DOCSLIB.ORG

Soil Survey of Brazos County, Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Soil Survey of Brazos 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 Brazos 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 1990. Soil names and descriptions were approved in 1993. Unless otherwise indicated, statements in this publication refer to conditions in the survey area in 1993. This survey was made cooperatively by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 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 Brazos County Soil and Water Conservation District. 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 of its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and 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 the 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 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call 202-720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover: Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, is headquarters for the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, a major cooperator in the National Cooperative Soil Survey (photo courtesy of Texas A&M University, 2002). 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 BwC—Burlewash fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 Preface .................................................................... 9 percent slopes ............................................. 36 General Nature of the Survey Area ......................... 11 BwD—Burlewash fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 Settlement and Population .................................. 11 percent slopes ............................................. 37 Urbanization and Economic Status .................... 13 ChC—Chazos loamy fine sand, 1 to 5 Agriculture .......................................................... 14 percent slopes ............................................. 38 Natural Resources ............................................. 14 ChD—Chazos loamy fine sand, 5 to 8 Climate ............................................................... 14 percent slopes ............................................. 39 How This Survey Was Made ................................... 14 CoA—Coarsewood silt loam, 0 to 1 percent Statistical Analysis of Map Unit Composition ...... 15 slopes, rarely flooded ................................... 40 General Soil Map Units ........................................ 17 CrB—Crockett loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes......... 41 Dominantly Undulating, Loamy Soils on CrB2—Crockett loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, Uplands .............................................................. 17 eroded ......................................................... 42 1. Zack-Boonville-Zulch ............................. 17 DeA—Derly-Rader complex, 0 to 1 percent 2. Burlewash-Singleton .............................. 18 slopes .......................................................... 43 3. Crockett-Benchley ................................. 19 DfC—Desan loamy fine sand, 3 to 8 percent 4. Spiller-Rosanky-Kurten .......................... 20 slopes .......................................................... 45 Dominantly Nearly Level to Gently DmA—Dimebox clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes ........ 46 Undulating, Sandy and Loamy Soils on DuC—Dutek loamy fine sand, 3 to 8 percent Stream Terraces ................................................. 21 slopes .......................................................... 47 5. Tabor-Gredge-Rader.............................. 21 EuB—Eufaula loamy fine sand, 1 to 3 percent 6. Robco-Chazos ....................................... 23 slopes .......................................................... 48 7. Burleson-Wilson .................................... 23 FaB—Falba fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent Dominantly Nearly Level, Loamy and Clayey slopes .......................................................... 48 Soils on Flood Plains .......................................... 23 Gd—Gladewater clay, frequently flooded ............ 49 8. Ships ..................................................... 24 GrC—Gredge fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent 9. Sandow.................................................. 24 slopes .......................................................... 51 10. Gladewater-Kaufman ............................. 25 GrC2—Gredge fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 11. Weswood ............................................... 25 percent slopes, eroded ................................ 52 Detailed Soil Map Units ........................................ 27 GrD—Gredge fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 AxB—Axtell fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent percent slopes ............................................. 52 slopes .......................................................... 28 GvC—Gredge very gravelly fine sandy loam, BeA—Benchley loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes....... 29 3 to 8 percent slopes.................................... 53 BeB—Benchley loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes....... 29 GyC—Greenvine clay, 2 to 5 percent slopes ...... 54 BoA—Boonville fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 HbA—Highbank silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ............................................. 30 percent slopes, rarely flooded ...................... 55 BoB—Boonville fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 Ka—Kaufman clay, frequently flooded ................ 56 percent slopes ............................................. 31 KrD—Koether-Rock outcrop complex, 3 to BrB—Boonville-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 12 percent slopes ........................................ 57 percent slopes ............................................. 32 KuC—Kurten fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent BuA—Burleson clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes ......... 34 slopes .......................................................... 58 BuB—Burleson clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes ......... 35 KuD—Kurten fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent BuC—Burleson clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes ......... 36 slopes .......................................................... 59 6 LfA—Lufkin fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent SnB—Singleton fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 slopes .......................................................... 59 percent slopes ............................................. 83 LuB—Luling clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes .............. 60 SpB—Spiller loamy fine sand, 1 to 3 percent LuD—Luling clay, 5 to 8 percent slopes .............. 61 slopes .......................................................... 84 MaA—Mabank loam, 0 to 1 percent SxB—Styx loamy fine sand, 1 to 3 percent slopes .......................................................... 62 slopes .......................................................... 85 MrA—Mabank-Rader complex, 0 to 1 TaA—Tabor fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent percent slopes ............................................. 63 slopes .......................................................... 86 NvB—Navasan loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 TgB—Tabor very gravelly fine sandy loam, percent slopes ............................................. 64 1 to 3 percent slopes...................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ii.2. Meridian Highway (Sh 2) – Us 81 – Ih 35/35W
    The Development of Highways in Texas: A Historic Context of the Bankhead Highway and Other Historic Named Highways II.2. MERIDIAN HIGHWAY (SH 2) – US 81 – IH 35/35W INTRODUCTION The Meridian Highway historically has been the major north–south named highway in Texas since the early 1910s. As originally conceived by the International Meridian Road Association in 1911, it stretched from Canada to Mexico, extending through the nation’s mid-section and the expansive Great Plains region. It initially was planned to enter Texas near Burkburnett and continued south through Wichita Falls, Bowie, Fort Worth, Cleburne, Waco, Austin, San Antonio and Laredo. A major lateral, called the Gulf Division, was planned to extend from Waco to Galveston, passing through Marlin, Bryan, Hempstead, and Houston. (See Figure 164.) With the creation of the Texas Highway Department in 1917, the Meridian Highway in Texas was designated as SH 2, signifying that the Texas Highway Commission deemed it to be the state’s second most important highway at the time, after the Bankhead Highway (SH 1). The adoption of the AASHO interstate highway numbering plan added another designation layer onto the Meridian Highway: US 81. That name, rather than SH 2, has endured over time. However, US 81 did not follow the route proposed by the Meridian Road Association precisely. The creation of US 81 in Texas excluded the Wichita Falls– Bowie leg, which was renamed as US 277 and, later, US 370. The Gulf Division also was excluded from the route of US 81; instead, it became SH 6 and, later, US 75.
    [Show full text]
  • Bee Creek Land & Cattle
    BEE CREEK LAND & CATTLE South Line of Old San Antonio Road, South of Wheelock Bryan, Texas WORKING CATTLE RANCH | FOR SALE BEE CREEK LAND & CATTLE South Line of Old San Antonio Road, South of Wheelock Bryan, Texas SUMMARY • PROPERTY DESCRIPTION • PROPERTY PHOTOS • DISCLAIMER OFFERING SUMMARY Sales Price $7,995,000 Granada Farms Bremond St Price/AC $8,883/AC Property Highlights • Beautiful +/- 900 AC Central Deep Well Rd Texas cattle ranch with frontage on Old San Antonio Road and Deep Well Road Subject • Working ranch with water piped to all pastures for rotational grazing • Improved coastal Bermuda pastures, over-seeded with perennial ball clover and gulf TX-OSR (Old San Antonio Rd) coast rye • Commercial set of working pens, capable of handling 600 head of Scasta Ln cattle • Fenced and cross fenced, with Wheelock Hall Rd 11 pastures and numerous 2-8 AC traps • 1,900 SF 3 bedroom 3 bath house, 9,822 SF barn with office & sale area Shadow Creek Subdivision • Investment potential for future development/homesites BEE CREEK LAND & CATTLE South Line of Old San Antonio Road, South of Wheelock Bryan, Texas SUMMARY • PROPERTY DESCRIPTION • PROPERTY PHOTOS • DISCLAIMER PROPERTY INFORMATION Size +/- 900 AC Exceptional, rare large acreage in Northeast Brazos County along Old San Antonio Road in Wheelock, Texas. 25 minutes northeast of Bryan/College Station and Texas Location A&M University. Easy access from Highway 6, I-45, and I-35. 75 miles from Waco, 104 miles from Austin, 116 miles from Houston, 160 miles from Dallas/Fort Worth, and 176 miles from San Antonio. Subject 1,900 SF ranch style home remodeled in 2001, two sets of pens including a large set of steel working cattle pens, shop, 9,822 SF sale barn with viewing pens & office, hay, equipment and livestock barns.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property
    NFS Form 10-900-b 0MB No. 1024-0018 (Jan. 1987} United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places u Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is for use in documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions'm ttMelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the requested information. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Type all entries. A. Name of Multiple Property Listing_________________________________________ Historic and Architectural Resources of Nacogdoches / Texas______________ B. Associated Historic Contexts Community Planning and Development in Nacogdoches: 1830-1940 C. Geographical Data 1990 city limits of Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County, Texas I I See continuation sheet D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistgoLwith the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requii^n^ents set jprJJafTrT36 QFR Part 60 aijg^tJ^Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Planning and Evaluation. Tature of certifying offjpfal Date State Historic Preservation Officer, Texas Historical Commission State or Federal agency and bureau I, hereby, certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register. eeper of the National Register Date E. Statement of Historic Contexts Discuss each historic context listed in Section B.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment Supporting the Eagle Pass South Checkpoint Renovation and Expansion
    Draft Environmental Assessment Supporting the Eagle Pass South Checkpoint Renovation and Expansion Maverick County, Texas April 2016 Abbreviations and Acronyms µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter ppm parts per million ACM asbestos-containing materials RCRA Resources Conservation and AST aboveground storage tank Recovery Act BMP best management practice SAL State Antiquities Landmark CBP Customs and Border Protection SO2 sulfur dioxide CEQ Council on Environmental Quality tpy tons per year CFR Code of Federal Regulations TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act CO carbon monoxide TXDOT Texas Department of CO2 carbon dioxide Transportation CWA Clean Water Act U.S.C. United States Code dBA A-weighted decibel(s) USBP U.S. Border Patrol DHS Department of Homeland Security USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection EA Environmental Assessment Agency EIS Environmental Impact Statement USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service EO Executive Order VOC volatile organic compounds ESA Endangered Species Act ESCP erosion-and-sediment control plan FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act FR Federal Register GHG greenhouse gas Hwy Highway LBP lead-based paint mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOx nitrogen oxide NO2 nitrogen dioxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places O3 ozone OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration P.L. Public Law Pb lead PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PM2.5 Aerodynamic size less than or equal to 2.5 microns PM10 Aerodynamic size less than or equal to 10 microns PMO Program Management Office PPE personal protective equipment ppb parts per billion 1 Cover Sheet 2 Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment 3 Supporting the Eagle Pass South Checkpoint Renovation and Expansion 4 Maverick County, Texas 5 Responsible Agencies: Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Brazos County Natural History: Plants, Animals, Weather, Geology and Related Topics 1905-1909 Compiled by Bill Page 22 March 2010
    Brazos County Natural History: Plants, Animals, Weather, Geology and Related Topics 1905-1909 compiled by Bill Page 22 March 2010 The sunflower contest is becoming interesting indeed. On yesterday an Eagle reporter was called upon to witness the measurement of one growing in the yard of a gentleman living in front of the court house, and the plant was found to be 13 feet and nine inches high. There appears to be no limit to the altitude to which Brazos County soil can raise the flaming disc of the Helianthus annuus. Bryan Morning Eagle, 29 June 1905, p.5 The people of the Thompson Creek and Parker School House communities will hold a union revival meeting at Jones’ Spring, under a large brush arbor, beginning Wednesday, July 27. Dr. Geo. B. Butler and Rev. S.R. McClung will do the preaching. Bryan Morning Eagle, 29 June 1904 p.5, col.2. S.H. Allphin, J.W. Brogdon, Jeff Cole, L.B. Kern, Dave Kern and H.H. Brogdon left yesterday for a hunt on the Navasota River. Bryan Morning Eagle, 13 July 1904, p.3 W.H. McVey of Wellborn was in town yesterday trying to get a lot of his town friends to break their record and take a drink of pure water. He had a demijohn of the famous pure Minter Springs water. This place, Minter Springs, will yet be famous for its abundance of pure, cold spring water, and the surroundings of cool, shady groves. McVey had three fine Poland China pigs with him, of the famous Sims strain of prize winners.
    [Show full text]
  • Mexican American History Resources at the Briscoe Center for American History: a Bibliography
    Mexican American History Resources at the Briscoe Center for American History: A Bibliography The Briscoe Center for American History at the University of Texas at Austin offers a wide variety of material for the study of Mexican American life, history, and culture in Texas. As with all ethnic groups, the study of Mexican Americans in Texas can be approached from many perspectives through the use of books, photographs, music, dissertations and theses, newspapers, the personal papers of individuals, and business and governmental records. This bibliography will familiarize researchers with many of the resources relating to Mexican Americans in Texas available at the Center for American History. For complete coverage in this area, the researcher should also consult the holdings of the Benson Latin American Collection, adjacent to the Center for American History. Compiled by John Wheat, 2001 Updated: 2010 2 Contents: General Works: p. 3 Spanish and Mexican Eras: p. 11 Republic and State of Texas (19th century): p. 32 Texas since 1900: p. 38 Biography / Autobiography: p. 47 Community and Regional History: p. 56 The Border: p. 71 Education: p. 83 Business, Professions, and Labor: p. 91 Politics, Suffrage, and Civil Rights: p. 112 Race Relations and Cultural Identity: p. 124 Immigration and Illegal Aliens: p. 133 Women’s History: p. 138 Folklore and Religion: p. 148 Juvenile Literature: p. 160 Music, Art, and Literature: p. 162 Language: p. 176 Spanish-language Newspapers: p. 180 Archives and Manuscripts: p. 182 Music and Sound Archives: p. 188 Photographic Archives: p. 190 Prints and Photographs Collection (PPC): p. 190 Indexes: p.
    [Show full text]
  • Underground Railroad Route Along El Camino Real De Los Tejas
    Underground Railroad Route Along El Camino Real de las Tejas By Rolonda Teal July 2010 Challenge Cost Share Program National Trails Intermountain Region National Park Service Underground Railroad Route Along El Camino Real de la Tejas Project Background In eastern Texas and western Louisiana, El Camino Real de la Tejas was formed from a series of trails used by Caddo Indians for travel between villages. Spanish colonists took over parts of those existing trails for the transportation of animals, military, civilian and religious personnel as well as supplies. Camino Real translates simply as the “King’s Highway” and continued to be used in this way throughout Spanish dominion. French citizens from Louisiana also used the same paths for illegal and legal trade and as a means of travel to San Antonio to conduct business. After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, portions of El Camino Real that were associated with the American period became known as the Old San Antonio Road. El Camino Real represents a series of paths that intercepted at various points along a main thoroughfare and not just a single road. In all, the King’s Highway as defined by the National Park Service extends from Monclova, Mexico to Natchitoches, Louisiana and covers approximately 2,400 miles in distance (NPS 1998:1). In 1911 the Texas chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution adopted a resolution calling for formal identification and marking of the historic road. MajorV. N. Zively was hired to survey the route in an attempt to identify original portions of the road. A year later Zively reported that portions of the road could definitely be identified.
    [Show full text]
  • Brazos Valley Coordinated Transportation Plan Update
    2017 Brazos Valley Coordinated Transportation Plan Update Approved by Independent Stakeholder Committee, February 15, 2017 BRAZOS VALLEY COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE Thank you This update of the 2017 Coordinated Transportation Plan was made possible by numerous stakeholders throughout the region. We would like to thank our staff and numerous stakeholders and active citizens for their participation in this plan. BVCOG Staff Navasota Cab & Courier Leon County Health Resource Michael Parks Rance Parham Center Travis Halm Donna Danford Clay Barnett Texas Veterans Commission Gloria McCarty Jeffrey English Troy Robie Monica Rainey Madison County Health Vietnam Veterans Association Resource Center Brazos Transit District Thomas Powell Towanda Webber Wendy Weedon Sarah Santoy Workforce Solutions – Jobs Calvert Senior Center Center & Childcare Bea Cephas Brazos Valley Center for Gaylen Lange Independent Living Robert Gonzales Washington County Healthy Jackie Pacha Living Association Andrew Morse Area Agency on Aging Toy Kurtz Troy Howell Ronnie Gipson Cyndy Belt Stephen Galvin City of Bryan Tracy Glass Lindsay Hackett Department of Assistive and Brazos Valley Area Agency on Rehabilitative Services Regional Citizens Aging Virginia Herrera Ann Boehm Ronnie Gipson Steven Galvin Texas A&M Health Science Center Bryan-College Station MPO Karla Blaine Daniel Rudge Debbie Muesse Brad McCaleb Elizabeth Gonzalez-Silva Bart Benthul Angela Alaniz Heart of Texas Regional Burleson County Health Advisory Council Resource Commission Gary Clouse Albert Ramirez Sherii Alexander Housing Voucher Program Karla Flanagan Grimes County Health Resource Center Workforce Solutions Brazos Betty Feldman Valley Lara Meece Patricia Buck Nancy Franek Shawna Rendon 1 BRAZOS VALLEY COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE Contents Thank you ........................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Conservation Districts * 1
    Confirmed Groundwater Conservation Districts * 1. Bandera County River Authority & Groundwater District - 11/7/1989 2. Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer CD - 8/13/1987 DALLAM SHERMAN HANSFORD OCHILTREE LIPSCOMB 3. Bee GCD - 1/20/2001 60 4. Blanco-Pedernales GCD - 1/23/2001 5. Bluebonnet GCD - 11/5/2002 34 6. Brazoria County GCD - 11/8/2005 HARTLEY MOORE HUTCHINSON ROBERTS 7. Brazos Valley GCD - 11/5/2002 HEMPHILL 8. Brewster County GCD - 11/6/2001 9. Brush Country GCD - 11/3/2009 10. Calhoun County GCD - 11/4/2014 OLDHAM POTTER CARSON WHEELER 11. Central Texas GCD - 9/24/2005 63 GRAY Groundwater Conservation Districts 12. Clear Fork GCD - 11/5/2002 13. Clearwater UWCD - 8/21/1999 COLLINGSWORTH 14. Coastal Bend GCD - 11/6/2001 RANDALL 15. Coastal Plains GCD - 11/6/2001 DEAF SMITH ARMSTRONG DONLEY of 16. Coke County UWCD - 11/4/1986 55 17. Colorado County GCD - 11/6/2007 18. Comal Trinity GCD - 6/17/2015 Texas 19. Corpus Christi ASRCD - 6/17/2005 PARMER CASTRO SWISHER BRISCOE HALL CHILDRESS 20. Cow Creek GCD - 11/5/2002 21. Crockett County GCD - 1/26/1991 22. Culberson County GCD - 5/2/1998 HARDEMAN 23. Duval County GCD - 7/25/2009 HALE 24. Evergreen UWCD - 8/30/1965 BAILEY LAMB FLOYD MOTLEY WILBARGER 27 WICHITA FOARD 25. Fayette County GCD - 11/6/2001 36 COTTLE 26. Garza County UWCD - 11/5/1996 27. Gateway GCD - 5/3/2003 CLAY KNOX 74 MONTAGUE LAMAR RED RIVER CROSBY DICKENS BAYLOR COOKE 28. Glasscock GCD - 8/22/1981 COCHRAN HOCKLEY LUBBOCK KING ARCHER FANNIN 29.
    [Show full text]
  • One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America
    S. 983 One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three An Act To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the El Camino Real Para Los Texas for potential addition to the National Trails System, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``El Camino Real Para Los Texas Study Act of 1993''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress findsÐ (1) El Camino Real Para Los Texas was the Spanish road established to connect a series of missions and posts extending from Monclova, Mexico to the mission and later Presidio Nuestra de Pilar de los Adaes which served as the Spanish capital of the province of Texas from 1722 to 1772; (2) El Camino Real, over time, comprised an approximately 1,000-mile corridor of changing routes from Saltillo through Monclova and Guerrero, Mexico; San Antonio and Nacogdoches, Texas and then easterly to the vicinity of Los Adaes in present day Louisiana; and constituted the only major overland route from the Rio Grande to the Red River Valley during the Spanish Colonial Period; (3) the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth cen- tury rivalries among the European colonial powers of Spain, France, and England and after their independence, Mexico and the United States, for dominion over lands
    [Show full text]
  • The Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District: a Case
    THE BRAZOS VALLEY GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT: A CASE STUDY IN TEXAS GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION Katherine D. Teel, B.A. Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS August 2011 APPROVED: Randolph B. Campbell, Major Professor Andrew Torget, Committee Member J. Todd Moye, Committee Member Richard McCaslin, Chair of the Department of History James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Teel, Katherine D. The Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District: A case study in Texas groundwater conservation. Master of Arts (History), August 2011, 90 pp., 6 illustrations, bibliography, 110 titles. This thesis examines the history of groundwater management through the development of groundwater conservation districts in Texas. Political, economic, ideological, and scientific understandings of groundwater and its regulation varied across the state, as did the natural resource types and quantities, which created a diverse and complicated position for lawmakers and landowners. Groundwater was consistently interpreted as a private property right and case law protected unrestricted use for the majority of the twentieth-century even as groundwater resources crossed property and political boundaries, and water tables declined particularly during the second-half of the century. The case study of the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District describes the complicated history of groundwater in Texas as the state attempted to balance natural resource legislation and private property rights and illuminate groundwater’s importance for the future. Copyright 2011 by Katherine D. Teel ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to personally thank my committee for leading me through the thesis process and degree. The entire committee was helpful and encouraging throughout, consistently challenged my academic abilities, and pushed me to develop as a historian.
    [Show full text]
  • Texoma Workforce Development Board Member Manual
    TEXOMA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEMBER MANUAL Section 1 - Introduction What is a Workforce Board? Workforce Boards are a local unit of government created by the Texas Legislature in 1995. Boards are the locally controlled entity designated to administer employment and training programs throughout the state. There are 28 Boards in the state of Texas. Each Board must have 51% of its members appointed from the private sector. Other categories that must be represented are: secondary education, post-secondary education, adult education, literacy, organized labor, rehabilitation and community based organizations. What is a Workforce Development Area? There are 28 Workforce Development Areas (WDA) in the state of Texas. The Texoma Workforce Development Area includes Cooke, Fannin and Grayson Counties. On the map below, the Texoma Workforce Development Area is listed as #25. Local Workforce Development Boards 1. Panhandle 2. South Plains 3. North Texas 4. North Central 5. Tarrant County 6. Dallas 7. North East 8. East Texas 9. West Central 10. Upper Rio Grande 11. Permian Basin 12. Concho Valley 13. Heart of Texas 14. Capital Area 15. Rural Capital 16. Brazos Valley 17. Deep East Texas 18. South East Texas 19. Golden Crescent 20. Alamo 21. South Texas 22. Coastal Bend 23. Lower Rio Grande Valley 24. Cameron County 25. Texoma 26. Central Texas 27. Middle Rio Grande 28. Gulf Coast Who is a CEO? The CEOs are the Chief Elected Officials for each Board area. CEOs are defined in the legislation (HB 1863) that created Boards. For Texoma, the CEOs are the three county judges and the mayor of the largest city (Sherman).
    [Show full text]