe offices of secretary and treasurer may be held by the same person.
If either the secretary or treasurer is absent or
unavailable, the other may act for and perform the duties of the absent or unavailable officer. (c)AAThe board shall hold regular meetings at times to be fixed by the board and may hold special meetings as necessary. (d)AAThe board may act on the vote of a majority of a quorum. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.026.AAEXPENSES. compensation
for
all
A park commissioner is entitled to
necessary
expenses,
including
travel
expenses, incurred in the performance of park commissioner duties. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
administered by the board. (b)AAA park commissioner may not have a direct or indirect interest
in
a
contract
or
proposed
contract
for
construction,
materials, or services in connection with or related to a park administered by the board. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.028.AASEAL. seal
shall
be
placed
on
The board shall adopt a seal, and the
each
lease,
deed,
or
other
instrument
usually executed under seal and on any other instrument as required by the board. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
SUBCHAPTER C. POWERS AND DUTIES
Sec.A320.041.AAOPERATION
AND
MAINTENANCE
OF
PARKS.
(a)
Subject to the supervision of the commissioners court, the board shall maintain and operate the parks under its administration. (b)AAThe commissioners court may transfer to a previously created board jurisdiction and control of one or more additional parks if the transfer will not impair the contract rights of the holders of any outstanding revenue bonds. (c)AAThe board shall exercise its powers and perform its duties in respect to the additional parks in a manner that will not infringe on the rights of the holders of outstanding revenue bonds. The board may not operate or maintain the additional parks in a manner
that
will
compete
with
or
reduce
the
revenues
of
park
properties or facilities the income of which has been pledged to the payment of outstanding revenue bonds. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.042.AAPERSONNEL. permanent
or
temporary
(a)
personnel,
The
board
including
may
employ
secretaries,
(c)AAThe board may employ a manager for one or more parks. The board may give the manager full authority for the management and operation of parks, subject to the direction and orders of the board and the commissioners court. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.043.AADEPOSITORIES AND DISBURSEMENTS;
AUDITS.
(a)
The commissioners court shall select one or more depositories for funds belonging to or under the control of the board other than bond proceeds or revenues and funds pledged to the payment of revenue bonds.
The commissioners court shall select the depositories on
the basis of competitive bids substantially in the manner provided by law for county funds.
The deposits must be secured substantially
in the manner and amount prescribed by law for county funds. (b)AAThe county auditor shall maintain a current audit of the board â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s funds and shall prepare monthly and annual audit reports. The reports shall be filed with the commissioners court and with the board and must be available for public inspection at all reasonable times during office hours on business days. (c)AAA warrant or check for the withdrawal of board funds must be signed by an officer of the board or, if designated by an order or resolution of the board, by a bonded employee of the board, and must be countersigned by the county auditor. (d)AAThe board may disburse funds under its control for any lawful purpose for the benefit of a park under its control. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.044.AACONTRACTS.
(a)
The
board
may
enter
a
contract, including a lease or other agreement, with any person as the
board
considers
necessary
or
convenient
to
carry
out
the
purposes and powers granted by this chapter, including a contract connected
with,
incident
to,
or
affecting
the
acquisition,
financing, construction, equipment, maintenance, or operation of a
(c)AATo be effective, a contract must be: (1)AAauthorized by order or resolution of the board; (2)AAexecuted by the board chairman or vice-chairman; (3)AAattested by the secretary or treasurer;
and
(4)AAapproved by the commissioners court. contract
(d)AAA
is
binding
on
the
board
and
the
county
without reference to any other law. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.045.AARULES. commissioners
court,
the
Subject board
may
to
the
adopt
approval reasonable
of
the
rules
concerning the use of any park administered by the board. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.0455.AARULES VIOLATIONS.
(a)
IN
A
POPULOUS
COUNTY;
PENALTY
FOR
This section applies to a county with a population
of 2.8 million or more. (b)AASubject to the approval of the commissioners court, the board may adopt reasonable rules concerning the use of any park administered by the board. (c)AAA person commits an offense if the person violates a rule approved by the commissioners court under Subsection (b).
An
offense under this subsection is a Class C misdemeanor. (d)AAFines collected under Subsection (c) shall be deposited in the county â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s general fund. Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1059, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Sec.A320.046.AAGRANTS.
The
board
may
accept
grants
and
gratuities in any form and from any source approved by the board and the commissioners court, including the government of the United States, this state, a public or private corporation, or any other person, for the benefit of one or more parks administered by the board or for the use of the board with respect to one or more of
immediately after January 1 of each year, the board shall prepare and
file
statement
with
the
showing
commissioners
the
financial
court status
a of
complete the
financial
board
and
the
properties, funds, and indebtedness under the administration of the board. (b)AAThe
financial
statement
must
show
separately
all
information concerning: (1)AArevenue bonds; (2)AAthe gross revenues from properties or facilities the net revenues of which are pledged to the payment of the revenue bonds and the expenditures from those gross revenues; and (3)AAmoney appropriated by the county for operation and maintenance expenses. (c)AAAt the same time the financial statement is filed with the
commissioners
court,
the
board
shall
file
with
the
county
auditor: (1)AAa copy of the financial statement; and (2)AAa proposed budget for the board â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs for the current calendar year. (d)AAIn counties subject to Subchapter B, Chapter 111, the county auditor shall include the proposed budget as part of the county budget prepared and submitted to the commissioners court. (e)AAThe board shall operate the properties and facilities the net revenues of which are pledged to the payment of revenue bonds in a manner that will produce gross revenues sufficient to pay the operation and maintenance expenses and all payments required under the bond order, so that it is unnecessary to appropriate tax money for the operation and maintenance or for the revenue bond payments. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.048.AASUITS;
LEGAL SERVICES.
sue and be sued in its own name.
(a)
The board may
Sec.A320.049.AARECORDS.
The
board
shall
keep
a
complete
account of each board meeting and proceeding and shall maintain the records of the board in a secure manner. property
of
the
board
and
are
subject
The records are the to
inspection
by
the
commissioners court and other county officers at all reasonable times during office hours on business days.
The preservation,
microfilming, destruction, or other disposition of the records of the board is subject to the requirements of Subtitle C, Title 6, Local Government Code, and rules adopted under that subtitle. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Amended
by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1248, Sec. 61, eff. Sept. 1, 1989.
Sec.A320.050.AASUPERVISION
BY
COMMISSIONERS
COURT.
(a)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the board is subject exercise
to of
the
supervision
all
rights,
of
the
powers,
commissioners and
privileges
court
in
the
and
in
the
performance of all duties. (b)AAThe
commissioners
court
must
approve
all
contracts,
leases, deeds, and other agreements made or granted by the board. An appropriate entry in the minutes of the commissioners court is sufficient evidence of approval. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
SUBCHAPTER D. REVENUE BONDS
Sec.A320.071.AAISSUANCE;
PURPOSE.
(a)
For the purpose of
providing funds to acquire, improve, equip, and repair any park administered by the board, or for the acquisition by construction or otherwise of any facilities to be used in or connected with or incident to such a park, the county may from time to time issue revenue bonds. (b)AAThe
bonds
are
fully
negotiable
instruments
under
Chapter 3, Business & Commerce Code, and other laws of this state.
other improvements incident to those facilities. (d)AAThe bonds must be authorized by an order adopted by the commissioners court. (e)AAThe bonds must be issued in the name of the county, signed
by
the
county
judge,
attested
by
the
county
impressed with the seal of the commissioners court.
clerk,
and
The signature
of the county judge or the signature of the county clerk may be a facsimile signature, and the seal of the commissioners court may be a facsimile seal, as provided in the bond order.
The interest
coupons attached to the bonds may also be executed by facsimile signatures of officers.
A facsimile signature or facsimile seal
may be lithographed, engraved, or printed. (f)AARevenue bonds must mature serially or otherwise in not more than 40 years from their date or dates and may be sold by the commissioners court at a price and under terms determined by the court to be the most advantageous reasonably obtainable.
The net
effective interest rate may not exceed the maximum rate provided by Chapter 1204, Government Code. (g)AAThe bond order shall prescribe the details as to the bonds.
It may contain provisions for the calling of the bonds for
redemption prices
and
before
the
times.
respective
Except
for
maturity
rights
of
dates
at
redemption
particular expressly
reserved in the bond order and in the bonds, the bonds are not subject to redemption before their scheduled maturity date or dates without the consent of the holder or holders. (h)AAThe bonds may be made payable at times and places in or outside this state, as prescribed in the bond order.
The bonds may
be nonregistrable or may be made registrable as to principal, or both principal and interest, as provided in the bond order. (i)AAThe bonds may be issued in one or more installments and in one or more series. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Amended
by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 8.317, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
commissioners court. (b)AAThe election shall be ordered and held, and notice of the
election
shall
be
given,
as
provided
by
Chapter
1251,
Government Code, except that the ballot shall be printed to provide for
voting
for
or
against
the
proposition:
"The
issuance
of
$___________ in park revenue bonds payable solely from revenues." Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Amended
by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 8.318, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Sec.A320.073.AAPLEDGE OF REVENUES.
(a)
Revenue bonds may be
secured by a pledge of all or part of the net revenues from the operation of the parks or from the properties or facilities.
The
net revenues of any one or more contracts, operation contracts, leases, or agreements may be pledged as the sole or as additional security for the support of the bonds. (b)AAAny revenue other than tax revenues, as specified in the bond order, may be pledged for the support of the bonds. (c)AAIn the bond order, the county may reserve the right to issue additional revenue bonds that will be on a parity with, or subordinate to, the revenue bonds then being issued. (d)AAWhile any of the revenue bonds are outstanding, other obligations may not be issued against the pledged revenues except to the extent and in the manner expressly permitted in the bond order. (e)AAIn
this
subchapter,
"net
revenues"
means
the
gross
revenues from the operation of those properties and facilities of the parks, the net revenues of which properties and facilities are pledged
for
the
support
of
the
bonds,
after
deduction
of
the
necessary and reasonable expenses of operation and maintenance of the properties and facilities. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.074.AAPROCEEDS.
(a)
The proceeds of the bonds
(b)AAFrom the bond proceeds, there may be set aside: (1)AAan amount for payment of interest on the bonds during construction and any additional period prescribed in the bond order;
and (2)AAan amount for the interest and sinking fund or for
one or more separate reserve funds, as prescribed in the bond order, for the benefit of payment of the bonds. (c)AAProceeds remaining after the amounts are set aside under Subsection
(b)
shall
be
used
for
the
payment
of
all
expenses
necessarily incurred in the sale, issuance, and delivery of the bonds and then for the purposes specified in the bond order and in the bonds. (d)AAAny surplus remaining after accomplishment of the bond purposes shall be used for retiring the bonds to the extent that they
can
be
purchased
at
prevailing
market
prices,
with
any
remainder being deposited to the credit of the interest and sinking fund. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.075.AAAPPROVAL AND REGISTRATION.
(a)
After any
bonds have been authorized by the commissioners court, the bonds and the records relating to their issuance shall be submitted to the attorney
general
for
examination
and
approval.
The
attorney
general shall approve the bonds if issued in accordance with this subchapter. (b)AAAfter
the
bonds
have
been
approved
by
the
attorney
general, they shall be registered by the comptroller of public accounts. (c)AAWhen general,
the
registered
bonds by
have
the
been
approved
comptroller,
and
by
the
attorney
delivered
to
the
purchasers, they are incontestable. (d)AAIf the bonds recite that they are secured partially or otherwise
by
a
pledge
of
the
proceeds
of
or
income
from
any
general constitutes an approval of the contract, and the contract is incontestable except for forgery or fraud. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.076.AAFEES AND REVENUE.
(a)
In this section, "fee"
includes any fee, charge, or toll. (b)AAThe necessary and reasonable expenses of operation and maintenance of the properties and facilities whose revenues are pledged to the payment of the revenue bonds are a first lien on and charge against the income of the properties and facilities.
While
any of the bonds or interest remains outstanding, the board shall charge and require the payment of fees for the use of the properties and facilities. by
it
for
facilities.
the
The board shall determine the rates of fees charged use,
operation,
or
lease
of
the
properties
and
Fees must be equal and uniform within classes and must
be in amounts that yield revenues at all times at least sufficient to pay the expenses of operation and maintenance, and to provide for the payments prescribed in the bond order for the establishment and maintenance of the funds provided for in the bond order, including the interest and sinking fund and each reserve fund.
The bond order
may make additional covenants with respect to the bonds and the pledged revenues and the operation, maintenance, and upkeep of those properties and facilities, the income of which is pledged. (c)AAThe
commissioners
court
shall
ensure
that
the
fees
charged by the board are sufficient to comply with this subchapter. If for any reason the fees are not sufficient, the commissioners court shall impose additional fees so that the revenue will be sufficient. (d)AAIf any part of the security for the bonds consists of money to be received by the board as consideration for properties or facilities belonging to the county but operated by a person other than the board under a lease or operating contract, the board shall fix and authorize fees to be charged by the person for services
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.077.AAREFUNDING
BONDS.
(a)
The
commissioners
court may issue fully negotiable revenue bonds for the purpose of refunding bonds issued under this subchapter.
An election is not
necessary for the issuance of refunding bonds. (b)AAThe
refunding
bonds
may
be
secured
in
the
manner
provided by this subchapter for securing original revenue bonds. (c)AARefunding bonds may be issued to refund bonds of more than
one
series
or
issue
of
outstanding
revenue
bonds
and
may
combine pledges for the outstanding bonds for the security of the refunding
bonds.
Refunding
bonds
may
be
secured
by
other
and
additional revenues if the refunding bonds will not impair the contract rights of the holders or any of the outstanding bonds that are not to be refunded. (d)AARefunding
bonds
must
be
authorized
by
order
of
the
commissioners court and shall be executed and mature as provided by this subchapter for original bonds. (e)AARefunding bonds must bear interest at the same or lower rate
than
that
of
the
bonds
refunded
unless
it
is
shown
mathematically that a saving will result in the total amount of interest to be paid. (f)AARefunding
bonds
shall
be
approved
by
the
attorney
general as in the case of original bonds and shall be registered by the comptroller of public accounts on surrender and cancellation of the bonds to be refunded, unless the order authorizing issuance provides that the bonds are to be sold and the proceeds deposited in the place or places where the original bonds are payable.
In that
case, the refunding bonds may be issued in an amount sufficient to pay the interest on the original bonds to their option or maturity date, and the comptroller shall register them without the surrender and cancellation of the original bonds. (g)AARefunding bonds, after they have been approved by the
Sec.A320.078.AABONDS NOT STATE OR COUNTY DEBT.
(a)
The
revenue bonds are not a debt of the county or of the state but are payable solely from the revenues pledged to their payment. (b)AAThe principal of or interest on revenue bonds or any refunding bonds is not a debt against the tax revenues of the county but is solely a charge on the pledged revenues. (c)AAThe considered
in
revenue
bonds
determining
the
or
refunding
power
of
bonds
the
may
county
not
to
be
incur
obligations payable from taxation. (d)AAEach bond must contain on its face substantially the following provision:
"The holder hereof shall never have the right
to demand payment of his obligation out of any funds raised or to be raised by taxation." Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Sec.A320.079.AAMISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
(a)
This section
applies to revenue bonds and refunding bonds issued under this subchapter. (b)AAThe bond order may require that the bonds contain a recital to the effect that they are issued pursuant to and in strict conformity
with
this
subchapter.
That
recital
is
conclusive
evidence of the validity of the bonds and the regularity of their issuance. (c)AAEach bond is exempt from taxation by this state or by a municipal corporation, county, or other political subdivision or taxing district or entity of the state. (d)AAIf provided for in the bond order, an indenture securing the bonds may be entered into between, and executed by, the county and a corporate trustee, or entered into between, and executed by, the county and a corporate trustee and a corporate or individual cotrustee.
A corporate trustee or corporate cotrustee must be a
trust company or bank in or outside this state that has the powers of a trust company.
including covenants setting forth the duties of the county and the board in reference to maintenance, operation, repair, and insurance (including insurance against loss of use and occupancy) of the properties
or
facilities
whose
revenues
are
pledged,
and
the
custody, safeguarding, and application of the bond proceeds and of the revenues to be received from the operation of the properties or facilities; (2)AAprovide
for
the
flow
of
funds
and
the
establishment and maintenance of the interest and sinking fund, reserve fund or funds, and other funds;
and
(3)AAinclude additional covenants with respect to the bonds and the pledged revenues and the operation, maintenance, and upkeep of those properties and facilities the income of which is pledged, as the commissioners court considers appropriate. (f)AAAny
bank
or
trust
company
in
this
state may
act
as
depository for the proceeds obtained from the sale of the bonds. The depository shall be selected by the commissioners court without the necessity of seeking competitive bids and without reference to any other statute.
The money deposited must be secured in the
manner and amount as prescribed by the commissioners court or by the bond order, indenture, or separate escrow agreement. (g)AAThe depository
or
bond
order
depositories
shall of
provide
the
for
and
designate
interest
and
sinking
the
fund,
reserve fund or funds, and any other funds established by the order. The depository or depositories may be any bank or trust company in or outside this state and may be selected and designated without the necessity of seeking competitive bids and without reference to any other statute.
The money in those funds must be secured in the
manner and to the extent as provided in the bond order, and the bond order may require that the money be secured by direct obligations of the United States or obligations unconditionally guaranteed by the United States. (h)AAThe bond order or indenture may:
covenants as considered reasonable and proper for the security of the bondholders, including: (A)AAprovisions
prescribing
occurrences
that
constitute events of default and the terms and conditions on which any or all of the bonds become due, or may be declared to be due, before maturity; and (B)AAprovisions
as
to
the
rights,
liabilities,
powers, and duties arising from the breach by the board or by the commissioners court of any of its duties or obligations. (i)AAAny
holders
of
the
bonds
or
of
interest
coupons
originally attached to the bonds may either at law or in equity, by suit, action, mandamus, or other proceeding, enforce and compel performance
of
all
duties
required
by
this
subchapter
to
be
performed by the board or by the commissioners court, including: (1)AAthe
making
and
collection
of
reasonable
and
sufficient fees, charges, and tolls for the use of the properties and facilities the income of which is pledged; (2)AAthe segregation of the income and revenues of such properties and facilities; (3)AAthe
and
application
of
the
income
and
revenues
pursuant to the bond order, indenture, and this subchapter. (j)AAThe bond order or the indenture may contain provisions to the effect that while any bonds are outstanding either as to principal or interest, no free service may be rendered by any of the properties or facilities the income of which is pledged. (k)AAThe bonds are negotiable instruments under Chapter 3, Business & Commerce Code, and are legal and authorized investments for
banks,
savings
associations,
banks,
insurance
trust
companies,
companies,
savings
fiduciaries,
and
loan
trustees,
guardians, and for the sinking funds of municipalities, counties, school districts, and other political subdivisions or corporations of this state.
The bonds are eligible to secure the deposit of
public funds of this state and of a municipality, county, school
(l)AAThe constitute
an
bond
order,
irrevocable
the
indenture,
contract
and
between
this
subchapter
the
board
commissioners court and the holders of the bonds. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
and
Appendix D (1)
GREEN LAKE INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Submitted By: Wilfred Korth, GBRA Chief Ranger
August 5, 2013
GREEN LAKE INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN Summary Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 What is an invasive species 1.2 Why are invasive species a problem 1.3 How did invasive plants get here 1.3 Integrated Pest Management Principles 1.4 Scope, Purpose and Goals Chapter 2 Regional Programs 2.1 State Programs 2.2 National programs Chapter 3 Management 3.1 Prevention 3.2 Early Detection & Rapid Response 3.3 Control Measures and Management Overview 3.4 Restoration & Rehabilitation 3.5 Prioritization 3.6 Standard Operating Procedures Chapter 4 Five Year Goals Chapter 5 Costs & Funding Sources Chapter 6 Conclusion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Green Lake, the “site”, is a shallow, natural tidal lake located in Calhoun County, Texas within the Guadalupe River basin. The site is owned and managed by Calhoun County. The lake covers approximately 10,000 acres and supports a variety of waterfowl, wildlife, fish, and a diverse plant community. Unfortunately, not all of these organisms are beneficial. Green Lake’s natural resources and economy can be degraded by invasive species if left unchecked. These unwanted invaders are often unintentionally introduced through the everyday activities of citizens, wildlife, and birdlife. However they arrive, once invasive species are established, they have the potential to change the Green Lake ecosystem forever. These undesirable species have significant negative impacts including but not limited to: • Reduction of native biodiversity; • Interference with ecosystem functions like fire, nutrient flow and flooding; • Reduction of the value of rivers, and lakes, for recreation, wildlife and public water supply; • Reduction of the recreational value of natural areas, parks and other areas. In response to these impacts, Calhoun County will need to annually address how to prevent, eradicate and control invasive species on the Green Lake site.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 What is an invasive species? The National Invasive Species Council, established by Executive Order 13112 in 1999, defines invasive species as species that are: “…nonnative (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” A “non-native” (or “alien”, “exotic” or “nonindigenous”) species is one that has been introduced by human action, intentionally or accidentally, into an ecosystem in which it did not previously occur. Introductions occur along a variety of pathways, or vectors, such as through commercial trade of a species or by accidental means. Invasive species can be plants, animals and other organisms (e.g., fungi). An invasive species grows, reproduces and spreads rapidly, establishes over large areas and persists. In general, species that become invasive succeed due to favorable environmental conditions and an ability to grow and reproduce rapidly where resource availability is high. As invasive species spread and dominate ecosystems, they decrease biodiversity by displacing native plants and animals. Thus, the definition of invasive used here has two components: 1) nonnative status and 2) the ability or potential to cause harm. It is important to note that not all nonnative species are considered invasive because many do not, or are not likely to, cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Many non-native species support human livelihoods or a preferred quality of life. Examples include most crops and a number of exotic ornamentals. Conversely, in some situations native species can cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Examples include the economic impact of mesquite spreading through a Texas rangeland, Ashe juniper altering the hydrology of the Hill Country or a painful rash caused by poison ivy growing along the Guadalupe River. While these species can cause problems, and do require management, they are not considered invasive because they are native to these particular ecosystems. 1.2 Why do we care? Why are invasive species a problem? Invasive plants can create challenges for natural resource managers. Assessments of endangered species found that 49% were negatively impacted by invasive species through competition or predation, ranking second only to direct habitat destruction. Invasive species were found to affect higher proportions of imperiled plants than animals. The following sections will further explore the economic and ecological impacts of invasive species.
1.2.1 Case Study, Mayfield Nature Preserve This case study highlights an inventory of current invasive woody vegetation, volunteer contributions and future control costs of the Mayfield Park Preserve near Austin, Texas. The studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intent was to help land managers and volunteers make informed management decisions pertaining to the natural area. The overall distribution of woody plants at Mayfield was 77% native species and 19% invasive. Notable invasive plants mentioned in the study are sacred bamboo and Chinese pistache. Since 2008, over 3,800 volunteer hours and $25,000 have gone towards the elimination of sacred bamboo and other invasive species at Mayfield. Although this work was reported to have largely removed these problem species, current data estimates that there are a total of 5,536 sacred bamboo and 4,734 Chinese pistache individuals still growing at the site. Overall, the remaining 14,480 invasive plants projected to remain in the preserve will require a total of 300 to over 416 hours to remove. Assigning a volunteer labor monetary value of $21.36/hour, the expense of labor alone totals approximately $6,408 to $8,885. These figures do not include the expense required to process or dispose of the debris, nor the expense of labor and materials required to treat the stumps with herbicide. In order to realistically reduce and control the remaining populations of invasives at Mayfield, large amounts of additional time and labor will be required. 1.2.2 Economic Impact The annual economic costs of invasive species to the US economy, from damages to managed and natural ecosystems to costs of control, are estimated at $120 billion. In 2000, the US federal government spending on invasive species management was $556 million. The California Invasive Plant Council estimated annual expenditures of $82 million on control, monitoring and outreach. In Nevada, it is estimated that invasive plants, such as Malta-star thistle, reduce wildlife-related recreation between $6 million and $12 million annually. More specifically, in 1993, the Office of Technology Assessment of the US Congress stated that the State of Florida spends approximately $14.5 million annually on hydrilla control. Regionally, the GuadalupeBlanco River Authority spends approximately $10,000 annually on invasive aquatic species control at its Coleto Creek Reservoir near Goliad, Texas. In 2010, a roadside installation and maintenance study in Williamson County found potential savings of $3,820-69,750 over 20 years when altering right-of-way maintenance and using strict native seed mixes versus standard Texas Department of Transportation Urban and Rural Specs containing non-native species including Bermuda grass. In Austin, the Austin Energy Decker Creek Power Station continues to experience impairment in reservoir uses (cooling water withdrawal, shoreline use and boat-ramp access) from hydrilla and algae, jeopardizing facility operations and annual direct expenditures of $318,539 by anglers.
1.2.3 Environmental Impact Soil Health Invasive plants frequently initiate a multitude of impacts on community soil chemistry and ecosystem function. All plants modify the soil environment through plant-soil feedback interactions, but some negative consequences such as introduced pathogens and allelopathy (one plant produces chemicals that inhibit the growth of other species) can be exacerbated by invasive species. Root exudates and plant litter affect soil structure, modify soil nutrient pools and alter nutrient cycling of plant communities, including hydrology of the soil. One example is Johnson grass, which is capable of growing in nutrient-poor soils (i.e. native prairie soils) interacts with N-fixing bacteria which alter soil chemistry elevating nitrogen and other soil nutrients. While some native prairie species can fix nitrogen, most are adapted to nutrient-poor soils and do not perform well in soils with elevated nitrogen. At the same time, these conditions enhance Johnson grass growth. Thus, the ability of Johnson grass to alter soil biogeochemistry enhances its ability to invade and create near monocultures in soils that once supported diverse plant communities. Tree Cover Invasive, non-indigenous tree and shrub species represent a significant problem to natural vegetative communities within the state and local area. It is widely agreed that invasive species degrade natural communities by dominating forest canopies, altering soil chemistry and hydrologic characteristics, displacing native species, interfering with successional patterns and degrading biodiversity. More specifically, in conditions where invasive plants dominate canopy cover, the native woodland community can be adversely affected. For example, Texas red oak becomes light-limited when ambient light transmission is less than 40%. The endangered golden-cheeked warbler requires diverse juniper-oak woodland. Below 40% light transmission, red oak regeneration declines and, over time, golden-cheeked warbler habitat is degraded. Hydrology and Water Yield Woodlands, both native and non-native, typically exhibit greater rainfall interception, higher net evapotranspiration, lower water tables and less storm water runoff than grasslands. Vegetation types differ in rates of evapotranspiration, rainfall interception, surface flow and ability to access water. Invasive plant species, with evapotranspiration rates higher relative to native flora, can alter hydrological regimes and lower water tables. In New Zealand, invasive woody afforestation reduced annual water yield by 30-80% during low flow conditions. In South Africa, exotic woody plants reduced surface flows approximately 7%. In South Texas, evidence suggests that giant reed (Arundo donax) exhibits greater water use in riparian areas than other riparian reeds, resulting from increased transpiration rates and higher leaf area. Such hydrological
changes will likely influence frequency, duration and scale of ecosystem-level disturbances (e.g., floods, fire, etc.). Regionally, significant reductions in water yield can occur when grasslands are converted to woodlands. Hydrologic modeling of plant communities indicates an inverse relationship between canopy cover and water yield (ie. higher groundwater recharge and stream flow at lower canopy cover). Reduction of woody canopy cover, via grassland restoration and management, is necessary to restore and maintain higher water yields. Biodiversity and Avian Communities Green Lake currently provides habitat for a variety of bird species, some endangered. The presence of invasive plant species influences avian fauna, contributing to the decline in bird diversity. At un-invaded sites, avian abundance (number of individuals) and species richness were positively correlated to the volume of native plants and the structure those plants provide. Invasive plants reduce the abundance and diversity of native wildlife by displacing native plant communities. Substantial displacement of native plants occurs near urban and suburban development, leading to habitat fragmentation and unsuitable habitat for native animals. Resulting habitat changes lead to the decline and potential loss of wildlife species dependent on native flora for survival. Diverse plant communities provide a variety of food sources, vertical structure and cover, nesting sites and thermal cover, creating more niches for a broader animal community to reside. Conversely, invasive plant monocultures provide quality habitat for fewer species overall and may favor non-native wildlife. Invasive plants have a significant influence on avian populations with native bird diversity and density often falling as the cover of invasive plants increases. A South Texas study found that overall bird abundance was 32% greater on native-grass sites than on exotic-grass sites. In Arizona, bird diversity and richness (number of species) are lower in degraded native plant communities than in non-degraded plant communities. 1.3 How did invasive plants get here? When a species is transported to and establishes in a new ecosystem, it is considered â&#x20AC;&#x153;introduced.â&#x20AC;? Although wind and water are common mechanisms of dispersal, humans introduce invasive species to new ecosystems, intentionally or unintentionally. Invasive species may first be introduced as garden ornamentals, range forage plants for livestock, plants used for erosion control or as biocontrol agents (particularly in agriculture). Other species are introduced accidentally on imported nursery stock, on or in fruits and vegetables, in ship ballast waters, on vehicles, in packing materials and shipping containers, through shipping channels, and from human travel and land management practices. Dumping exotic fish and plants from aquaria into natural waters are other common ways invasive species spread.
1.4 Integrated Pest Management Principles, Control and Herbicide Use Integrated Pest Management is an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that relies on a combination of common-sense practices. Integrated Pest Management programs use current, comprehensive information on the life cycles of pests and their interaction with the environment. This information, in combination with available pest control methods, is used to manage pest damage in a manner that is both economical and minimizes the potential for harm to people, property, and the environment. The Integrated Pest Management approach can be applied to both agricultural and non-agricultural settings, such as the home, garden and workplace. Integrated Pest Management takes advantage of all appropriate pest management options including, but not limited to, the judicious use of pesticides (U.S. EPA, http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/ipm.htm). Integrated Pest Management is not a single pest control method but, rather, a series of pest management evaluations, decisions and controls. In practice, land mangers follow a four-tiered approach. • Integrated Pest Management first sets an action threshold, a point at which pest populations or environmental conditions indicate that pest control action must be taken. The level at which pests will either become an environmental or economic threat is critical to guiding future pest control decisions. • Integrated Pest Management programs work to monitor for pests and identify them accurately, so that appropriate control decisions can be made in conjunction with action thresholds. This monitoring and identification removes the possibility that pesticides will be used when they are not really needed or that the wrong kind of pesticide will be used. • As a first line of pest control, Integrated Pest Management programs work to prevent pests from becoming a significant problem. In natural areas, this involves using sound land management to minimize soil damage and to encourage native diversity and ecosystem health. These control methods can be very effective and cost-efficient and present little to no risk to people or the environment. • Once monitoring, identification and action thresholds indicate that pest control is required; Integrated Pest Management programs then evaluate potential control methods for both effectiveness and risk. “Control” means eradicating, suppressing, reducing or managing invasive species populations, preventing spread of invasive species from areas where they are present, and taking steps such as restoration of native species and communities to reduce the effects of invasive species and to prevent further invasions. Pest controls which are both effective and present minimal risk to people, property or the environment - such as manual and certain mechanical control methods - are considered first. If further control is required, then additional pest control methods, such as individual plant treatment with herbicide, are employed. Pesticides are used when
necessary, but only in a way that minimizes potential harm to people, property and the environment. 1.6 Scope, Purpose and Goals The scope of this plan includes all invasive aquatic, riparian and terrestrial species within the Green Lake site. Currently, the plan focuses on plant species, but other taxa could be integrated in the future. The goal is to reduce the cover and expansion of, and where possible, eradicate invasive species on the site through a coordinated plan that facilitates monitoring and coordination of site staff and volunteer efforts; and establishes a set of minimum standards in vegetation management. The Plan includes development of recommended methodology for establishment of baseline plots and consistent adaptive management for the site. The Plan follows the National Invasive Species Council guidelines for invasive species management (prevention, early detection and rapid response, control and management, restoration, organizational collaboration and education/outreach). The Plan identifies current threats and management strategies and provides a decision making process for new threats to be identified and addressed. CHAPTER 2 REGIONAL PROGRAMS 1.1 State Programs Texas Invasive Plant and Pest Council (TIPPC) - http://www.texasinvasives.org The Texas Invasive Plant and Pest Council (TI PPC) is a 501C non-profit organization representing stakeholders from state and federal agencies, conservation organizations, academia, green industry and the public sector. Texas Invasive Species Coordinating Committee (TISCC) - http://www.tiscc.texas.gov/ This committee includes the following agencies: The Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board, Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Texas Forest Service and the Texas Water Development Board. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department - http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/ The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department provides outdoor recreational opportunities by managing and protecting fish and wildlife and their habitat and by acquiring and managing parks, historic sites and wildlife areas. Its mission is to manage and conserve the natural and cultural resources of Texas and to provide hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation opportunities for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Texas Forest Service - http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu The Texas Forest Service was created in 1915 as an integral part of The Texas A&M University System. Its mission is to provide statewide leadership and professional assistance to assure that
the state’s forest, trees and related natural resources are widely used, nurtured, protected and perpetuated for the benefit of all. Texas AgriLife Extension - http://agrilifeextension.tamu.edu Working hand-in-hand with its Texas A&M System partners, the state legislature and the communities it serves, the mission of the Texas AgriLife Extension Service to serve Texans through community-based education has remained unchanged for almost a century. Texas Aquatic Plant Management Society – www.tapms.org. The TAPMS is a non-profit organization representing stakeholders from state and federal agencies, conservation organizations, academia, green industry and the public sector dedicated to education on the management of aquatic plants within Texas. 2.2 National Programs National Invasive Species Council (NISC) - http://www.invasivespecies.gov/ Established by Executive Order (EO ) 13112 to ensure that Federal programs and activities to prevent and control invasive species are coordinated, effective and efficient. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) - http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ APHIS provides leadership in ensuring the health and care of animals and plants. The agency improves agricultural productivity and competitiveness and contributes to the national economy and the public health. Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center - http://www.wildflower.org/ The mission of the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center is to increase the sustainable use and conservation of native wildflowers, plants and landscapes. As an experienced educational organization, the Wildflower Center specializes in building partnerships between likeminded organizations and in the dissemination of information to the public. USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection - http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/ Since its beginnings over a half-century ago, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Forest Health Protection (FHP) program has built an organization of specialists trained to provide technical assistance on forest health-related matters. The mission of FHP is to protect and improve the health of America’s forests. National Association of Exotic Pest Plant Councils - http://www.naeppc.org/ The National Association of Exotic Pest Plant Councils (NAEPPC) was established in October 1995 by the signature of representatives of the first four state and regional Exotic Pest Plant Councils. NAEPPC was established because the Exotic Pest Plant Councils recognized the value of cooperation through a national association of organizations that share common goals. National Institute of Invasive Species Science - http://www.niiss.org The National Institute of Invasive Species Science is a consortium of government and nongovernment organizations formed to develop cooperative approaches for invasive species science that meet the urgent needs of land managers and the public. Administratively housed at the U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center in Colorado, the National Institute of Invasive
Species Science provides a hub for invasive species science collaboration, coordination and integration across agencies and disciplines. Sustainable Sites Initiative - http://www.sustainablesites.org/ The Sustainable Sites Initiative is a voluntary rating system that encourages sustainable landscape design, construction and maintenance. Prerequisite 4.1 requires control and management of known invasive species found on site. CHAPTER 3 MANAGEMENT 3.1 Prevention Often the most cost-effective approach to combating invasive species is to keep them from establishing in the first place. Prevention is the first line of defense against invasive species and should be a primary focus at the site. Actions such as management plans, standard operating procedures and education and outreach efforts are all important tools that can be applied within a comprehensive strategy to prevent the establishment of invasive species. Prevention efforts must have the coordinated support of all stakeholders. The following are recommended preventative measures. • Adjacent landowners should be encouraged to use native plants (or non-invasive exotics) in place of invasive species. • Soil disturbance should be limited • Recently exposed or disturbed areas should be quickly re-vegetated with native species. • When feasible, seeds used in restoration projects should be collected near the area to be restored and should be free of weed seeds. • Site staff and volunteers should be careful of introducing problem weed seeds in purchased soils and other materials for projects such as trail maintenance, erosion control or landscaping. Equipment should be cleaned before bringing onto a property to prevent bringing in problem species. • Site Manager should monitor areas during and after work has been done to ensure that problem weeds were not introduced. Follow-up monitoring may need to continue for several years. • Site Manager should give control efforts along roads and utility corridors high priority, as they can provide a conduit for invasive seed as well as a favorable growing environment for many invasive species. • When new construction or invasive removal is planned, soil disturbance should be minimized and disturbed areas should be monitored, re-vegetate with native species and treat invasives as necessary, follow an integrated pest management process. Stockpiled
soil should be protected from invasive seed. A simple way to accomplish this is by covering the pile with mulch. • The Site Manager should develop and periodically update a “watch list” of species to be on alert for. The site staff and volunteers should be trained to recognize highly invasive plants such as giant reed and Chinese tally trees. • The Site Manager should monitor for the introduction and spread of invasive species. • The Site Manager should develop methods to avoid spreading non-native plants to other areas especially when conducting active removal of invasive species and when conducting work along utility corridors. Special attention and procedures should be applied to cleaning boots, hand tools, construction and maintenance machinery. • The Site Manager should use care when using so-called “native” seed mixes which may contain non-native and invasive species. The Site Manager should always verify the species composition of seed mixes before purchasing. 3.2 Early Detection and Rapid Response While prevention is the first line of defense, even the best prevention efforts will not stop all invasive species. Once a species becomes widely established, control efforts become costly and eradication is unlikely, therefore early detection and rapid response efforts increase the likelihood that invasions will be halted and eradicated. It is recommended that the Green Lake Site Plan follow the National Invasive Species Council approved General Guidelines for the Establishment and Evaluation of Invasive Species Early Detection and Rapid Response Systems. Early Detection and Rapid Response actions are grouped into three (3) main categories: 1. Early Detection Early detection provides initial evidence of an invasive species. Early detection can be achieved by “active detection networks”, comprised of individuals that have specific job training and responsibility to find invasive species. They typically focus on species of concern, high-risk pathways and locations. The identification of species is essential to early detection efforts. 2. Rapid Assessment The detection of an invasive species initiates the Rapid Assessment process. Rapid assessment may recommend that a response be initiated. In addition, assessments of potential invasions can be conducted in advance of their detection. The rapid assessment process is an essential aspect of timely Early Detection and Rapid Response. 3. Rapid Response Rapid response efforts contain and, where possible, eradicate populations of invasive species. To be effective, response efforts often need partners from both the private and public sectors.
3.3 Control Measures and Management Overview Some invasive species may be too widespread to fully eradicate. However, control and management efforts can slow and/or reduce their impacts. It is recommended that the Green Lake Site Plan follow the National Invasive Species Council approved Guidelines for Ranking Invasive Species Control Projects. Control and management of invasive species is accomplished using modern resource management methods. Several complementary methods may be implemented in an overall strategy to protect ecosystems and aid in their recovery. Strategies should be analyzed and adjusted as needed and work (including follow-up and monitoring) should be conducted for many years. Control efforts reduce invasive species to more acceptable levels and management prevents spread and re-emergence. Soil protection is an important consideration during all invasive management activities. Bare soil tends to erode and can be reinvaded. Potential damage to soil should be weighed against the benefits of invasive species removal. The potential for soil damage extensive enough to necessitate active soil restoration (deep ripping, amending) is an indication that other methods should be considered. Alternatively, a phased approach, wherein invasive species removal is conducted incrementally, may also be an effective strategy for minimizing soil damage. 3.4 Restoration and Rehabilitation In some cases, once invasive species are removed, native communities can recover without further intervention, provided best management practices prevent re-invasion. However, in cases of severe degradation, natural recovery processes can be overwhelmed by invasive species and active restoration is required. Although restoration efforts have common elements, each area is unique. Work must be guided by site-specific considerations and analysis. However, some generalizations can be made. When soil is disturbed, and especially if it is left bare, it must be revegetated with appropriate species to prevent soil loss and reinvasion. The goal of restoration is to restore ecosystem process, not simply to replace components. Ecosystem processes allow natural systems to repair themselves and to remain relatively stable. In practice, the assessment and repair of natural processes begins with the soil. In the process of treating and removing invasive species, the soil may be disturbed and left bare. In some cases, compaction reduction activities and organic soil amendments may be needed to restore soil health. Soil disturbance should be addressed and the area should be re-vegetated with appropriate native species as soon as possible. When immediate re-vegetation is not possible, temporary soil protection measures such as mulch may be needed. However, mulch suppresses all germination, which can complicate later re-vegetation efforts.
3.5 Prioritization Before management techniques can efficiently be implemented, invasive species of concern must first be prioritized. To this end, a list of 24 species has been listed for potential targeting. Each species was initially assessed using the Texas Invasive Plant Inventory. These criteria have been designed to support categorized lists of invasive plants by ranking each plantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s level of threat to the ecological health of wild lands through evaluation of its ecological impact, ability to invade natural vegetation communities and current extent of its invasion. The Texas Invasive Plant Council adapted these criteria in 2009 to fit ecological types in Texas. It is important to note that the assessment of invasiveness occurs at the species level and does not automatically apply to subspecies, hybrids, cultivars or varieties of that species. These adapted Criteria should be used to standardize the addition of new species, prioritize future introductions and act as a tool to remove species from the priority list. These Criteria can act as a working method of adding and removing invasive plants to the Siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s top priority species list, but at minimum should be evaluated every 5 years by the Site Manager educated in local invasive species issues. The top 24 species are listed below.
SPECIES Alternanthera philoxeroides Paspul notatum Rapistrum rugosum Cynodon dactylon Macfadyena unguis-cati Melia azedarach Triadica sebifera Imperata cylindrica Cyperus entrerianus Arundo donax Salvinia molesta Urochloa maxima Hydrilla verticillata Cuscuata japonica Lonicera japonica Sorghum halepense Bothriochloa ischaemum Centaurea melintensis Lythrum salicaria Tamarix ramosissima Solanum viarum
COMMON NAME Alligator weed Bahiagrass Bastard cabbage Bermudagrass Catclawvine Chinaberry tree Chinese tallow Cogongrass Deep rooted sedge Giant Reed Giant Salvinia Guineagrass Hydrilla Japanese dodder Japanese honeysuckle Johnson grass KR Bluestem McCartney Rose Purple Loosestrife salt cedar Tropical soda apple
OVERALL ALERT High Moderate High Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate High High High Moderate High Moderate Moderate High High High High High Moderate
IMPACT A A A B B A B A A A A A A B B A A A A A B
INVASIVENESS DISTRIBUTION A A A A B A B A A A A A B A A B B B B A A A A A A A B A B A A A A A A A A A B A B B
Eichhornia crassipes Pistia stratiotes
Water hyacinth Water lettuce
High high
A A
A A
Summary of Weed Risk Assessments Alert 1. High – These species have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment. Most are widely distributed ecologically. 2. Moderate – These species have substantial and apparent—but generally not severe— ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal, though establishment is generally dependent upon ecological disturbance. Ecological amplitude and distribution may range from limited to widespread. 3. Low – These species are invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level or there was not enough information to justify a higher score. Their reproductive biology and other attributes result in low to moderate rates of invasiveness. Ecological amplitude and distribution are generally limited, but these species may be locally persistent and problematic. 4. Unknown - Evaluated but lack sufficient information to assign a rating or the available information indicates that the species does not have significant impacts at the present time. Impact The Impact section assesses the cumulative impact (e.g., over a period of several decades) of the species on the wild lands where it typically occurs in Texas or other places with similar environmental conditions. The assessment applies to impacts within the area currently occupied by the species within Texas (to the extent that this area is known). Invasiveness The Invasiveness assessment rates a species’ potential to establish, spread, and increase in abundance in wild lands. Distribution The Ecological Amplitude section rates the number and proportion of different ecological types invaded. The “ecological amplitude” of the species indicates the diversity of ecological types invaded. The “distribution” addresses the extent of infestation in any given ecological type. This is a percentage of the ecological type’s total number of occurrences (frequency) that has been
A A
invaded, not as an estimate of the average percent cover occupied by the species within each ecological type. Lastly, the particular invasive species present, the degree of invasion and the negative impact of the particular invasive species should be considered when assigning management priorities. How severe are the potential environmental impacts of the species? Are there reasons to delay treatment on particular individuals because of community attachment to them? Would complete removal significantly damage the soil or leave large areas bare, thus necessitating intensive restoration efforts? If so, a phased approach, in which areas are treated and restored incrementally, may be indicated. 3.6 Standardization of Operating Procedures Standardized Record Keeping Staff Implementation The Site Manager should identify some implementation goals and decide where invasive species management falls among staff and volunteer priorities. The Site Manager needs to coordinate efforts and decide when and where to use staff, and when to use volunteers. The appropriate activities for both groups should be clearly defined. Each crew should have at least one licensed pesticide applicator and access to treatment materials and equipment. Herbicide/Pesticide Use Integrated pest management should be used in all control efforts. Particular care must be taken in endangered species habitat, and documents such as Protection Measures for Pesticide Applications may provide useful information in the determination of the least toxic, effective chemical. The Nature Conservancyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Weed Control Methods Handbook is also a useful resource. All pesticide applicators must follow all label requirements, including dilution, application and disposal of containers. Equipment must be maintained to ensure cost effectiveness and safety. State and federal law must be the minimum standard followed. Volunteers Volunteers, especially trained Texas Master Naturalists, are a crucial asset to successful invasive species management by helping keep overall expenses of control down. Properly trained volunteers can greatly increase the effectiveness of early detection/rapid response and can increase the treatable area. Effective use of volunteers requires that their efforts be coordinated with those of site staff, that volunteers receive appropriate training, that the Site Manager can reliably ascertain a volunteerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s level of training and that actions that are appropriate for volunteers are clearly defined. The steps required to allow a volunteer to perform certain tasks, such as herbicide application, should also be clearly defined. A volunteer certification process should be developed to train and certify volunteers for certain tasks such as herbicide application
Records of Application (Title 4; Part 1; Chapter 7; Subchapter D; Rule §7.33) (a) By TDA regulations the following records of pesticide use shall be maintained for a period of two years: (1) commercial applicator or a noncommercial applicator shall maintain records of each pesticide application regardless of the use classification of the pesticide applied. (2) The record of each pesticide application shall be kept current and maintained at the applicator’s principal place of business as designated on the applicator’s application/renewal for a pesticide applicator’s license. Information Required: 1. Date and time of application 2. Person/Agency for whom application was made 3. Location of land/water body 4. Product name 5. EPA registration number 6. Rate of product per unit 7. Total volume applied per unit 8. Pest treated 9. Site treated 10. Total acres or volume of acre treated (e.g. acre, square feet, number of head) 11. Wind direction and velocity and air temperature 12. Applicator name and license number and/or person making the application . CHAPTER 4 FIVE YEAR GOALS
Success of this plan is defined as effective coordination and, ultimately, a reduction in invasive species cover on the Green Lake site. In order to track progress toward these long-term goals, the Site Manager should develop a set of measurable 5-year objectives. Early on, emphasis should be on implementation and shift, over time, toward measures of effectiveness. Once established, the plan, and progress made in carrying out the plan, should be evaluated every five years.
Objectives have been placed in four categories: Measurement, Control, Standard Procedures and Public Education. Unless otherwise stated, the target date for the following objectives is 2018 or five years from plan adoption, whichever comes later. Measurement/Implementation • Standardized centralized digital record-keeping system for invasive species management and control used for all Green Lake site managed lands. • Green Lake site staff will have implemented invasive species removal actions on at least 20% of the total acreage at the Green Lake site. Invasive Species Control • Determine baseline data for invasive species distribution at the Green Lake site. • Site staff will have implemented treatment plans for a reduction in the distribution from the baseline. Include volunteer efforts in plans. Public Education Public education is particularly important for the success of this plan. Actions by the public will affect the Green Lake site, positively and negatively. Calhoun County should call for the enlistment of the public’s help and to reduce negative impacts on properties through education. This plan could potentially be broadened to help county residents understand and help deal with invasive species impacting the county as a whole. In keeping with the plan, the County should make every effort to stop internal purchase and use of any and all identified invasive species on all county projects. Standard Operating Procedure • Ensure that appropriate staff are evaluated on their performance of the standard operating procedures for invasive species as part of their annual performance evaluation process. • 100% of vegetation management staff and volunteers will have received appropriate training in the standard operating procedures.
CHAPTER 5 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES A wide range of strategies and actions will be required to achieve the goals of this plan. Efforts to prevent, detect, treat and monitor invasive species are often delayed by the lack of funding. Education and outreach require funding for implementation of successful campaigns and the
development and distribution of materials. Calhoun County officials should work with other state and federal governmental agencies, partners, stakeholders, and industry to establish permanent funding sources for invasive species programs at the Green Lake Site. When applying for funding opportunities, Calhoun County should incorporate the contributions of volunteer and public sector organizations to increase the amount of matching funds from granting programs.
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION Invasive aquatic, riparian and terrestrial plant species influence the productivity, value and management of a broad range of land and water resources in the State of Texas. The economic and environmental damage from invasive species will continue to grow on the Green Lake site without a well-organized, cohesive and adequately funded effort to monitor, and combat this invasion.
Note: The City of Austin Invasive Species Management Plan, and The Texas Invasive Plant and Pest Council guidelines were utilized in the development of the Green Lake Invasive Species Management Plan as proposed.
Appendix D (2)
Green Lake County Park Invasive Species Management Plan
1
Table of Contents Section 1 Invasive Species List ………………………………………………………………… 4 Top 9 Managed Invasive Species ……………..........……………………………….. 4 Other Managed Invasive Species …………………………………………………… 5 Section 2 Management Techniques ……………………………………………………………. 6 Best Management Practices …………………...…………………………………….. 6 Elements and Tasks of an Invasive Plant Management Program …………………… 7 Effective Treatments for Integrated Management of Nonnative Invasive Plants ….... 8 1. Cultural Methods …………………………………………………………... 8 2. Manual Methods ……………………………………….…………………. 10 3. Mechanical Methods ……………………….……………………………... 10 4. Biological Control Methods ……………………………….……………… 11 5. Chemical Methods ………………………….……………………………... 11 6. Strategic Control Method: Combination of Control Methods ……….……. 18 7. Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reclamation …………………….………. 18 Section 3 Summary of Herbicides ……………………………………………………………. 21 Section 4 Species Specific Information for Top 9 ..………………………………...………… 22 Melia azaderach (Chinaberry) ……………………………………………...... 22 Triadica sebifera (Chinese Tallow) ………………..………………………… 23 Acacia farnesiana (Huisache) ………………...…….………....……………... 25 Mimosa pigra (Black Mimosa) ………………………..……………………... 27 Prosopis glandulosa (Honey Mesquite) …………………..………………….. 30 Rosa bracteata (Rose Hedge) …………………………..…………………..… 33 2
Bothriochloa bladhii (Australian Bluestem) …………………...…………… 34 Bothriochloa ischaemum (King Ranch bluestem) ……………….…………. 36 Sorghum halepense (Johnson Grass) …………………..…………………… 38 Section 5 References .................................................................................................................. 40
3
Section 1: Invasive Species List Top 9 Managed Invasive Species at Green Lake County Park SPECIES
COMMON NAME
PLANT TYPE
HABITAT
SPREAD Seeds Root Sprouts
Melia azedarach
Chinaberry Tree
Tree
Roadsides, Disturbed Areas
Triadica sebifera
Chinese Tallow
Tree
Open Fields
Seeds Root Sprouts
Acacia farnesiana
Huisache
Thorny Shrub
Grasslands, Disturbed Areas
Seeds Basal Sprouts
Mimosa pigra
Black Mimosa
Thorny Shrub
Floodplains
Seeds Basal Sprouts
Prosopis glandulosa,
Honey Mesquite
Thorny Shrub
Grasslands
Seeds Basal Sprouts
Rosa bracteata
Rose Hedge
Thorny Shrub
Grasslands
Seeds
Bothriochloa bladhii
Australian Bluestem
Grass
Roadsides
Roots and seeds
Bothriochloa ischaemum
Kings Ranch (KR) Bluestem
Grass
Roadsides
Seeds
Sorghum halepense
Johnson grass
Grass
Roadsides
Seed
4
CONTROL METHOD Basal Bark Cut Stump (Triclopyr) Basal Bark Cut Stump (Triclopyr) Stem Spray Leaf Spray (Triclopyr) Basal Bark Cut Stump (Picloram) Root Plowing Basal Bark (Garlon Ultra, Picloram) Prescribed Burning Mowing Herbicide (Picloram) Prescribed Burning Herbicide (Glyphosphate) Mowing Prescribed Burning Herbicide (Glyphosphate) Tilling Herbicide (Glyphosphate)
Chinaberry Tree
Johnson Grass
Other Managed Invasive Species at Green Lake County Park SPECIES
COMMON NAME
PLANT TYPE
HABITAT
SPREAD
Solanum viarum
Tropical Soda Apple
Thorny Shrub
Roadsides
Seeds Roots
Tamarix ramosissima
Salt Cedar
Shrub
Seasonal Wetlands
Seeds Roots
Cuscuta japonica
Japanese Dodder
Vine
Forested Areas
Seeds Fragmentation
Lonicera japonica
Japanese Honeysuckle
Vine
Forested Areas
Seeds Rhizomes
Macfadyena unguis-cati
Catclaw Vine
Vine
Riverbanks
Seeds Runners
Alternanthera philoxeroides
Alligator Weed
Herb
Wet Soils
Stolens
Centaurea melintensis
Malta Star Thistle
Herb
Disturbed Areas Grasslands
Seeds
Eichhornia crassipes
Water Hyacinth
Aquatic Herb
Wetlands Lakes
Fragmented Stems
Hydrilla verticillata
Hydrilla
Aquatic Herb
Deep Water
Fragmented Stems
Lythrum salicaria
Purple Loosestrife
Aquatic Herb
Wetlands
Seeds Underground Stems
Pistia stratiotes
Water Lettuce
Aquatic Herb
Wetlands
Stolens
Salvinia molesta
Giant Salvinia
Aquatic Fern
Still Water
Spores
5
CONTROL METHOD Mowing Herbicide (Glyphosphate) Mechanical Herbicide (Rodeo) Pruning Herbicide (Glyphosphate) Mechanical Herbicide (Glyphosphate) Herbicide (Glyphosphate) Basal Bark (Triclopyr) Herbicide (Glyphosphate) Mowing Herbicide (Clopyralid) Mechanical Herbicide (Rodeo) Mechanical Herbicide (Rodeo) Hand-pulling (Rodeo) Mechanical Herbicide (Rodeo) Herbicide
Arundo donax
Giant Reed
Grass
Riverbanks
Rhizomes
Cynodon dactylon
Bermuda Grass
Grass
Disturbed Areas Grasslands
Seeds Rhizomes
Cyperus entrerianus
Deep-rooted Sedge
Grass
Disturbed Areas
Seeds
Paspulum notatum
Bahia Grass
Grass
Imperata cylindrica
Cogon Grass
Grass
Urochloa maxima
Guinea Grass
Grass
Disturbed Areas Grasslands Disturbed Areas Grasslands Disturbed Areas Grasslands
Seeds Seeds Rhizomes Rhizomes
(Rodeo) Cut Stem (Glyphosphate) Tilling Herbicide (Glyphosphate) Mowing Herbicide (Glyphosphate) Mowing Herbicide (Glyphosphate) Tilling Herbicide (Glyphosphate) Herbicide (Glyphosphate)
Section 2: Management Techniques Best Management Practices Best Management Practices for control of problematic vegetation are based on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles that will maintain the desired site conditions using a combination of available methods, while minimizing risk to people, property and the environment. Managers use current information on pest life cycles and control methods to select the least toxic control method that is effective and economical. IPM plans identify current infestations, set action thresholds for treatment, and prescribe control and prevention methods. These principles include: •
• •
• • • •
Maintenance activities will use Integrated Pest Management methods that are supported by scientific research as increasing effectiveness and minimizing risk. All departments will combine physical, biological and chemical controls, whenever practical. Correctly identify the plant target pest species and understand the biology to determine what control practices may be most appropriate. Determine the threshold levels at which a pest becomes a problem, a safety hazard or obstacle to determine if and when control is needed and which control method is best suited to the situation. Determine the most vulnerable stages of the life cycle of the pest to determine when the target pest is most susceptible to treatment for effective control. Use the most effective and economical combination of methods to achieve the desired level of management while minimizing threats to water quality. Most vegetation management will be accomplished using individual plant treatments. The primary exception to this will be prescribed burning, which may be applied as a long-term, large-scale vegetation management tool, rather than an individual plant treatment.
6
The determination of a treatment prescription and application method will take into consideration the situation, location and surrounding vegetation. Adjustments will be made, as needed, to accommodate special circumstances related to the facility location and adjacent environmental conditions. When a Best Management Practices option indicates that pesticide applications are appropriate, control treatments will favor effective low volume applications of the least toxic and effective pesticides. Elements and Tasks of an Invasive Plant Management Program Step 1. Make a plan. • • • • •
Base your planned treatments on stated objectives and the best information, then schedule and acquire resources that support your plan. Devise both a short- and long-term plan including both specific infestation treatment regimes and ideas for how these fit into a general land management plan. Maps of infestation locations and priority ratings of invasive species will assist the planning process. An eradication and rehabilitation program for specific invasive plant infestations usually requires several years of treatments and many more years of surveillance. Newer infestations and smaller plants require much less time than extensive and dense infestations.
Step 2. Prevent entry and spread. • •
• • •
• •
Educate users of your land about the invasive plants that pose major threats and how to prevent their entry and spread. Establish sanitation procedures to prevent the spread of invasives. Require all individuals to minimize invasive plant spread by following these procedures when working in or near infested lands: 1) Inspect the site and infestation before operations. 2) Avoid driving vehicles, mowers, all-terrain vehicles or spray equipment through infestations in seed or fruit. 3) Brush and wipe all seeds and debris from clothes, boots, socks, and personal protective equipment. 4) Clean motorized equipment, especially the undercarriage and tire surfaces. 5) Cover loads or bag cut invasive plants before transport. Monitor burn pile areas for new seedlings. Be careful not to disturb areas where there is a high probability of invasion. Map invasive plant locations and sites at risk, and denote treatments and their desired outcomes. You must positively identify those invasive plants that are present and those poised to enter from adjacent lands, determine their locations and abundance, and record this information. Monitor the locations through repeated visits and record progress or the lack of it. Employ the search, survey, inventory, monitor and surveillance method.
Step 3. Eradicate, control or contain, and monitor results. 7
• • • •
Rehabilitate, restore or reclaim treated lands. Establish native or noninvasive plants. Promote invasion resistance by encouraging native diversity and ecosystem function. Effective treatment schemes for rehabilitation use an integrated approach that combines treatments in an appropriate sequence and at crucial times.
Effective Treatments for Integrated Management of Invasive Plants A successful invasive plant management program usually involves a combination of treatment methods based on these and other available tools and resources: • • • • • • •
Cultural Methods Manual Methods Mechanical Methods Biological Methods Chemical Methods Strategic Control Method: Combination of Control Methods Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reclamation
Many methods are available to manage invasive plants and rehabilitate sites and more are being developed. A successful plan of attack depends on integrated management that considers all methods relative to the site and its invaders. These methods will be presented in greater detail. 1. Cultural Methods Proper cultural practices are essential in establishing healthy landscapes and can often help to maintain their resistance to pest problems. Several cultural practices, including prescribed burning and water-level manipulation, can reduce or control invasive plant populations. However, such practices may also have undesirable impacts to soils, animal habitat and native species, so care in planning and enactment must be exercised. Prescribed Burning Prescribed Burning is a tool used for many facets of vegetation management. With regards to pest management, it may be used to manage both herbaceous and woody species. It provides the opportunity to accomplish vegetation management over a relatively large area at relatively low cost and target multiple species and individuals with minimal threats to non-target plant and animal species. When applied appropriately, prescribed burning can help significantly improve the effectiveness of other more intensive and costly treatments. Prescribed fire also avoids threats to water quality associated with use of chemical herbicides. Prescribed burning is generally planned to target species that are susceptible to fire and do not exhibit re-sprouting behavior. Some re-sprouting species can be kept in check by prescribed fire when conducted on a recurring basis. Low intensity burns can be used to treat susceptible young or small-statured woody plants. High intensity burns may also be conducted to increase burn effectiveness on larger woody plants and King Ranch bluestem. For most herbaceous species, the timing of application of this practice must coincide with a particular phenological stage of the target species life cycle. For instance, when thistle plants are in the rosette stage or before annual 8
species flower and produce seed. Winter or early spring burns are most effective for invasive forb species and King Ranch bluestem is best managed by summer fire. Water-Level Manipulation Flooding or drawdowns can reduce invasive plant species in aquatic and wetland habitats but is usually not effective as a stand-alone treatment. This method is species and site specific. For effective outcomes, managers must first understand the biology of both invasive and native plants in the treatment area. Both processes can spread floating seeds of invasives and make habitats more vulnerable to nonnative plant establishment. Lowered water levels in spring and summer can also facilitate herbicide applications in wetlands. Prescribed Grazing Prescribed grazing is an approach that relies on cattle, sheep, goats or horses to reduce infestations. Grazing is a potential control treatment when the invasive is palatable and the invasive plant is not poisonous to the animal. Cattle and horses are used for many herbaceous invasive plants, while sheep and goats will feed on invasive woody plants as well. The animal species is important, as is the breed, the best being those breeds that are larger and can handle difficult grazing and browsing conditions. Grazers must be managed so that they do not selectively target palatable native species. Additionally, it is important to note that the animals would be used as a tool for vegetation management. A strict accounting of animal numbers, incoming and outgoing, must be provided so that animals are not allowed to remain on the property following the completion of work, becoming a management issue themselves. Mulching Mulches and other ground coverings are often employed during the installation and restoration of landscapes as well as their ongoing maintenance. They are utilized for a variety of reasons. Mulches suppress weeds, help to retain moisture around plants, reduce possible erosion, and provide visual enhancement. Use of landscape mulches in vegetative buffers should take into account any possible impacts to the buffer as well as nearby waterways. These impacts may include: • •
Inadvertent introduction of non-native weeds to the site. Leaching of substances such as tannins or nutrients from the mulch into nearby waterways. • Migration of mulch material into waterways. Choices of mulches should take these concerns into account. Mulching in areas that are below typical high water lines is discouraged in any vegetative buffers. Seeding of cover crops for erosion control is allowed in buffer zones. Solarization Soil solarization uses polyethylene sheeting to cover low growing, cultivated, mowed or chopped invasive infestations and trap solar energy to heat the soil and space under the sheeting to kill and suppress invasive plants. At least 2 years of summer cover are needed to suppress most invasives plants by 90 percent. other plants are killed by this method—it is not selective. Black sheeting is more effective than clear sheeting because it blocks needed sunlight, and, at an extra 9
cost, is available with UV blockers to greatly extend the useful life of sheets to more than one growing season. The method is useful as a first treatment for relatively small areas and where herbicides cannot be used. Summer is the most effective season, and use on wet soils increases control. After removal, the bare soil is open for reinvasion and should be quickly revegetated or otherwise protected. 2. Manual Methods Manual methods include hand pulling as well as use of a wide array of tools for cutting, chopping, wrenching and girdling invasive plants. Manual methods are generally used on woody invasive plants when they are small. Eradication is only possible when the root crown or roots that can resprout are completely extracted and seedlings are pulled or eliminated following seed germination. Because it is difficult and even impossible to extract all of the shallow roots, stolons, and rhizomes of many mature invasives, resprouting will usually occur. When this occurs, chemical treatment is usually required. 3. Mechanical Methods Mechanical methods usually involve top removal or uprooting of individual plants. This method may be accomplished using hand tools, chain saws or heavy equipment. These methods can complement and increase the efficiency of herbicide treatments, followed by revegetation with desirable plants. Some equipment, with appropriate attachments, can prepare the site for seeding and tree planting. Most important is using the appropriate size equipment to meet job requirements and minimize damage to soils and streams. Timely follow-up with other control methods is essential, because disturbance of the soil creates favorable conditions for regrowth from seeds and root fragments. Mechanical removal with heavy equipment may be appropriate in natural areas. However, care should be taken and the use of heavy equipment should be limited or eliminated, in particularly sensitive areas (e.g. near streams or karst features). Mechanical treatments will be applied in a manner that minimizes ground disturbance. Methods will be limited to those that allow selection of individual plants. These include use of hand tools, chain saws, and tractor or skid steer mounted devices such as tree shears and others. Less discriminating treatments such as chaining and root plowing will be avoided. Exceptions may be considered on a case-by-case basis. â&#x20AC;˘
Skid-Steer Loaders - Tracks attached to the tires of the loader help traction and access to difficult terrain. Skid loaders are easily transported, highly maneuverable, and capable of lift and tilt, which gives this machine, if equipped with appropriate attachments, potential for other invasive plant removal tasks in dense infestations. However, track driven equipment can cause a high level of soil disturbance and should be used with care, and where possible, managers should opt for wheeled equipment. â&#x20AC;˘ Mulchers - Mulchers are increasingly preferred for reducing both standing invasive and native woody plants in dense infestations. Mulching machines are best for nonselective 10
situations where the cost of selective control is prohibitive. Mulching machines are landclearing tools that can cut through dense stands of nonnative plants, reducing them to small pieces of woody debris. After a mulched area has dried and regrowth occurs, prescribed burning can be used to reduce the surface mass, while herbicides can be more efficiently applied to the resprouts. • Bulldozers - Bulldozers (or tracked tractors) are made in a range of sizes and have found use in large-scale invasive plant reclamation projects tackling extensive woody infestation, although smaller tractors and implements are used. The amount of soil disturbance and compaction is considerable with bulldozers, varying by equipment size, soil moisture, number of passes, stand density, and tree/shrub size. The substantial soil damage caused by bulldozers should be an important consideration when weighing the benefits of using such equipment against the drawbacks. 4. Biological Control Methods Biological control of plants uses living organisms to weaken, kill, or stop seed production of the targeted plant. The most common agents in bio-control programs are insects and pathogens. Uses of nematodes and mites are under study. 5. Chemical Methods When other techniques are not sufficient, herbicide can offer an alternative. Effective herbicide applications can kill roots without exposing soil, though herbicide toxicity to non-target species and persistence, activity and mobility in soil or water must be considered. Exposed soil is susceptible to reinvasion and erosion. for successful herbicide treatments: •
Select the least toxic herbicide that is effective for the target species and appropriate for the landscape. Also consider soil mobility, activity in soil and half-life. See White 2007. • Follow application and mixing requirements prescribed on the label and use the most directed application method that will be effective. • Choose the optimum time for applications. factors to consider include the condition and stage of growth of target species, and weather considerations (probability of rain following application, wind speed during application). Many herbicides are effective only when plants are actively growing, so periods of drought, cold or heat may render pesticides ineffective. Uptake of foliar application may be hindered when leaf stomata are closed due to high temperatures. • Be patient. Allow herbicides to work for several months to a year before resorting to other treatment options or re-treating. Selecting an Effective Herbicide If a herbicide is not prohibited for use on a specific site then the broad category of non-crop areas even allows use in “non-used” lands and parks in urban and suburban environments. Some prescriptions for these other land types will also be given along with aquatic sites. Carefully read and study the herbicide label for information on specified areas of use, crops and prohibitions. It is not necessary for the target invasive plant to be listed on the label for permitted use if the label 11
allows use for general weed control or control of broad categories, such as “annual weeds”,” perennial weeds” or ”woody species”. These more general uses are often discussed on the label under the heading of “non-crop areas”, “natural areas”, or “habitat management”. Additional sources of information on both effectiveness and toxicity include Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) that can be obtained from manufacturers and herbicide fact sheets. fact sheets are prepared by third parties and may contain additional information not found on the label or MSDS sheet. fact sheets, if used, should come from reputable sources. Adjuvants and Additives to Herbicide Spray Solutions Adjuvants are any product added to a spray solution to improve herbicide performance and effectiveness, including delivery, retention on foliage, and foliar or bark penetration. Adjuvants may be included as part of the commercial herbicide product or sold separately as an additive you must mix with the herbicide before application. Choose an adjuvant, according to label recommendations, that is appropriate for your particular application method and field conditions. obtaining information about adjuvants and their effects can be difficult. MSDS sheets often the best source of information. Be aware that adjuvants may have more serious or long lasting environmental effects than the active ingredient of the herbicide, especially on aquatic organisms. Another common additive used by professionals is a marking dye, which makes it easier to determine which areas have been sprayed and which still need treatment. Dyes marketed for this purpose will fade after a period of sunlight exposure. Water Quality Protection Water quality is an important environmental issue in relation to pesticide use. The strategies for reducing or preventing water contamination by these products are largely based on common sense. When applying pesticides, the applicator should read the product labels and use the lowest effective rate listed on the label for any one application. Calibrate equipment to deliver herbicides according to label recommendations and keep records of the amount of product applied. An applicator should NEVER “double the rate for better results” and NEVER deviate from strict label application rates. The key to minimizing impact is reducing the levels of possible pollutants that enter the system. factors determining the potential for ground water and surface water contamination include tendency for the pesticide to attach to soil particles or organic matter, solubility in water, rate of degradation and volatility. Soil is a common pathway to groundwater and soil characteristics, along with the chemical’s inherent mobility, determine the rate at which chemicals move through the soil. Soils with high clay or organic- matter content are more likely to bind herbicide molecules, tying up the material while it is decomposed by microorganisms or other degradation processes. To minimize contamination due to runoff, do not apply products within 48 hours of expected heavy rainfall.
12
Pesticide drift can be controlled by spraying only on calm days, using lower pressure, larger droplet size and drift control additives in the spray solution to reduce spray drift. These precautions should be taken to reduce spray drift on all occasions. More detail on managing spray drift is given in the following section of this plan. The use of broadcast spray methods should be minimized in favor of more directed application methods. One potential source of water contamination is the disposal of unused herbicide, product containers and rinse water. Prepare only the amount recommended for the area to be treated to prevent having unused herbicide at the end of an application. Rinse all empty containers, regardless of their type, three times before disposal. Do not dispose of container rinse water where it may flow into a waterway. Instead, dispose of rinse water by application on the treated area. Dispose of the product containers according to label directions. Selective Herbicide Applications The best approach is usually selective applications to target plants while avoiding or minimizing application to desirable plants. The selective methods described below are directed foliar sprays and wipes, basal sprays and wipes, stem injection, cut-treat, and soil spots. Directed foliar Sprays and Wipes Directed foliar sprays are herbicide-water-adjuvant solutions aimed at target plant foliage to wet all leaves, applied by either low- or high-volume sprayers. Herbicide application by directed foliar spray is one of the most cost-effective methods for treating many types of herbaceous and woody invasive plant species. With this method, herbicide mixtures are applied to the foliage and especially the growing tips of woody plants, or to completely cover all leaves. foliar sprays can be applied whenever leaves are present but, for woody plant control, are usually most effective from midsummer to late fall. Winter and spring applications are also effective in controlling some species and are often required to prevent seed formation. Selective treatment is possible because the applicator can direct the spray towards target plants and away from desirable plants. The addition of a spray shield to the end of the wand confines spray to the target. Another safeguard is to only use foliar-active herbicides, because directed sprays of soil-active herbicides can damage or kill surrounding plants when their roots are within the treatment zone. Never use herbicides with soil activity to treat invasive plants under desirable trees or shrubs that are susceptible to the herbicide. If non-target foliage is accidently sprayed, clip off the foliage to prevent uptake.
13
Low-volume foliar sprays using spray tips and spraying pressures of 20 to 30 pounds per square inch can ensure productivity and limit drift. Wind must be minimal (less than 10 miles per hour) and used by the applicator to facilitate upper crown coverage. Low wind can be dangerous because it is variable and unpredictable, wind speeds of 5-10 mph is optimal. Directed foliar sprays can be applied in higher volumes by using spray wands attached by hoses to vehicle-mounted spraying systems that have much larger herbicide tank capacities. The high-volume directed foliar spray is the most efficient approach to large infestations of multiple invasive species where there are few nontarget plants. Handheld weed wicks and rollers apply ultra-low volumes by wiping the herbicide mix onto the target leaf surfaces or bark; the herbicide mixture is contained in the handle. Most wick systems have limited use and durability in forest and field situations, but are useful when the applicator needs to avoid applying herbicide to rare or protected plants. Vehicle mounted wipe bars can be used to selectively target large areas of taller target species (e.g.- Johnsongrass) with minimal impacts to shorter desirable species. Foliar sprays are recommended where cut-stem applications are not practical, typically on herbaceous species or on woody shrubs and vines that are low-growing (less than 8 feet tall) and bushy with multiple stems. With foliar treatment, apply herbicide mix during the growth periods for each species as recommended on the specimen label. Use a backpack sprayer or a vehicle-mounted sprayer equipped with a solid cone or flat fan nozzle. Covering and completely wet the blades but not to the point of runoff. Drift management Herbicide drift is a particular concern with foliar treatment. To minimize drift: â&#x20AC;˘ Use course sprays produced by the lowest spray pressure to achieve uniform coverage. â&#x20AC;˘ Use a drift control agent in the tank mix if this function is not provided by other adjuvants in the herbicide product or tank mix. â&#x20AC;˘ Apply foliar spray only to low-growing vegetation (8 feet tall or less). Apply herbicide only when eye-level wind speed is low. However, to minimize applicator exposure to wind-blown herbicide, ensure that the wind direction is stable, which typically occurs with winds over 3 mph. Thus, foliar sprays are most safely applied when eye-level wind speeds are between 3 and 10 mph with stable direction away from sensitive receptors such as private property or public use areas where access is not restricted.
14
Basal Sprays and Wipes Basal sprays are herbicide-oil-penetrant mixtures sprayed on the lower portion of woody stems. The sprays are usually applied with a backpack sprayer or wick applicator. Avoid spray contact with desirable trees or heavy use within their root zone. The herbicide must be an oil-soluble formulation and mixed with a special basal oil product, penetrating oil, diesel fuel, fuel oil, mineral oil, vegetable oil with a penetrant, or blends of these ingredients. The most effective time period in most of the South for a basal spray and streamline is June through September, while winter treatments are easier when leaves do not block access and spray. After treating with a basal spray, wait at least 2 years before disturbing aboveground plant material, because herbicide activity within plant roots can continue for an extended period. On stems with smooth bark (typically less than 6 inches in diameter), apply herbicide mix to the basal parts of the trunk(s) to a height of 12 to 15 inches from the ground in a manner that thoroughly wets all sides of the lower stem(s), including the root collar area, but not to the point of runoff. Apply herbicide mix with a backpack or knapsack sprayer using low pressure and a solid cone or flat-fan nozzle. Apply at any time, including winter months, except when snow or water prevents spraying to the ground line. When near water, use: â&#x20AC;˘ This method is not appropriate for use near water. When away from water, use: â&#x20AC;˘ 13% to 20% a.i. of triclopyr ester in oil Stem Injection Stem injection (including hack-and-squirt) involves the use of mechanical herbicide injectors or the application of herbicide concentrate or herbicide-water mixtures into downward incision cuts spaced around woody stems and often made by a hatchet or machete. Tree injection is a selective method of controlling larger trees, shrubs and vines with minimum damage to surrounding plants. Injection treatments are sometimes not as effective in controlling multiple-stemmed species compared to the faster basal bark treatments, but may be easier in remote or rough terrain where a backpack sprayer might be impractical or cumbersome. Incisions should be spaced around the stem, deep enough to penetrate the bark and inner cambium, slightly into the wood. Do not make
15
multiple cuts directly above or below each other because this will inhibit movement of the herbicide within the stem. A complete girdle or frill of the stem is not needed or desirable. Using a hatchet or machete, make cuts around the trunk spaced 1-inch apart. Apply herbicide mix into fresh cuts. For best results, use an injection tool to apply 1 ml of herbicide into each cut spaced 3 inches completely around the trunk. When near water (See p.12, Section 2), use: • 44% a.i. of an aquatic formulation of triclopyr salt in water, or • 2.7% or 15% a.i. of an aquatic formulation of imazapyr in water (see herbicide specimen label for use of dilute and concentrated solutions), or • 14% to 54% a.i. of an aquatic formulation of glyphosate in water When away from water, use: • Any of the above herbicide mixtures for use near water, or • 28% a.i. of imazapyr in water, or • 41% a.i. of glyphosate in water
Cut-Treat or Cut-Stump Cut-treat involves applying herbicide concentrates, herbicide-water or herbicide-penetrant mixtures to the outer circumference of freshly cut stumps or the entire top surface of cut stems. Applications are made with a spray bottle, squeeze bottle, backpack sprayer, wick or paint brush. freshly cut stems and stumps can be treated with herbicide mixtures to prevent resprouting and to kill roots. It is critical that the cut is made as low as possible to the ground, and that the stem is treated immediately after the cut is made. To minimize deactivation of the herbicide in the cuttreat method, remove sawdust from stumps before treatment. For stumps over 3 inches in 16
diameter, completely wet the outer edge with the herbicide or herbicide mixture. Make certain that the solution thoroughly covers the wood next to the bark of the stump. Completely wet the tops of smaller stumps and all cut stems in a clump. Note that some herbicide labels advise treating the outer portion of the stump down to the ground. Apply herbicide mix immediately to freshly-cut stumps. Apply with a backpack or knapsack sprayer or hand-held spray bottle using low pressures and a solid cone or flat fan nozzle. Spray the sides of the stump and the outer portion of the cut surface, including the cambium in a manner that thoroughly wets the stem and root collar but not to the point of runoff. Apply at any time, including winter months, except when snow or water prevents spraying to the ground line. If target species is mixed in with desirable woody vegetation, do NOT use imazapyr, as research has shown that it can translocate via roots – defer to another listed course of action. When near water, use: • 44% a.i. (active ingredient) of an aquatic formulation of triclopyr salt in water, or • 1.8 to 2.7% a.i. of an aquatic formulation of imazapyr in water, or • 27% to 54% a.i. of an aquatic formulation of glyphosate in water See pg. 13, Section 2, Management Techniques, # 5 Chemical Methods, Water Quality Protection for more details When away from water, use: • Any of the above herbicide mixtures for use near water, or • 13% to 20% a.i. of triclopyr ester in oil, or • 1.8 to 2.7% a.i. of imazapyr in water, or • 20% to 41% a.i. of glyphosate in water Girdle Treatment Using a hatchet, machete, or saw, make cuts through the bark and completely around the tree to expose the cambium and growth rings. The cut should angle downward extending into the cambium. Apply herbicide mix with a backpack or handheld sprayer into each cut until thoroughly wet but not to the point of runoff. When near water (See p.12, Section 2), use: • 44% a.i. of an aquatic formulation of triclopyr salt in water, or • 7% to 29% a.i. of an aquatic formulation of imazapyr in water, or • 14% to 54% a.i. of an aquatic formulation of glyphosate in water When away from water, use: • Any of the above herbicide mixtures for use near water, or • 7% to 29% a.i. of imazapyr in water, or
17
20% to 41% a.i. of
Broadcast Herbicide Applications Broadcast application of pesticides will be avoided. However, in rare cases in which broadcast application is deemed appropriated, chemicals should be selected that have low-non target toxicity, low potential for movement and a short half life in the environment. The Texas Agricultural Extension has developed a list of recommended chemicals for broadcast application with these characteristics. 6. Strategic Control Method: Combination of Control Methods The most appropriate, effective and safest control of a target pest is a strategic combination of several of the control methods outlined above, integrating herbicides into the available management methods. The combination of various manual, mechanical, and chemical methods is often the Best Management Practice for cost-effective and environmentally safe management. All options involving chemical control methods will be in strict compliance with product label requirements. The proposed use of chemical controls in the following instances must be reviewed and approved by the City of Austin IPM Coordinator prior to their use: • •
The proposed use of pesticides within 50’ of surface water resources (standing water). The proposed use of pesticides within 150’ of a cave, sinkhole, and/or other recharge features (Edwards Aquifer recharge zone). When chemicals are to be used in close proximity to caves, within or near sinkholes or waterways the most precise methodologies will be used to minimize any and all overspray or drips (Gleason and Taffinder 2007).
7. Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reclamation Once invasive species are removed, plants and animals can recover. However, natural recovery processes can be overwhelmed by invasive species and restoration is required. Although restoration efforts have common elements, each area is unique. Work must be guided by sitespecific considerations and analysis. However, some generalizations can be made. When soil is disturbed, and especially if it is left bare, it must be revegetated with appropriate species to prevent soil loss and reinvasion. Below is a discussion of some of the factors to consider in a restoration project, followed by a generalized protocol for rapid revegetation of an upland site. The goal of restoration is to restore ecosystem process, not simply to replace components. Ecosystem processes allow natural systems to repair themselves and to remain relatively stable. The primary processes of concern to a manager are hydrology, nutrient cycling and energy capture. In practice, the assessment and repair of these processes begins with the soil. In the process of treating and removing invasive species, the soil may be disturbed and left bare. In 18
some cases, compaction reduction activities (raking, tilling, disking, ripping) and organic soil amendments may be needed to restore soil to a useful state. In all cases, soil should be protected. Revegetation with appropriate native species provides permanent protection, but in some cases temporary soil protection measures such as mulch may be needed before the site can be revegetated. Generalized revegetation protocol: • •
•
•
•
Address soil disturbance. Compacted soils will need to be loosened as appropriate prior to seed addition. Bare soils should be seeded or otherwise stabilized within 15 calendar days of disturbance to prevent erosion and reinvasion. Denuded areas that are inactive and will be exposed to rain for 30 days or more should also be temporarily stabilized, usually by planting seeds and establishing vegetation during favorable seasons in areas where vegetation can be established. In very flat, non-sensitive areas with favorable soils, stabilization may involve simply seeding. Mulching and/or sodding may be necessary on moderate to steep slopes, more erosive soils, or more sensitive areas. Appropriate native plant material should be added as seed, live plantings or a combination. Plants vary as to climatic adaptability, soil chemistry and plant growth characteristics (Berglund, 1978). USDA Soil Service technical guides at the statewide level are excellent sources of information for seeding mixtures and planting prescriptions (Hynson et al., 1982). The U.S. forest Service, State foresters and County Extension agents can also provide helpful suggestions (Kochenderfer, 1970). Locally, the Grow Green guides provide a useful resource. In addition to selecting a seeding mixture, the seeding rate must be determined so that adequate soil protection can be achieved without excess cost of overseeding. Berglund (1978) describes how to determine seeding rates in Seeding to Control Erosion along forest Roads. In riparian areas, special consideration should be given to species’ contributions to bank stability and water quality. Many species found in central and southwest Texas have been given draft stability ratings based on their contribution to bank stability (Nelle 2009), ranging from 1 (bare ground) to 10 (anchored rock). Ideally, riparian areas will be dominated by plants with stability ratings between 6 and 9. Stability ratings of 7 or higher are considered to be the minimum for acceptable bank stability. However, combinations of species, particularly woody species in association with grasses or sedges, can provide higher stabilities than reflected in individual species ratings (Nelle 2009). In addition to stability ratings, US fish and Wildlife Service wetland indicator status should be considered. Riparian areas should contain a mix of obligate wetland (always occurs in wet areas), facultative wetland (frequently occur in wet areas) and facultative species (equally likely to occur in wet and non-wet areas), dependent on water availability. Perennial waterways can support a larger complement of obligate and facultative wetland species and intermittent waterways will require a higher proportion of facultative species. Regardless of the mix, it is important that all riparian areas contain some species from the facultative groups to provide stability as water availability fluctuates (S. Nelle pers. comm). On steep slopes, incorporate native woody plants planted in rows, cordons or wattles.
19
•
• • • •
Seed during optimum periods for establishment, preferably just prior to spring or fall rains (Larse 1971). Most forbs must be sown in the fall; grasses can be sown in either the spring or fall. Supplemental irrigation, if feasible, during the establishment phase will increase germination and survival. During non-growing seasons, apply temporary surface stabilization methods to control surface erosion. Possible methods include mulching (without seeding) and installation of commercially produced matting, blankets and wattles. Mulch as needed to hold seed, retard rainfall impact and preserve soil moisture (Larse 1971). Amend soil according to site specific conditions. Protect seeded areas from grazing and vehicle damage until plants are well established. Inspect all seeded areas for failures, and make necessary adjustments.
20
Section 3: Summary of Herbicides
21
Section 4: Species Specific Information
Melia azedarach Chinaberry tree Synonym(s): Melia azedarach var. umbraculifera Family: Meliaceae (Mahogany Family) Duration and Habit: Perennial Tree
Photographer: Unknown Source: Texas Invasives
DESCRIPTION Deciduous tree to 50 feet (15 m) in height and 2 feet (60 cm) in diameter, much branched with multiple boles, lacy dark-green leaves having a musky odor, and clusters of lavender flowers in spring yielding persistent, poisonous yellow berries. Ecological Threat: Chinaberry outcompetes native vegetation due to its high relative resistance to insects and pathogens. Its leaf litter raises soil pH, thus altering soil conditions for native plants and seed germination. Chinaberry is a very fast growing tree that reaches 18 - 24 feet in height in 4 - 5 years. May reach 50 - 60 feet in total height. Biology & Spread: Reproduces on-site primarily from root sprouts, and over longer distances via birddispersed seeds. Reproductively mature when it reaches the size of a shrub. Flowers in the spring, fruits in the summer. Fruit remain on the tree past leaf fall. History: Introduced in the mid-1800s from Asia. Widely planted as a traditional ornamental around homesites. Extracts potentially useful for natural pesticides.
22
U.S. Habitat: Common on roadsides, at forest margins, and around old homesites but rare at high elevations. Semishade tolerant. Forms colonies from root sprouts or sprouts from root collars, and spreads by bird-dispersed abundant seeds.
DISTRIBUTION U.S. Nativity: Introduced to U.S. Native Origin: Himalayas (NatureServe Explorer); Asia (Bailey, L.H. and E.Z. Bailey, Hortus Third: A Concise Dictionary of Plants Cultivated in the United States and Canada, MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York , (1977).) U.S. Present: AL, AR, AZ, CA, FL, GA, HI, LA, MO, MS, NC, NM, NY, OK, PR, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VI Distribution: Located across the entire southern contiguous United States including Texas, plus Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Extends as far north as New York. Present in the Lower Galveston Bay watershed in Harris and Galveston counties.
RESEMBLES/ALTERNATIVES •
Sapindus saponaria var. drummondii (western soapberry)
•
Campsis radicans (trumpet creeper)
•
Prunus mexicana (Mexican plum)
•
Morella cerifera (wax myrtle)
MANAGEMENT The most effective chemical controls are cut-stump and basal bark applications of triclopyr herbicides. Cut trees left untreated will grow back with several branches emanating from a single stump. Removal of seedlings must include the entire root system.
Triadica Sebifera Chinese Tallow Tree Synonym(s): Croton sebiferum, Sapium sebiferum Family: Euphorbiaceae (Spurge Family) Duration and Habit: Perennial Tree
Photographer: Chris Evans Source: The University of Georgia, Bugwood.org
23
DESCRIPTION Deciduous tree to 60 feet (18 m) in height and 3 feet (90 cm) in diameter, with heart-shaped leaves, dangling yellowish spikes in spring yielding small clusters of three-lobed fruit that split to reveal popcorn-like seeds in fall and winter. Ecological Threat: Chinese tallow will transform native habitats into monospecific (single species) tallow forests in the absence of land management practices. Chinese tallow alters light availability for other plant species. Fallen tallow leaves contain toxins that create unfavorable soil conditions for native plant species. Chinese tallow will outcompete native plant species, reducing habitat for wildlife as well as forage areas for livestock. Biology & Spread: Can reach reproductive age in as little as three years and prolifically produces seeds, which are readily transported by water and birds. Flowers mature March through May and fruit ripens August through November. Also propagates via cuttings, stumps, and roots. History: Chinese tallowtree is native to China and Japan. It was introduced into the United States in the 1700?s in South Carolina. It was distributed in the Gulf Coast in the 1900?s by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in an attempt to establish a soap making industry. U.S. Habitat: Invades stream banks, riverbanks, and wet areas like ditches as well as upland sites. Thrives in both freshwater and saline soils. Shade tolerant, flood tolerant, and allelopathic. Increasing widely through ornamental plantings. Spreading by bird- and water-dispersed seeds and colonizing by prolific surface root sprouts.
DISTRIBUTION U.S. Nativity: Introduced to U.S. Native Origin: Temp. Asia-China & Taiwan (Germplasm Resources Information Network); Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. U.S. Present: AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TX Distribution: Current distribution includes all of the Southeastern United States from Texas to Florida, North Carolina to Arkansas, and it was recently discovered in California.
RESEMBLES/ALTERNATIVES •
Cercis canadensis (eastern redbud)
•
Cercis canadensis var. mexicana (Mexican redbud)
•
Cercis canadensis var. texensis (Texas redbud)
•
Acer grandidentatum (bigtooth maple)
•
Acer negundo (boxelder)
•
Ulmus crassifolia (cedar elm)
24
MANAGEMENT Apply a triclopyr herbicide to basal bark in late summer or early fall (such as 20% Garlon 4 in oil) or, for large trees, apply directly to the stump after cutting down the tree (use Rodeo for trees growing in water). Pull up seedlings by hand. Large land areas can be managed by mowing and the careful use of controlled burns.
Acacia farnesiana Huisache Synonym(s): Acacia minuta,Acacia smallii, Mimosa farnesiana L., Pithecellobium minutum,Vachellia densiflora, Vachellia farnesiana (L.) Family: Fabaceae Duration and Habit: Perennial shrub/tree
Photographer: Sheldon Navie Source: Invasive Species Compendium
DESCRIPTION A. farnesiana is a spinescent shrub, or rarely a small tree, 2-7 m tall with several slender stems and long thin branches growing from ground level. University of Hawaii Botany Department (1998) describe A. farnesiana as thorny, deciduous, growing to 4 m in height. The following description is adapted from Gilman and Watson (1993) and Watson and Dallwitz (1999). A tall, semi-evergreen shrub or small tree with feathery, fine divided leaflets of a soft, medium, green colour. The slightly rough stems are a rich chocolate brown or grey, possessing long, sharp, multiple thorns. Branches glabrous or nearly, purplish to grey, with very small glands; stipules spinescent, usually short, up to 1.8 cm long, rarely longer, never inflated; leaves twice pinnate, with a small gland on petiole and sometimes one on the rachis near top of pinnae; pinnae 2-8 pairs, leaflets 10-12 pairs, minute, 2-7 mm long, 0.75-1.75 mm wide. The small, yellow, puff-like flowers are very fragrant and appear in clusters in late winter then sporadically after each new flush of growth providing nearly year-round bloom. Flowers glabrous, leathery; in axillary pedunculate heads, calyx and corolla glabrous, scented. Pod indehiscent, straight or curved, 4-7.5 cm long, about 1.5 cm wide, subterete and turgid, dark brown to blackish, glabrous, finely longitudinally striate, pointed at both ends; seeds chestnut-brown, in two rows, embedded in a dry spongy tissue, 7-8 mm long, ca 5.5 mm broad, smooth, elliptic, thick, only slightly compressed; areole 6.5-7 mm long, 4 mm 25
wide. The persistent fruits have a glossy coat and contain seeds which are cherished by birds and other wildlife. Ecological Threat: The habit of forming dense thickets is likely to shade out native vegetation and result in changes in nutrient cycling. A. farnesiana is likely to shade out native flora. The fruits are eaten by many birds and mammals in the native range and are likely to be eaten and potentially dispersed by birds and mammals in the exotic range. Biology & Spread: The fruit is a dry elongated pod which remains on the tree but attracts a variety of wildlife in its native range including birds, squirrels and other mammals. A. farnesiana is primarily dispersed by animals, notably livestock. Ungulates which feed on the pods can disperse A. farnesiana seeds (University of Hawaii Botany Department, 1998). In its native North America the seeds attract a variety of wildlife in its native range including birds, squirrels and other mammals (Gilman and Watson, 1993). Regarding long-distance dispersal, A. farnesiana has been widely introduced over a very long period, being one of the earliest Acacia species to have been introduced outside its native range. It has become naturalized in many countries, and so intentional introduction is likely to be the cause of future instances of invasion. History: A. farnesiana is an aggressive colonizer and is regarded as an invasive weed both in parts of its native range and where introduced, notably in Australia, the USA, and some Pacific and Caribbean islands. A. farnesiana is mostly a weed of pastures and able to form dense thorny thickets, which may cause injury to livestock and may shade out native fodder species. U.S. Habitat: A. farnesiana is found in a variety of habitats in both its native and introduced ranges. It is common in arid and semi-arid grasslands and wastelands. Sierra Madre Alliance (2003) report its occurrence in North America on slopes and in canyons, valleys, plains and dry valleys where it may be associated with Sonoran desert scrub, tropical deciduous forest and grassland, and is particularly common in disturbed areas, for example along roads or in agricultural and heavily grazed sites.
DISTRIBUTION U.S. Nativity: Continental U.S. native, Hawaii introduced Native Origin: A. farnesiana is considered as a native of North America by Gilman and Watson (1993) though its exact status there is debated (Wagner et al., 1990; Luken and Thieret, 1996; USDA-NRCS, 2002). New (1984) describes its origin as 'problematical' because it has been so widely introduced beyond its native range and because this introduction process has occurred over a much longer time period than for many other Acacia spp., postulating that the native range of A. farnesiana was the 'New World'. ILDIS (2002) note that A. farnesiana is probably native to tropical America, from Brazil and Peru to Mexico and the southern USA, and has been widely planted across the world, becoming naturalized in many countries. The exact status in the Caribbean is still unclear, however, with it being noted as both native and exotic in neighbouring islands. A. farnesiana is the most widely distributed species of the genus, now naturalized in many regions of the tropics and subtropics from its origins in tropical America. A contributing factor is its wide adaptability and tolerance of drought, frost, fire, saline soils and other growth-limiting conditions. Holm et al. (1991) report A. farnesiana as a serious weed in Iraq, a principal weed in Australia, Fiji, Indonesia, Mexico and Paraguay, a common weed in Hawaii and the Philippines and present as a weed in numerous other countries. University of Hawaii Botany Department (1998) report that it is present on all the Hawaiian 26
islands, with dense infestations on the islands of Lualualei, O'ahu, Lihau and Maui. In Puerto Rico, it is common and spreads rapidly, occupying more than 1000 hectares in dry coastal areas and offshore islands (Francis and Liogier, 1991), classed it as a category 3 problem plant especially in grasslands. U.S. Present: AL, AR, CA, FL, GE, HI, LA, MS, NM, TX
RESEMBLES/ALTERNATIVES A. farnesiana may occasionally be confused with other Acacia species with similar, round, yellow and fragrant inflorescences, such as A. dealbata. The cylindrical pods, smaller leaflets and long thin thorns of A. farnesiana are, however, generally distinctive features. It is also occasionally confused with another similar American native, A. caven from Chile.
MANAGEMENT Manual and Mechanical Roots and seedlings are removed manually in Fiji (Le HouĂŠrou, 2002). Mechanical methods are employed to remove A. farnesiana and other woody weeds in Australia and the USA, and Swarbrick (1997) notes that it is destroyed by cultivation and grubbing. Chemical Swarbrick (1997) notes that A. farnesiana is probably susceptible to picloram, metsulfuron-methyl, glyphosate, triclopyr, 2,4-D, tebuthiuron and hexazinone. Extensive work on the use of herbicides has been conducted in the USA and Australia. 2,4,5-T ester, which has previously been used to treat A. farnesiana, is now banned. Biological No biological control agents are currently available for A. farnesiana.
Mimosa pigra Black Mimosa Synonym(s): Mimosa asperata, Mimosa pellita Family: Fabaceae Duration and Habitat: Perennial shrub
27
Photographer: Colin Wilson Source: Invasive Species Compendium
DESCRIPTION M. pigra is a spreading, multi-stemmed, thorny shrub usually up to 2 m tall, but occasionally up to 6 m, with a maximum lifespan of about 5 years. The plant is evergreen and bears bipinnate, sensitive leaves, up to 18 cm in length. Recurved spines (to 7 mm long) are located on the undersides of the petioles, petioules and stems. The inflorescences, containing up to 100 flowers, are spherical (about 1 cm across) and pink. The species is androdioecious with both male and hermaphrodite flowers bearing eight short and long stamens. These flowers exhibit an intra-specific pollen polymorphism (El Ghazali et al., 1997). The flat pods of M. pigra are hairy and up to 15 cm long and clustered (up to seven pods) at the stem tips. They contain between 8 and 24 seeds. Each seed is about 5 x 2.4 mm and weighs 0.09 mg. The fruits ripen in about 3 months and, when mature, fragment into indehiscent one-seeded segments. The pods are covered with bristles which facilitate floating and enhance dispersal along river systems. Ecological Threat: The shrub completely alters floodplain and swamp forest. The main impact of the weed is to reduce the number of birds and lizards, and the level of herbaceous vegetation; it also hinders tree regeneration. The occurrence of M. pigra along irrigation systems increases sediment accumulation and restricts water flow.
Biology & Spread: Most of the seeds on M. pigra are produced by autogamy, although wind pollination may also occur. The seeds here generally germinate when they are first wetted and the rate of germination is high. Although M. pigra is adapted to seasonally flooded habitats, where fibrous adventitious roots are formed around the base of the multiple stems, it can also regenerate under some degree of canopy cover. The plants resprout freely after natural fires but M. pigra does not naturally reproduce vegetatively. Once established as monotypic stands, M. pigra can regenerate under its own canopy. In these stands, the half life of plants taller than 20 cm varies between 13 and 22 months, depending on soil type. The bristles covering the pods facilitate floating and enhance dispersal along river systems.
28
History: Introduced from South America, but it now regarded as one of the worst alien invasive weeds of wetlands of tropical Africa, Asia and Australia. It was mostly introduced as an ornamental or seed contaminant. U.S. Habitat: M. pigra has been identified as an invasive in Texas, Hawaii and Florida. It has been found on the banks of large rivers, lake shores, marsh edges and roadsides. M. pigra can spread into pasture land, fallow rice paddies, immature oil palm plantations and fruit orchards. Construction sites were the habitat most likely to have infestations of M. pigra.
DISTRIBUTION U.S. Nativity: Introduced to U.S. Native Origin: M. pigra has until recently been under-reported both in the native and invaded ranges. Furthermore, taxonomic uncertainties throw doubt as to the actual native range of the species in the neotropics. Rejmรกnek (2002) has stated that M. pigra is not native to Central America, while USDA-ARS (2013) gives it a broad native range in Africa and the Americas. U.S. Present: TX, FL, HI Distribution: It is a serious introduced weed in Africa, Asia, some Pacific islands, North America, and in the Northern Territory, Australia.
RESEMBLES/ ALTERNATIVES M. pigra grows with a number of other Mimosa species and is difficult for untrained personnel to identify (Kuniata, 1994). In Australia, it has been misidentified as other Mimosa species such as M. pudica (Lonsdale et al., 1989). These species can be distinguished by the number of pairs of pinnae per leaf; M. pigra has 6-14 pairs and M. pudica has 1-2 pairs (Lonsdale et al., 1989). M. pudica also differs in being very much less robust, rarely over 0.5-1 m high. M. invisa is also a densely spiny shrub, much larger than M. pudica, differing from M. pigra in having narrow pods up to 5 mm wide, compared with at least 1 cm in M. pigra. M. pigra may also be confused with Leucaena leucocephala, Aeschynomene spp., Sesbania spp. and juveniles of Acacia pachyphloia, but is readily distinguished from these species by its sensitive leaves (Lonsdale et al., 1989). Confusion with the sensitive species, Neptunia dimorphantha, is also possible, but this species lacks stem prickles and a leaf rachis.
MANAGEMENT Mechanical & Manual Mechanical control includes digging and uprooting plants to remove stands (Anwar, 2001). Schatz (2001) investigated the impact of cutting height on mortality. Cutting plants off ca. 10 cm below ground level killed all plants whereas cutting off at ground level or 15 cm above ground level resulted in resprouting in most plants. Thus slashing and chaining is not effective in controlling the weed whereas blade ploughing, a method which cuts the plant below ground level, can be an efficient physical control method. Chemical Total control of M. pigra was achieved within 12 months using a range of herbicides in foliar, basal bark and soil applications, and stem injections in field trials in Thailand (Thamasara et al., 1991). Of 15 herbicides tested, nine killed all 6-8-week-old plants grown under greenhouse conditions (Creager, 1992); the most effective herbicides were picloram, tebuthiuron, hexazinone, sulfometuron, dicamba, triclopyr, linuron and glyphosate. Chemicals are used to contain the spread of M. pigra in Australia and to eradicate new infestations. Aerial spraying of gelled gasoline, followed by fire, kills stands of M. pigra and soil surface seeds, but enhances 29
buried seed germination (Lonsdale and Miller, 1993). Lane et al. (1997) tested tebuthiuron against seedlings. It proved to be ineffective, with at best, 43% of seedlings surviving. Effective control of M. pigra is difficult to achieve because of the large soil seed bank. Biological A number of biological control agents have been investigated for the control of M. pigra in Australia and Thailand (Napompeth, 1983; Wilson et al., 1990). The potential of seed-feeding bruchid species has been studied following field investigations of insects associated with M. pigra in the Americas (Kassulke et al., 1990). Heard et al. (2012) report studies on Nesaecrepida infuscata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a common insect onM. pigra in tropical America. The larvae develop on the roots while the adults feed on the leaves. In host specificity tests, larvae did not develop on any of the 65 test plant species other than M. pigra. Adult feeding on test plant species other than M. pigra was minimal. Based on these results, this insect has been released in Australia. Fungal pathogens which may be useful in controlling this weed have also been identified (Evans et al., 1995). Sacdalan et al. (2012) investigated a site where sporadic dieback of M. pigra has been reported in order to look for potential control agents, and found ten isolates pathogenic towards mimosa seedlings in a laboratory trial. Five of these ten isolates were identified as Lasiodiplodia theobromae by DNA sequencing. Burrows et al. (2012) report that the neotropical rust Diabole cubensis, introduced as a biological control agent against M. pigra in the Northern Territory during the period 1996-1999 but thought not to have established, has recently been detected on M. pigra plants in several locations. Harley and Forno (1992) provide a valuable source of information on the biological control of weeds, and practical advice on undertaking a biological control programme. For further information on the potential for biological control of M. pigra, see Habeck and Passoa (1983). A more recent paper by Ostermeyer and Grace (2007) discusses the establishment, distribution and abundance of M. pigra biological control agents in northern Australia. It is suggested that: (1) seed and flower feeders must be capable of surviving periods of low food availability; (2) some climate matching may be beneficial before fungal biocontrol agents are released and (3) even in well studied systems such as M. pigra, the failure of an agent to establish cannot always be explained
Prosopis glandulosa Honey Mesquite Synonym(s): Prosopis juliflora, P. juliflora var. glandulosa, P. juliflora var. torreyana Family: Fabaceae Duration and Habit: Perennial tree/shrub
30
G Photographer: W.L. Wagner Source: USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database
DESCRIPTION Multi-stemmed shrub, branches with zigzag shape. Bipinnate leaves generally dark green but can be bluish green, leaflets 5-15 times as long as broad (20mm long). Flowers are yellow and grouped in dense drooping "lamb's tail" spikes. Seed pods bean-like (10-20cm long) with slight constrictions. Spines above axillary bud. Ecological Threat: It forms impenetrable thickets that compete strongly with native species for available soil water, suppress grass growth and may reduce understory species diversity. Biology & Spread: Seed production and suckering (dormant buds below the ground, stimulated by disturbance). 10's of thousands of seeds per square metre per year, seedling mortality high less than 800 seedlings per hectare after one year. Rapidly outcompetes understorey plants resulting in complete loss of grass cover. Erosion is exacerbated by allelopathic affects of ground litter. History: Native to SW USA (Texas, Kansas, west to California) and central Mexico and Baja California. It has been introduced to: Saudi Arabia, Burma, India, Pakistan, Puerto Rico, southern Africa and Australia.
31
U.S. Habitat: Occurs over climatically diverse regions, grows well on all soil types. Thrives in high temps >38°C. Moderate frost tolerance. Moderate salt tolerance. Pods high in sugar (16%) and protein (12%) and so are sought by animals.
DISTRIBUTION U.S. Nativity: Native to U.S. Native Origin: LA & OK to s. CA, south to north Mex.; includes extreme Southwest UT. U.S. Present: AZ , CA , CO , KS , LA , NM , NV , OK , TX , UT Distribution: One of the most common species in Texas, occurring statewide except for East Texas where it occurs rarely, on salty soils. Mesquite is quite invasive in cattle pastures and open, unmaintained fields.
RESEMBLES/ALTERNATIVES Western honey mesquite (Prosopis torreyana) has smaller leaflets and occurs in West Texas only.
MANAGEMENT Manual and Mechanical Mechanical removal can be successful for small infestations, but can be expensive on well established or high density infestations. The success to mechanical removal is to remove the crown of the plant from below the soil line. Mesquite that is just cut off at the ground level will produce shoots from the root crown and will come back as a multi stemmed plant. Chemical Timing and Factors in Control: The herbicidal response of mesquite is strongly influenced by foliage condition, stage of growth and environmental conditions. For best results from foliar applications, apply when new growth foliage has turned from light to dark green, when the soil temperature is above 75ºF at a depth of 12 to 18 inches, and soil moisture is adequate for plant growth. Product performance may be adversely affected if application is made before mesquite foliage has turned from light to dark green or if foliage has been injured or removed by late frost, insects, hail or plant diseases. Any one of the following high volume foliar treatments (100 gallons per acre, with leaf spray and stem spray) can be used to control mesquite: • Apply Garlon® 4 Ultra 1% + Transline 1% (Garlon 3A at 2% could be substituted for Garlon 4 Ultra), or… • Garlon 4 Ultra at ½% plus Tordon® K at ½%(Garlon 3A at ¾% could be substituted for Garlon 4 Ultra), or… • Capstone™ 1% + Tordon K ½% Basal & cut stump treatments: Basal treatments are very effective and can be used at anytime of the year: • Apply Garlon® 4 Ultra at 20% plus Tordon® K at 3 to 5 %in basal oil, or… • Garlon 4 Ultra at 20% plus Milestone® at 1 to 2 % in basal oil, or… • Garlon 4 Ultra at 25% in basal oil. A stump treatment is required to control mesquite and to prevent re-growth from the root crown if mesquite is cut off at ground level. One of the most common stump treatments is to apply a mix of Garlon 4 Ultra at 25% in oil being careful to treat the root collar areas, sides of the stump, and the outer portion
32
of the cut surface. The application should wet the cambium thoroughly, but not to runoff. Long term control requires follow-up treatments on any re-sprouting plants as with any perennial. Biological No biological control agents are currently available for honey mesquite.
Rosa Bracteata Rose Hedge OR Macartney Rose Synonym(s): Family: Rosaceae (Rose Family) Duration and Habit: Perennial Shrub
Photographer: Bransford, W.D. Mrs. Source: NPIN
DESCRIPTION Evergreen. Erect climbing, arching, or trailing shrubs to 10 feet (3 m) in height or length. Clump forming. Frequent recurved and straight thorns. Leaves are alternate and pinnately compound with toothed margins. Each leaflet is 1 - 3 in. long. Flowers occur in small clusters, and are white and 5-petaled, with many yellow anthers in the center. Hips (fruit) are round and fleshy, 0.25 - 0.4 in. in diameter, green or yellow but ripening to red. Ecological Threat: Macartney rose forms dense thickets, displacing native grasses such as the endangered white bladderpod, and altering native wildlife habitat. Greatly decreases forage productivity of cattle pasture and adds to the economic burden of land managers.
33
Biology & Spread: Vegetative sprouting from the stem base and stem rooting results in onsite colonization. Spreads primarily via dispersal of seeds by both birds and cattle. Seeds readily germinate from cattle feces. Flowers April to June, and fruits July to December. Individual plants of Macartney rose form dense clumps several yards in diameter and as high as 10 feet, later coalescing to form dense thickets. History: Introduced from Asia. Traditionally planted as ornamentals, livestock containment, and wildlife habitat. Brought to southeast Texas in the past century for use as a natural hedge row. Spread to pastures and ranges by cattle and bird-dispersed seeds. U.S. Habitat: Form small-to-large infestations often climbing up into trees. Colonize by prolific sprouting and stems that root, and spread by animal-dispersed seeds. Prefers clayey soil. Grows in disturbed areas including cattle rangeland, right-of-ways, fence lines, drainage ditches, and river bottoms. Can spread to the understories of open forests.
DISTRIBUTION U.S. Nativity: Introduced to U.S. Native Origin: China (Alfred Rehder, Manual of Cultivated Trees and Shrubs: Hardy in North America, The MacMillan Co., New York (1967)); NatureServe Explorer U.S. Present: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA Distribution: Currently located in the Southeastern U.S., north to North Carolina, and west to Texas. Occurs in the Lower Galveston Bay watershed, including natural areas such as the prairies of the Armand Bayou Nature Center.
RESEMBLES/ALTERNATIVES Texas alternatives include Purple poppy mallow (Callirhoe involucrata), Scarlet mallow (Hibiscus laevis), and Rose mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos).
MANAGEMENT For range conditions, apply industrial herbicide such as 2,4,5-T + picloram directly to plant during the spring. Cattle that have been feeding on hips (fruits) should not be moved to uninfested pasture for risk of seed spread.
Bothriochloa bladhii Australian Bluegrass Synonym(s): Andropogon bladhii , Andropogon caucasicus , Andropogon intermedius , Bothriochloa caucasica, Bothriochloa intermedia Family: Poaceae Duration and Habit: Perennial Grass
34
Photographer: Jose Hernandez Source: USDA Plants Database
Description A perennial, clump-forming, small, blue-gray, graceful grass, with flowering stems to 3 feet tall. It forms dense tufts of smooth, blue-green leaf blades, to 12 inches long and less than 1/4 inch wide with a thickened midvein. The nodes are purple-tinged and may be smooth or with short hairs. It blooms far earlier than our native bluestems. The inflorescence is silvery and reddish purple, with side branches that are shorter than the central stem (resembling a miniature version of Johnson grass, which blooms at the same time). Blooms late June through July. Ecological Threat: These invasive bluestems alter soil chemistry and biota, suppressing the growth of native grasses. The sod they form is unsuitable for quail nesting or cover. They aggressively outcompete native plants and, once established, are almost impossible to eradicate. Biology & Spread: Caucasian bluestem spreads by root and seed. Because foragers and grazers prefer native grasses, the invasive Old World bluestems have a competitive advantage. These aggressive weeds can also cause an altered carbon-to-nitrogen ratio in the soil that inhibits the growth of native plants. History: Caucasian bluestem is a warm-season perennial grass native to subtropical Asia and Africa. It and yellow bluestem were brought to the United States in the early 1900s for use as forage grass and to control erosion. Unfortunately, that effort to â&#x20AC;&#x153;improveâ&#x20AC;? rangeland backfired. These grasses are less palatable and less nutritious to cattle than our native warm-season grasses, and once established, the invasive species are almost impossible to eradicate. U.S. Habitat: Old world bluestems (both Caucasian and yellow species) can be found near disturbed roadsides, in pastures, and even in high-quality prairie and glade habitats. They are very difficult to eradicate once established.
DISTRIBUTION U.S. Nativity: Introduced 35
Native Origin: Native to subtropical Asia and Africa U.S. Present: TX, CO, AZ, KS, OK, LA, FL, NE, MO, OH Found mostly in central U.S.
RESEMBLES/ALTERNATIVES The similarly invasive yellow bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum) is larger and has yellow-green leaves that are usually smooth; the leaf sheaths are rounded and leaf blades flat or folded; nodes are either smooth or with short hairs. Although its inflorescence is similar to Caucasian bluestem, the length of the side branches exceeds the length of the central stem.
MANAGEMENT Manual and Mechanical They are well adapted to spring burning and will tolerate repeated mowing better than our native bluestem grasses, so there are no effective manual/mechanical controls at this time. Chemical Chemical application, therefore, has shown to be the only effective method of control at this time. Glyphosate (2 to 4 lbs. per acre) is reasonably effective, but treatments must be repeated, and glyphosate also kills native grasses and vegetation. Imazapyr (1 to 1.25 lbs. per acre) has been shown to be effective, and native grasses show more tolerance to it than to glyphosate. To prevent collateral damage to native vegetation, early detection and eradication of old world bluestems is extremely important. Re-seeding with native grasses following treatment may be necessary. A trial was established to determine the rate and timing of glyphosate application that will provide the greatest OWB suppression. Sequential application of glyphosate that includes one treatment either early or late of 2.24 or 3.36 kg ha−1 appears to be the most effective treatment to reduce established OWB during dry years. During years of adequate moisture, a single late application of 2.24 or 3.36 kg ha−1 or sequential applications with 1.12 kg ha−1 at each application is as adequate as sequential applications with greater rates for reducing OWB frequency and achieving OWB control. Biological There are no known biological controls.
Bothriochloa ischaemum King Ranch Bluestem Synonym(s): Andropogon ischaemum L. var. songaricus (Rupr. ex Fisch. & C.A. Mey) Family: Poaceae (Grass Family) Duration and Habit: Perennial Grass/Grasslike
36
Photographer: Unknown Source: Texas Invasives
DESCRIPTION Cespitose grass with erect or decumbent-spreading culms 30-60cm tall, rounded sheaths and flate blades; inforescence a terminal panicle, spikelets on few to several spicate primary branches. Panicle axis shorter than the branches; sessile spikelets never pitted. Ecological Threat: Very serious ecological threat due to widespread planting by ranchers and highway departments. Biology & Spread: Primarily spread intentionally by man for cattle forage and as a component of roadside vegetation. Reproduces by seeds. History: Widely planted for grazing and on roadsides. U.S. Habitat: Disturbed mesic, upland soils.
DISTRIBUTION U.S. Nativity: Introduced to U.S. Native Origin: Europe, North Africa (Bailey, L.H. and E.Z. Bailey, Hortus Third: A Concise Dictionary of Plants Cultivated in the United States and Canada, MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York , (1977).); NatureServe Explorer U.S. Present: AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL, KS, LA, NM, NY, OK, PR, SC, TN, TX, UT, VI Distribution: Widely distributed across the southern half of the US. 37
MANAGEMENT Timely mowing, burning and herbicide application all suppress this species.
Sorghum halepense Johnson Grass Synonym(s): Holcus halepensis, Sorghum miliaceum Family: Poaceae (Grass Family) Duration and Habit: Perennial Grass/Grasslike
Photographer: Unknown Source: Texas Invasives
DESCRIPTION Perennial with vigorous rhizomes. Coarse grass with reddish to purplish-black panicles, to 2 m tall. Plants can rapidly develop colonies. Johnsongrass is considered one of the 10 most noxious weeds in the world. It is especially troublesome in cotton fields in California. Ecological Threat: Johnsongrass grows rapidly, is highly competitive with crops, and can be difficult to control. Infestations in crops can reduce harvest yields significantly. Plants are highly variable and many regional biotypes exist. Healthy plants can provide good forage for livestock. However, foliage of johnsongrass and other sorghums can produce toxic amounts of hydrocyanic acid when exposed to frost, stressed by drought, or damaged by trampling or herbicides and may be poisonous to livestock when ingested. Biology & Spread: Panicles retain seed or shed seed near the parent plant (shatter). Seed disperses to greater distances with wind, water, agricultural activities, and animals. Some seed survives ingestion by 38
birds and mammals. Unlike commercial sorghums, glumes tightly enclose seeds and can protect seeds from decomposition in the soil for several years. Photosynthesis is by the C4 pathway. History: Brought to South Carolina in the early 1800s as a forage crop. Continues to spread by seed dispersal in agricultural machinery.Introduced from the Mediterranean region. U.S. Habitat: Disturbed sites, roadsides, fields, agronomic and vegetable crops. Grow best on fertile, well-drained soils in warm temperate to sub-tropical regions where some warm season moisture is available. Also orchards, vineyards, cotton fields, ditchbanks. Often grows in moist soils.
DISTRIBUTION U.S. Nativity: Introduced to U.S. Native Origin: Africa, Asia (NatureServe Explorer) U.S. Present: AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY Distribution: Located in nearly every state of the U.S., with the exception of some northern states. Located in all regions of Texas, including Harris, Brazoria, and Galveston counties of the lower Galveston Bay watershed.
RESEMBLES/ALTERNATIVES Fall panicum [Panicum dichotomiflorum Michaux][PANDI] is a summer annual, to 1 m tall, that resembles johnsongrass. Nodes and internodes of fall panicum give the plant a zig-zag appearance. Unlike weedy sorghums, fall panicum has ligules that consist of a fringe of hairs and are not membranous at the base. Fall panicum seedlings are smaller than those of Sorghum and have short hairs on the lower side of the leaf blades. Texas alternatives include Square-stem spikerush (Eleocharis quadrangulata), Sugarcane plumegrass (Saccharum giganteum), and Powdery thalia (Thalia dealbata).
MANAGEMENT Plants cannot tolerate repeated, close mowing. Repeated tilling every few weeks in summer or winter can help control infestations in agricultural fields. However, tilling once early in the season encourages rhizome growth and new shoots from rhizome fragments. Crop rotations that include winter crops and crops planted in late summer also help to control infestations. Spring burning encourages re-growth from rhizomes. Some biotypes are resistant to certain herbicides.
39
Section 5: References • • • • •
• •
• • • • •
• •
• • • • •
•
Balcones Canyonlands Preserve Land Management Plan, Tier IIA, Chapter 4 Vegetation Management (BCPP). 2007. Balcones Canyonlands Preserve. Austin, Texas, U.S.A. Batcher, M.S. 2000. Element Stewardship Abstract for Ligustrum spp. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. http://www.imapinvasives.org/GIST/ESA/index.html Bogler, D. J. 2000. Element Stewardship Abstract for Sapium sebiferum Chinese TallowTree, florida Aspen, Popcorn Tree. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. Bugwood Wiki. http://wiki.bugwood.org/. Conrad, W., K. Thuesen, M. McCaw, G. Gillman, and G. McGlamery. 2006. Integrated Pest Management Plan: Water Quality Protection Lands Program (WQPL). City of Austin, Austin Water Utility, Tx. Findlay R. 1975. Potential menace of Johnsongrass. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture 130: 40-41. Fitzwater, WD. 1988. Solutions to urban bird problems. Proceedings of the thirteenth vertebrate pest conference, University of Nebraska. 254-259. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpcthirteen/52 Floridata. http://www.floridata.com/index.cfm. Gilman, E.f. and D.G. Watson. 1994. Pistacia chinensis: Chinese Pistache. fact Sheet ST482. US forest Service. Gleason, J. and G. Taffinder. 2007. Stormwater Pond Dam Safety Program, Integrated Pest Management Plan. Watershed Protection and Development Review Department. Global Invasive Species Database. http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/. Harmoney, K.R., P.W. Stahlman and K.R. Hickman. 2007. Suppression of Caucasian old World Bluestem with Split Application of Herbicides. Weed Technology 21(3), p. 573577. Holm L., P. Donald, J. Pancho and J. Herberger. 1977. The world’s worst weeds: distribution and biology. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii. 609 pp. Integrated Pest Management Plan, Town Lake Trail System: Woodland Systems. 2004. City of Austin, Tx. Kaufman, S.R. and W. Kaufman. 2007. Invasive Plants: A Guide to Identification, Impacts, and Control of Common North American Species. Stockpile Books, Mechanicsburg, PA. Invasive Species Compendium. http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/2236 Land Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. http://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=PRGL2 Level II Contract Criteria, Vegetation Control Services. City of Austin, Tx. Lindsay, H. Personal communication from Helen Lindsay, Motuora Restoration Society. http://www.motuora.org.nz/. Email received 07/29/11. Lindsay, H. (2006). Report on weed control programme Motuora 2005/2006. Unpublished report for the Department of Conservation, Auckland Conservancy, Auckland. Mesquite: Invasive Watch. (n.d.). Retrieved September 7, 2015, from http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDAS/dh_08c5/0901b803808c503d.pdf?fil epath=ivm/pdfs/noreg/010-50879.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc
40
•
• •
• • • • • •
•
•
•
•
• • • • •
Miller, J.H, S.T. Manning, and S.f. Enloe. 2010. A Management Guide for Invasive Plants in Southern forests. USDA forest Service, Southern Research Station. General Technical Report SRS– 131. Missouri Department of Conservation. http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/fieldguide/caucasian-bluestem North Carolina State University. Plant fact Sheets. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/. PBS&J Consulting. 2010. Integrated pest management plan aquatic vegetation management Lake Walter E. Long Decker Creek Power Plant Travis County, Texas. Document No. 080113 PESTMAN. http://pestman.tamu.edu/. Queensland Government, Primary industries and fisheries. Accessed December 2011. http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/4790_7225.htm Ramos, R. and T. Houtman. 2010. City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department: Integrated Pest Management Program. Austin, Tx. Robinson, R.C. 2009. Invasive and Problem ferns: A European Perspective. International Urban Ecology (4), p. 83-90. Ruckstuhl, E. Dirty Dozens: Holly fern. Bayou Preservation Association. Accessed 29 July 2011: http://www.bayoupreservation.org/html/BPA_exotics.pdf Silve, L., C.W. Smith. 2006. A quantitative approach to the study of non-indigenous plants: An example from the Azores Archipelago. Biodiversity and Conservation (15), p. 1661–1679. Simmons, M.T. 2005. Bullying the Bullies: The Selective Control of an Exotic, Invasive Annual (Rapistrum rugosum) by oversowing with a Competitive Native Species (Gaillardia pulchella). Restoration Ecology 13: 609–615. Simmons, M.T., S. Windhager, P. Power, J. Lott, R.K. Lyons, and C. Schwope. 2007. Selective and Non- Selective Control of Invasive Plants: The Short-Term Effects of Growing-Season Prescribed fire, Herbicide, and Mowing in Two Texas Prairies. Restoration Ecology 15(4), p. 662–669. Texas Agriculture Code , House Bill 338. 2011. Chapter 71, Subchapter D, Section 71.154. Disclaimer Required: “This plant list is only a recommendation and has no legal effect in the state of Texas. It is lawful to sell, distribute, import, or possess a plant on this list unless the Texas Department of Agriculture labels the plant as noxious or invasive on the department’s plant list.” Texas Department of Transportation. Approved Chemicals for Right of Way Vegetation Management. http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/veg/approved_chemicals_for_right_of_wa y_vegetation_ management.htm Texas Invasives. http://www.texasinvasives.org/. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2003. Performance Report: Walter E. Long Reservoir. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Inland fisheries Division, San Marcos. The Nature Conservancy. Element Stewardship Abstracts. Housed at iMap Invasives. http://www.imapinvasives.org/GIST/ESA/index.html Tropical forages. http://www.tropicalforages.info/index.htm. University of Connecticut. Plant Database. http://www.hort.uconn.edu/plants/index.html.
41
•
Virginia Tech Weed Identification Guide. Johnsongrass: Sorghum halepense. http://www.ppws.vt.edu/ scott/weed_id/sorha.htm • Warner, P.J., C. C. Bossard, M.L. Brooks, J. M. DiTomaso, J. A. Hall, A. M. Howald, D. W. Johnson, J. M. Randall, C. L. Roye, and A. E. Stanton. 2003. Criteria for Categorizing Invasive Non-native Plantsthat Threaten Wildlands. California Exotic Pest Plant Council and Southwest Vegetation Management Association. • Weed Science Society of America. http://www.wssajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1614/IPSMD-10-00006.1 • White, J.A. 2007. Recommended Protection Measures for Pesticide Applications in Region 2 of the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. fish and Wildlife Service, environmental Contaminants Program, Region 2. • Yao, S. 2010. Scientists release Biocontrol for water hyacinth. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service.
42
Appendix E: Bird Counts
Species highlighted are comon to all counts 193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
TOTAL SPECIES FOR CBC 2012 4/16/2013 "GREENLAKE PARK" 47 81 Greater White-fronted Goose X Snow Goose X Ross Goose Black-bellied Whistling Duck X Fulvous Whistling Duck Wood Duck Gadwall American Wigeon X Blue-winged Teal X Northern Shoveler x Green-winged Teal Northern Pintail x Redhead X Lesser Scaup Surf Scoter X Bufflehead X Hooded Merganser Ruddy Duck X X Pied-billed Grebe X Eared Grebe X Am. White Pelican X X Brown Pelican Neotropic Cormorant X X Double-creasted Cormorant X X Anhinga X X Am. Bittern X X Least Bittern X Great Blue Heron X X Great Egret X X Snowy Egret X X Little Blue Heron X Tricolored Heron Cattle Egret Green Heron X Black-crown Night Heron X Yellow-crown Night Heron X White Ibis X X White-faced Ibis X Roseate Spoonbill X Black Vulture X X Turkey Vulture X X Osprey X X White-tailed Kite X X Bald Eagle X X Northrn Harrier X X Sharp-shinned Hawk X Cooper's Hawk X X Red-shouldered Hawk X Broad-winged Hawk Swainson's Hawk X White-tailed Hawk X X Red-tailed Hawk X X Crested Caracara X X American Kestrel X King Rail Virginia Rail Sora X Purple Gallinule X Common Gallinule X Am. Coot X X Sandhill Crane X Black-necked Stilt X
5/4/2013 94
Brent 12/11/2013 2/22/2014 91 46 125 500 6
Brent 3/22/2014 61
18 7 6 6 3 28
4 10
Diane N Brent Brent & Dora 4/18/2014 5/11/2014 68 62
4
27
8
5
2
2 1
3 280
2 10
2 450
15
11
46 1
2 4
1 70 6 12 6
2 1 13 33 31 15 4 5 6 6
4 6 15 1
6 2
45
8 3 2
8 1
70
3
17
17 20 8 1
28 35 70 40 38 60
62 95 25 30 19 225 4 4
9
3
11
50
12 42 44
3
3
x
2
2 1 8
8
8 1 1 3 2
1 1 3 2
2
162
1 1 18
2 1 1
3 2 1
1
4 3 1
2
3 2
1
1
1
1 2 18
6 6 38
1 3 5 22
1
2
1 20 15 12 4
1 3 2 125 25
2 6 3
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125
American Golden-Plover Killdeer Am. Avocet Spotted Sandpiper Solitary Sandpiper Greater Yellowlegs Lesser Yellowlegs Marbled Godwit Least Sandpiper Stilt Sandpiper Pectoral Sandpiper Long-billed Dowitcher Wilson's Phalarope Wilson's Snipe Am. Woodcock Laughing Gull Franklin's Gull Ring-billed Gull Black Tern Caspian Tern Forster's Tern Rock Pigeon Eurasian Collard Dove White-winged Dove Mourning Dove Inca Dove Groove-billed Ani Yellow-billed Cuckoo Common Pauraque Chuck-will's-widow Chimney Swift Great Horned Owl Barred Owl Belted Kingfisher Ruby-throated Hummingbird Golden-frntd Woodpecker Red-bellied Woodpecker Ladder-backed Woodpecker Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Norther Flicker (Yel-Shafted) Pileated Woodpecker Olive-sided Flycatcher Eastern Wood-Pewee Acadian Flycatcher Alder Flycatcher Willow Flycatcher Least Flycatcher Empidonax Eastern Phoebe Vermilion Flycatcher Ash-throated Flycatcher Brown-crested Flycatcher Great Kiskadee Couch's Kingbird Eastern Kingbird Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Loggerhead Shrike White-eyed Vireo Blue-headed Vireo Warbling Vireo Red-eyed Vireo American Crow Green Jay
X
20
35 1
7
X X X X
1
4
1
X X X X
3 2 1 4
1
6 1 1
25 X
X
20 13 1
X X
X
8
750
X
25
X
3 8
X
X X X
X
2 1 2
X
17
35 3
110
58 3
86 2
20 3
400 1000 8
46 2
6
7 1 2
9
18
1 1 1 X
5
X X X X X X X X
5 1
3
3
4
2
4
1 X
6
X
6 2
1 9 1 5 1 1
10
25 1
7
8 1
8 1
6 2
1 60 4 1 1 5 1 X X
1 X X
X X X
X
5 1 2
X X X X X X
15
X
1 1 9
4
2 10 1 1 4 1
1
3 9
3
1 3 7
2 1 6
5
9
6
4
15
126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188
Horned Lark Purple Martin Tree Swallow No.Rough-winged Swallow Bank Swallow Cliff Swallow Barn Swallow Carolina Chickadee Tufted Titmouse Black-crested Titmouse Carolina Wren House Wren Winter Wren Sedge Wren Marsh Wren Ruby-crowned Kinglet Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Hermit Thrush American Robin Gray Catbird Northern Mockingbird Brown Thrasher European Starling American Pipit Cedar Waxwing Tennessee Warbler Orange-crowned Warbler Yellow Warbler Northern Parula Magnolia Warbler Black-throated Green Wrblr Myrtle Warbler Pine Warbler Yellow-throated Warbler Bay-breasted Warbler Black-and-white Warbler American Redstart Northern Waterthrush Mourning Warbler Common Yellowthroat Yellow-breasted Chat Spotted Towhee Summer Tanager Scarlet Tanager Chipping Sparrow Savannah Sparrow Grasshopper Sparrow Seaside Sparrow Song Sparrow Lincoln's Sparrow Swamp Sparrow White-throated Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Northern Cardinal Rose-breasetd Grosbeak Blue Grosbeak Indigo Bunting Painted Bunting Dickcissel Eastern Meadowlark Red-winged Blackbird Common Grackle Boat-tailed Grackle
X X X
X X X
18 3 28 70 25 280 4
X X
5
X X
9
X
X
X X
X X X X x X X X X
x x
20 8
3
8 12 1 18 9 30 15 1
7 1
x x x
400 3 200 800 8
30 65 4
8
x
2 4
2 5
2 2 1
7
3
2 X
7 8 6
4 11 1 6 3
16 2 X
4
2 6
5
4
2
9 18
6
1
3
1 8
1 3 X
20 8
8
6 1
X X
1 1
2 1
6 X X
X
1 26
16
3
2
7 6
17
X 2 1 X X
2 2
X X
3
5 1
5
4
X X
2 2
5 26 30 9
6 3 9
3 8
X
30 4
36
30
36
X
38 3 1
X
65
6 1500
X
18
3
5
X X X X X X
X X
45 8
3 400 6 60
40 2 1 4 3
79
40
55
18
252
4 6 28
189 190 191 192 193
Great-tailed Grackle Brown-headed Cowbird Orchard Oriole Baltimore Oriole American Goldfinch
X X
X
100 2
15 40
5 24
35 9
250 26
1
2
3,585
1,637
X 18 8 1,256
4,221
639
1,194
Appendix F: TxDOT Road Recommendations
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Phase 1: Activity/ Amenity Install perimeter fencing and gates Construct limestone entrance road Install covered picnic tables Construct trail system in uplands Install wildlife observation tower Install public water system Drill water well Restroom at picnic area Construct RV site with full hookups Construct tent campsite Install open-air group picnic shelter Professional services, engineering
Estimated Quantity/Capacity 1 mile, 2 gates 1 mile 10 1 200-300 ft deep 4 stalls 100 sites 20 sites 75-100 people
Estimated Cost $15,000 $400,000 $10,000 $5,000 $50,000 $300,000 $25,000 $100,000 $2,000,000 $20,000 $125,000 $500,000
Phase 2: Activity Annual herbicides Install water-leveling system Enlarge existing rookery Construct water terraces
Estimated Quantity/Capacity $500-$1000 per acre 50ft x 200ft 40ft x 10ft
Estimated Cost $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $250,000
Phase 3: Activity/amenity Complete road system throughout park Construct fishing pier Construct new boat ramp Construct education/visitor center Construct shower facility at camp area Amenities in Limited Recreation Zone
57
Estimated Quantity/Capacity 3 miles 200-300ft with terminal 2 launch pads 8 toilet/shower stalls
Estimated Cost $1,200,000 $200,000-$400,000 $400,000 $500,000-$1,200,000 $250,000 $50,000
For more information about Green Lake, visit
www.greenlaketx.com