My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Res 2011-127
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
03 Resolutions
>
2010's
>
2011
>
Res 2011-127
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/15/2018 10:45:36 AM
Creation date
10/26/2011 3:58:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Resolutions
Number
2011-127
Date
10/18/2011
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
415
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN <br />pools of the aquifer as needed to maintain target spring discharge and Aquifer levels. The SSC <br />submitted its final report in December 2009. (EARIP 2009). <br />Based on its analyses, the SSC determined the following spring discharge rates incorporated <br />the aquatic communities of the Comal and San Marcos springs, in particular the Covered <br />Species, i.e., a recovery standard. <br />Comal Springs Flow Regime <br /> Long-term average flow: 225 cfs <br /> Minimum 6-month average flow: 75 cfs <br /> Minimum 1-month average flow: 30 cfs with no flow below 5 cfs <br />San Marcos Springs Flow Regime <br /> Long-term average flow: 140 cfs <br /> Minimum 6-month average flow: 75 cfs <br /> Minimum 1-month average flow: 60 cfs with no flow below 52 cfs <br />The analysis expressly did not take into account the minimization and mitigation measures in <br />the HCP. <br />The SSC used an existing numerical groundwater flow model of the Edwards Aquifer and its <br />associated management module to develop withdrawal reductions and stages for critical period <br />management that met or exceeded the three flow criteria for each of the two springs. After 38 <br />model runs, the last run showed that pumping needed to be reduced 85 percent in a single <br />stage to meet or exceed the flow regime discharge rates. <br />The full report is attached as Appendix D. <br />This report was peer-reviewed by an independent panel of scientists assembled by Annear <br />Associates, LLC. The report of the peer review team is attached as Appendix E. <br />1.7.1.3 Recharge Feasibility Subcommittee <br />Section 1.26A(n) of the EAA Act requires the Steering Committee to establish a Recharge <br />Facilities Feasibility Subcommittee and to charge it with addressing the following five issues: <br />1. Assess the need for the Authority or any other entity to own, finance, design, construct, <br />operate, or maintain recharge facilities. <br />2. Formulate plans to allow the Authority or any other entity to own, finance, design, <br />construct, operate, or maintain recharge facilities. <br /> <br />1-21 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.