DOCSLIB.ORG

Soil Survey of Milam County, Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Soil Survey of Milam County, Texas United States In cooperation with Department of Texas Agricultural Agriculture Experiment Station and Soil Survey of Texas State Soil and Water Natural Conservation Board Milam County, Resources Conservation Service Texas 3 How to Use This Soil Survey General Soil Map The general soil map, which is a color map, shows the survey area divided into groups of associated soils called general soil map units. This map is useful in planning the use and management of large areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the map, identify the name of the map unit in the area on the color-coded map legend, then refer to the section General Soil Map Units for a general description of the soils in your area. Detailed Soil Maps The detailed soil maps can be useful in planning the use and management of small areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the Index to Map Sheets. Note the number of the map sheet and turn to that sheet. Locate your area of interest on the map sheet. Note the map unit symbols that are in that area. Turn to the Contents, which lists the map units by symbol and name and shows the page where each map unit is described. The Contents shows which table has data on a specific land use for each detailed soil map unit. Also see the Contents for sections of this publication that may address your specific needs. 4 This soil survey is a publication of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Major fieldwork for this soil survey was completed in 1987. Soil names and descriptions were approved in 1988. Unless otherwise indicated, statements in this publication refer to conditions in the survey area in 1988. This survey was made cooperatively by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board. The survey is part of the technical assistance furnished to the Central Texas, Little River-San Gabriel, and Taylor Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Soil maps in this survey may be copied without permission. Enlargement of these maps, however, could cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping. If enlarged, maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a larger scale. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice or TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover: Scenic view of cropland fields in the Little River flood plain as seen from Sugarloaf Mountain in Milam County. The soil in the flood plain is Frio silty clay, occasionally flooded. Sandstone is exposed on the edge of Sugarloaf Mountain in an area of Jedd, very gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes. Additional information about the Nation’s natural resources is available on the Natural Resources Conservation Service homepage on the World Wide Web. The address is http://www.nrcs.usda.gov. 5 Contents How to Use This Soil Survey ................................. 3 ChB—Chazos loamy fine sand, 1 to 3 percent Foreword ................................................................. 9 slopes .......................................................... 34 General Nature of the Survey Area.......................... 11 CrB—Crockett fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent History ................................................................ 11 slopes .......................................................... 35 Climate ............................................................... 12 CrC2—Crockett fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent How This Survey Was Made .................................... 13 slopes, eroded .............................................. 35 General Soil Map Units ........................................ 15 DeC—Desan loamy fine sand, 1 to 5 percent Sandy and Loamy Soils of Savannahs ............... 15 slopes .......................................................... 36 1. Edge-Rader .............................................. 15 Dp—Dumps-Pits complex ................................... 37 2. Padina-Silstid ........................................... 16 EdC2—Edge fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent 3. Minwells ................................................... 17 slopes, eroded .............................................. 37 4. Travis-Gause ............................................ 18 EdC3—Edge-Gullied land complex, 2 to 8 5. Chazos-Silawa-Desan .............................. 18 percent slopes .............................................. 38 6. Bigbrown-Dumps-Pits .............................. 19 FeE2—Ferris-Heiden complex, 5 to 15 percent 7. Jedd ......................................................... 19 slopes, eroded .............................................. 39 Clayey Soils of Blackland Prairies ...................... 20 Fr—Frio silty clay, occasionally flooded .............. 40 8. Houston Black-Heiden-Ferris .................... 20 Ga—Gaddy fine sandy loam, frequently 9. Branyon-Burleson..................................... 20 flooded............................................................... 41 Loamy and Clayey Soils of Bottom Lands .......... 21 GuB—Gause loamy fine sand, 1 to 3 percent 10. Frio-Tinn ................................................... 21 slopes .......................................................... 42 11. Ships-Gaddy-Yahola ................................. 22 Gw—Gowen clay loam, frequently 12. Uhland-Sandow ........................................ 23 flooded ......................................................... 42 Loamy Soils of Blackland Prairies ...................... 24 HeC—Heiden clay, 2 to 5 percent 13. Wilson-Davilla .......................................... 24 slopes .......................................................... 43 14. Crocket .................................................... 25 HoB—Houston Black clay, 1 to 3 percent 15. Satin ........................................................ 26 slopes .......................................................... 44 Detailed Soil Map Units ....................................... 27 JeE—Jedd very gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15 AgD2—Altoga silty clay, 5 to 8 percent percent slopes .............................................. 44 slopes, eroded .............................................. 28 LeB—Lewisville silty clay, 1 to 3 percent Ba—Bastsil fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes .......................................................... 45 slopes .......................................................... 28 Lu—Lufkin-Gause complex, 0 to 1 percent BbC—Bigbrown clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes .......................................................... 47 slopes .......................................................... 29 MnC—Minerva loamy fine sand, 1 to 5 percent BcC—Bigbrown-Slickspots complex, 2 to 8 slopes .......................................................... 48 percent slopes .............................................. 29 MwC—Minwells fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent Be—Bosque clay loam, occasionally slopes .......................................................... 48 flooded ......................................................... 30 NoB—Normangee clay loam, 1 to 3 percent BrA—Branyon clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes .......................................................... 49 slopes .......................................................... 31 Oa—Oakalla silty clay loam, occasionally BrB—Branyon clay, 1 to 3 percent flooded ......................................................... 49 slopes .......................................................... 31 PaC—Padina fine sand, 1 to 8 percent Bu—Burleson clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes .......................................................... 51 slopes .......................................................... 33 Pc—Payne loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes .............. 51 6 Pg—Pits, gravel ................................................. 52 Claypan Prairie ecological site ........................ 73 RaB—Rader loamy fine sand, 1 to 3 percent Claypan Savannah ecological site .................. 73 slopes .......................................................... 52 Deep Sand ecological site .............................. 74 RgC—Riesel gravelly fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 Eroded Blackland ecological site .................... 74 percent slopes .............................................. 53 Gravelly ecological site .................................. 74 Sa—Sandow clay loam, frequently Gravelly Loam ecological site ......................... 74 flooded ......................................................... 54 Loamy Bottomland
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environmental Assessment for Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement for the Houston Toad in Texas
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROGRAMMATIC SAFE HARBOR AGREEMENT FOR THE HOUSTON TOAD IN TEXAS Between Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ……………………………………….. 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………….. 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION …………………………………….. 1 1.3 NEED FOR TAKING THE PROPOSED ACTION …………………………….. 1 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ………………………………………………………………. 2 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ………………………………………………. 2 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 10(a)(1)(A) ENHANCEMENT OF SURVIVAL PERMIT AND APPROVAL OF A RANGEWIDE PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT (PROPOSED ACTION)........... 3 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………………………… 5 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ……………………………………………….. 5 3.1 VEGETATION …………………………………………………………………... 6 3.2 WILDLIFE ………………………………………………………………………. 7 3.3 LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES ………………………… 8 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES …………………………………………………….. 12 3.5 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ………………………………………… 13 Austin County ……………………………………………………………………. 13 Bastrop County …………………………………………………………………... 13 Burleson County …………………………………………………………………. 13 Colorado County …………………………………………………………………. 14 Lavaca County …………………………………………………………………… 14 Lee County ……………………………………………………………………….. 14 Leon County ……………………………………………………………………… 14 Milam County ……………………………………………………………………. 15 Robertson County ………………………………………………………………... 15 3.6 WETLANDS
    [Show full text]
  • Stateofcommunityreport Caldwell Burlesoncounty
    CALDWELL BURLESON COUNTY STATE OF COMMUNITY REPORT September 2020 0 Executive Summary Burleson County, Texas is located in the middle of the Texas Triangle between Houston, Dallas/ Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio. The county lies just west of the Bryan/ College Station area. The City of Caldwell is the county seat, a small rural community about 25 miles west of Bryan and College Station. The community has grown over the past couple of years due to the Eagle Ford Shale oil boom, and due to its location in the fast-growing Brazos Valley, Caldwell is expecting more growth. Caldwell’s blend of Texan, Czech, and other cultures plus its setting among fertile farmland, rolling hills, and Post Oak forests have equipped it with a range of natural and cultural assets. Burleson County served as the nexus of several important trade routes linking the Antebellum South to the Western Frontier in its early post-indigenous history and remains an area with tremendous potential, located at the crossroads of multiple transportation modes. While its population peaked in the early 20th century, Burleson County maintains a strong agricultural economy and three incorporated municipalities which have become increasingly urbanized since the mid-1900s. Caldwell was founded in 1840 when the Texas Congress annexed to Milam County all of Washington County north of Yegua Creek and west of the Brazos River. Named after Matthew Caldwell, the town was surveyed by George B. Erath parallel to the Old San Antonio Road (OSR) and west of Davidson Creek. In 1880 the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway built its main line through Caldwell and located the depot a half-mile from the courthouse square.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Somerville
    History of Somerville 1883-2008 SOMERVILLE BURLESON COUNTY, TEXAS Somerville was one of many railroad boomtowns that started as a station stop beside the tracks of a railroad built in Texas from 1870 to 1900. Transportation was a major problem facing early Texas settlers. It was the railroads that made the development of Texas possible. Railway extension and economic growth paralleled each other for many years. In 1880 the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway Company of Galveston, Texas built the first railroad bridge over Yegua Creek. Soon smoke belching steam engines with bells ringing and whistles wailing were pulling passenger and freight cars through the new town site named Somerville after Albert Somerville, the president of GC&SF. To gain access to East Texas forests, the GC&SF bought a short line that ran from Montgomery to Navasota in 1882. Track was laid from Navasota to join the mainline in Somerville by 1883. Somerville was made a Division Headquarters for the East Texas Branch line, which later became known as the Beaumont Branch. A railroad yard, machine shops, and a roundhouse were built to service the steam engines. In 1897 a group of Chicago investors built the Texas Tie and Lumber Preserving Company that was bought by the Santa Fe in 1905. A large train depot was built to accommodate trainmen and passengers in 1900. The Somerville Depot housed a Fred Harvey Hotel and Restaurant that became a social gathering place for Somerville folks and their neighbors from the surrounding area for the next forty years. People from Burleson and other Texas Counties, all parts of the United States, and other countries came to Somerville to work for the Santa Fe or start a business.
    [Show full text]
  • Milam County, Texas - Its Evolution and Leaders
    MILAM COUNTY, TEXAS - ITS EVOLUTION AND LEADERS MILAM COUNTY, TEXAS ITS EVOLUTION AND LEADERS February 2021 Page 1 MILAM COUNTY, TEXAS - ITS EVOLUTION AND LEADERS A NOTE TO THE READERS Milam County, Texas. I always add those three words to my writings and communications – I want people to know I live here. So, in 2019 when Milam County Judge Steve Young asked me if I would write a report about the history of the Milam County Commissioners Court – I did not hesitate to say “Of course I will.” Soon after beginning the research for this report, I realized that a simple listing of the names of county judges and commissioners serving Milam County since the birth of the Republic of Texas in 1836 would not provide an adequate appreciation of Milam County’s rich history. Consequently, I decided to provide Readers a deeper dive into the birth of Milam County government by adding comprehensive facts about the geographical and legislative origins of Milam County, towns that served as ‘County Seat’ for Milam County, and courthouses that housed Milam County government for the last 184 years. But the thread that ties together all of the following story’s facets is the people who came before: those who were frontier settlers – those who founded towns – those who risked their lives to protect others – those who died protecting others - those who simply lived their lives as best they could – and those who helped govern Milam County for the common good. I added a few biographical notes to acquaint you with some of these people.
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Ceramic Wares from Sites in the Yegua Creek Drainage of the Brazos River Basin, East Central Texas
    Volume 2019 Article 39 2019 Aboriginal Ceramic Wares from Sites in the Yegua Creek Drainage of the Brazos River Basin, East Central Texas Timothy K. Perttula [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita Part of the American Material Culture Commons, Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Other American Studies Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, and the United States History Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Cite this Record Perttula, Timothy K. (2019) "Aboriginal Ceramic Wares from Sites in the Yegua Creek Drainage of the Brazos River Basin, East Central Texas," Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: Vol. 2019, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.21112/ita.2019.1.39 ISSN: 2475-9333 Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol2019/iss1/39 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Regional Heritage Research at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State by an authorized editor of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Aboriginal Ceramic Wares from Sites in the Yegua Creek Drainage of the Brazos River Basin, East Central Texas Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This article is available in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol2019/iss1/39 Aboriginal Ceramic Wares from Sites in the Yegua Creek Drainage of the Brazos River Basin, East Central Texas Timothy K.
    [Show full text]
  • SEDIMENT DYNAMICS of an IMPOUNDED RIVER: YEGUA CREEK, TEXAS a Thesis by ADRIANA E. MARTINEZ Submitted to the Office of Gradua
    SEDIMENT DYNAMICS OF AN IMPOUNDED RIVER: YEGUA CREEK, TEXAS A Thesis by ADRIANA E. MARTINEZ Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May 2008 Major Subject: Geography SEDIMENT DYNAMICS OF AN IMPOUNDED RIVER: YEGUA CREEK, TEXAS A Thesis by ADRIANA E. MARTINEZ Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved by: Chair of Committee, Anne Chin Committee Members, Andrew Klein Bruce Herbert Head of Department, Douglas Sherman May 2008 Major Subject: Geography iii ABSTRACT Sediment Dynamics of an Impounded River: Yegua Creek, Texas. (May 2008) Adriana E. Martinez, B.S., Texas A&M University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Anne Chin Dams have altered flow distributions in rivers everywhere, causing a host of changes in channel morphology and sediment dynamics. Although major changes in flow regime have occurred along Yegua Creek, Texas, since the closure of Somerville Dam in 1967, the issue of sediment transport has not been studied in detail. The extent to which sediment is moving through the system remains unclear. This study addresses the extent to which sediment is moving through and downstream of the dam. Analysis of sediment samples collected at 23 sites in the Yegua Creek channel system showed that coarse sand to silt-sized materials dominate the creek upstream of the dam, whereas finer silt and clay sediments characterize the downstream portions. Calculation of the trapping efficiency of the dam indicates that approximately 99.8% of materials from the upper watershed are trapped behind Somerville Dam.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracing Water Sources Along the Brazos River Alluvial
    TRACING WATER SOURCES ALONG THE BRAZOS RIVER ALLUVIAL AQUIFER WITH 234U/238U ACTIVITY RATIOS AND URANIUM CONCENTRATIONS A Thesis by BENJAMIN HAYS PRINCE Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Chair of Committee, Franco Marcantonio Committee Members, Peter Knappett Brendan Roark Head of Department, Michael Pope December 2017 Major Subject: Geology Copyright 2017 Benjamin Hays Prince ABSTRACT The combined use of 234U/238U activity ratios and uranium concentrations can be used to trace water sources within a hydrological system. Additionally, the specific uranium concentration and isotopic signature of each source can be applied to mixing calculations to estimate the relative contribution of each source in a river. 234U/238U activity ratios and uranium concentrations were measured over a 6-month period in the Brazos River watershed along the Brazos River Alluvial Aquifer to determine where water in the Brazos River is sourced from and to estimate groundwater discharge to the Brazos River. Results from this study indicate that lithology within the Brazos River watershed affects 234U/238U activity ratios and uranium concentrations along the studied stretch of river as there is a change from carbonate rocks to siliciclastic rocks downstream and an associated change in 234U/238U activity ratios. Rain was found to have a negligible effect on 234U/238U activity ratios of sources within the area, and only dilutes the concentration of uranium in these sources. 234U/238U activity ratios and uranium concentrations suggest water in the Brazos River near Bryan/College Station, Texas is sourced from Lake Whitney, groundwater, and tributaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Brazos River Basin Highlights Report 2018
    Brazos River Basin Highlights Report 2018 11864 — Brazos River at FM4 — 04OCT17 BRAZOS RIVER BASIN HIGHLIGHTS REPORT 2018 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 3 OVERVIEW OF WATER QUALITY MONITORING ................................................................................................... 3 Descriptions of Water Quality Parameters and Terminology ................................................................................ 5 Monitoring in the Brazos River Basin .................................................................................................................... 9 Brazos Basin Major Watersheds ......................................................................................................................... 11 Watershed of the Salt Fork and Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River ....................................................... 14 Watershed of the Clear Fork of the Brazos River ................................................................................................ 16 Upper Watershed of the Brazos River ................................................................................................................ 18 Aquilla Creek Watershed .................................................................................................................................... 20 Bosque River Watershed ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality of Somerville Lake South-Central Texas
    WATER QUALITY OF SOMERVILLE LAKE SOUTH-CENTRAL TEXAS By Emma McPherson and H. B. Mendieta U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 82-4124 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENQINNERS Austin, T«xas 1983 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information For sale by: write to: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch 649 Federal Building U.S. Geological Survey 300 E. Eighth Street Box 25425, Federal Center Austin, TX 78701 Lakewood, CO 80225 -11- CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction- 2 Purpose of this report 2 Description of Somerville Lake and its environment 2 Hydrologic data 6 Streamflow records- 6 Water quality of Somerville Lake 9 Thermal stratification- 9 Dissolved oxygen 12 Dissolved iron and dissolved manganese- 17 Total inorganic nitrogen and total phosphorus 17 Dissolved solids, dissolved chloride, dissolved sulfate, and hardness 29 Water transparency 29 Phytoplankton 32 Summary 32 Selected references 34 -i 11- ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Map showing locations of water-quality data-collection sites on Somerville Lake- 3 2. Map showing location of the Somerville Lake watershed and stream-gaging stations- 4 3-20. Graphs showing: 3. Monthly mean water discharges for Middle Yegua Creek near Dime Box, October 1971-September 1980 7 4. Monthly mean water discharges for East Yegua Creek near Dime Box, October 1971-September 1980 8 5. Monthly mean water discharges for Yegua Creek near Somerville, October 1971-September 1980 10 6. Variations in monthly mean air temperatures at Somerville Dam and water temperatures at sites AC and FQ during surveys 13 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Bastrop, Burleson, Lee and Milam Counties
    Area Study: Bastrop, Burleson, Lee and Milam Counties Evaluation of Natural Resources in Bastrop, Burleson, Lee and Milam Counties Bastrop State Park TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT RESOURCE PROTECTION DIVISION: WATER RESOURCES TEAM Evaluation of Natural Resources in Bastrop, Burleson, Lee, and Milam Counties March 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures.............................................................................................................. ii List of Tables................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgments........................................................................................................ iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2 Study Area.................................................................................................................... 2 Population..................................................................................................................... 3 Economy and Land Use ............................................................................................... 6 TPWD Regional Facilities ........................................................................................... 6 Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the False Spike and Texas Fawnsfoot in the Brazos River Basin
    Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the False Spike and Texas Fawnsfoot in the Brazos River Basin Developed Cooperatively by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Southwest Region and Brazos River Authority 2020 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 BENEFITS OF THIS AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 2 NET CONSERVATION BENEFIT ........................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 4 Species Status Assessment (SSA) .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 AUTHORITY ................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 COVERED SPECIES ......................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 FALSE SPIKE ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 TEXAS FAWNSFOOT .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Leon River Watershed (7 Classified Segments)
    BBrraazzooss RRiivveerr BBaassiinn BBaassiinn HHiigghhlliigghhttss RReeppoorrtt 22001100 Brazos River Authority Brazos River Basin Highlights Report 2010 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 THIS YEARS HIGHLIGHTS............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Drought .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Heavy Metal and Organic Compound Sampling......................................................................................................................... 7 Biological and Habitat Assessments in 2009............................................................................................................................... 7 Added Sampling for 2009 ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 New Projects..................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference................................................................................................
    [Show full text]