LEON RIVER RANCH 6402 West FM 436 Belton, Texas 76513
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Stormwater Management Program 2013-2018 Appendix A
Appendix A 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) As required under Sections 303(d) and 304(a) of the federal Clean Water Act, this list identifies the water bodies in or bordering Texas for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards, and for which the associated pollutants are suitable for measurement by maximum daily load. In addition, the TCEQ also develops a schedule identifying Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that will be initiated in the next two years for priority impaired waters. Issuance of permits to discharge into 303(d)-listed water bodies is described in the TCEQ regulatory guidance document Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (January 2003, RG-194). Impairments are limited to the geographic area described by the Assessment Unit and identified with a six or seven-digit AU_ID. A TMDL for each impaired parameter will be developed to allocate pollutant loads from contributing sources that affect the parameter of concern in each Assessment Unit. The TMDL will be identified and counted using a six or seven-digit AU_ID. Water Quality permits that are issued before a TMDL is approved will not increase pollutant loading that would contribute to the impairment identified for the Assessment Unit. Explanation of Column Headings SegID and Name: The unique identifier (SegID), segment name, and location of the water body. The SegID may be one of two types of numbers. The first type is a classified segment number (4 digits, e.g., 0218), as defined in Appendix A of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS). -
Wildlife & Watershed Planning
Wildlife & Watershed Planning Kevin Wagner, PhD WPPs & TMDLs Addressing Non-Domesticated Species (Wildlife) Wildlife Measures in 10 of 11 EPA Accepted WPPs Attoyac Bayou Buck Creek Cypress Creek Geronimo & Alligator Creeks Lake Granbury Lampasas River Leon River Plum Creek Upper Cibolo Creek Upper San Antonio River Wildlife Measures Included in TMDL Implementation Plans Copano Bay Dickinson Bayou Gilleland Creek Guadalupe River above Canyon Texas BST Studies To Date 5-Way Split (averages based on findings in 10 watersheds) Non-Avian Avian Wildlife Wildlife 32% 18% Pets Unidentified 5% 11% All Livestock Human 24% 10% Mean Background Levels in Runoff Fecal Coliform E. coli Site (#/100 mL) (cfu/100 mL) Reference Ungrazed pasture 10,000 Robbins et al. 1972 Ungrazed pasture 6,600 Doran et al. 1981 Control plots 6,800 Guzman et al. 2010 Pasture destocked >2 mos. 1,000-10,000 Collins et al. 2005 Ungrazed pasture 6,200-11,000 Wagner et al. 2012 Pasture destocked >2 wks. 2,200-6,000 Wagner et al. 2012 Impacts of Migratory Wildlife E. coli concentrations at ungrazed site BB1 (2009-2010) Date BB1 BB2 BB3 300,000 3/13/09 140 3/25/09 1,200 250,000 3/26/09 1,000 7,200 /100 mL) 3/27/09 2,000 200,000 cfu 4/17/09 1,155 980 450 4/18/09 4,400 2,225 2,100 150,000 4/28/09 7,600 12,200 24,000 100,000 10/4/09 57,000 5,114 3,065 Concentration ( 10/9/09 36,000 24,043 15,000 coli 50,000 10/13/09 42,851 23,826 5,591 E. -
Projects in Texas (2000 - 2012)
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation - Projects in Texas (2000 - 2012) Award NFWF NFWF Non- Grantee NFWF Total Project Fiscal EZG# Project Title Grantee Project Description Federal Federal Matching Location Award Funds Year Funds Funds Funds Short Grass Prairie Protect, restore and enhance shortgrass prairie, LPC Conservation in The Nature habitat, and playas in the southeastern New Mexico and 2013 34736 $60,000 $60,000 $50,000 $110,000 New Mexico; Texas New Mexico and Conservancy Texas focal area and implement public education and Texas outreach activities. Aerial Survey Western The Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group will Assessment of Association of Fish use the newly developed range-wide aerial survey to Colorado; Kansas; New 2013 35249 $125,000 $125,000 $250,000 $375,000 Lesser Prairie and Wildlife assess Farm Bill Programs for each of the 15X15 km Mexico; Oklahoma; Texas Chicken (LPC) Agencies survey blocks. Assess the abundance of Guadalupe Bass in the San Antonio River basin and re-introduce the species on the San Antonio River Upper San Antonio River in Texas. Project, which Basin Guadalupe San Antonio River supports the goals of the Southeast Aquatic Resources 2012 31188 Bass Assessment $44,201 $44,201 $300,000 $344,201 Texas Authority Partnership as part of the National Fish Habitat Action and Re- Plan, will restore aquatic and riparian habitats, expand of introduction (TX) the range and distribution of Guadalupe Bass, and improve the biotic integrity of the San Antonio River. Continue to reduce the gaps in knowledge of American Texas American Gulf Coast Bird Oystercatcher population status and breeding 2012 30267 Oystercatcher $134,975 $67,487 $67,487 $134,989 $269,964 Texas Observatory parameters, and begin implementation of conservation Conservation strategies on the Texas Gulf Coast. -
Interim Report
· - Austin Study Area Phase I - Interim Report City of Austin Texas Water Development Board August, 1994 HDR Engineering, Inc_ in association with Paul Price Associates, Inc. ---- ----------------- · TRANS-TEXAS WATER PROGRAM AUSTIN STUDY AREA PHASE I INTERIM REPORT Prepared for City of Austin Texas Water Development Board by HDR Engineering, Inc. in association with Paul Price Associates, Inc. August, 1994 TRANS-TEXAS WATER PROGRAM AUSTIN STUDY AREA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1-1 1.1 The Study Area .................................... 1-2 1.2 Objectives ....................................... 1-2 2.0 POPULA TION AND WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS ............. 2-1 2.1 Population Projections -- City of Austin and Travis, Williamson, and Hays Counties ..................................... 2-1 2.2 Water Demand Projections -- City of Austin and Travis, Williamson, and Hays Counties .................................. 2-1 3.0 REVIEW OF CURRENT SUPPLY ............................ 3-1 3.1 Existing Rights .................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Municipal Rights ............................... 3-3 3.1.2 Steam Electric Rights ............................ 3-4 3.2 Water Availability from Existing Rights .................... 3-4 3.2.1 Assumptions and Limitations ........................ 3-5 3.2.2 Modeling Results ............................... 3-8 3.3 Terms and Conditions of Settlement Agreement .. 3-11 4.0 COMPARISON OF PROJECTED WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLY ..... 4-1 4.1 Municipal Water Use ................................ 4-1 4.1.1 Ground Water Supply ......... ................. 4-1 4.1.2 Surface Water Supply ............................ 4-1 4.1.3 Projected Firm Surpluses and Deficits .................. 4-1 4.2 Steam Electric Use .................................. 4-3 4.2.1 Ground Water Supply ............................ 4-3 4.2.2 Surface Water Supply ............................ 4-3 4.2.3 Projected Firm Surpluses and Deficits ................. -
Unsuuseuracsbe
Strawn Gordon PALO 3 STEPHENS Mingus StHwy 19 DISTRICT PARKER PINTO 13 DISTRICT Burleson Oak Grove Lipan Ovilla Ferris 12 Mansfield Red Oak Midlothian Pecan Hill Briaroaks Grand Prairie Oak Trail Shores Oak Leaf StHwy 34 Cottonwood Grays Prairie Joshua Cross Timber Rosser 110th Congress of the WaxahachieUnited States Godley Pearl S St tH wy HOOD Granbury 171 EASTLAND Palmer Keene Alvarado S t H w Venus Trinity River y Main Garrett DISTRICT Tolar 1 4 4 St S ( t G Lake Alvarado 19 H l 287 Bus w e y n 10 R 8 o Pecan Plantation s e 67 6 Cleburne H 1 w y y St w ) on H rs t nde Lake e S e v H Waxahachie Enni s A Squaw Creek Reservoir Ennis Maypearl HENDERSON 4 Bardwell Lake 4 4 Lake Pat 7 1 1 t DISTRICT 5 y Bra Cleburne y zos Riv S w e w Alma r y H H e t t l S s S Grandview o Bardwell M 4 3 y ERATH w Rice Rio Vista t H Glen Rose S S t Stephenville H SOMERVELL w y 8 ELLIS JOHNSON 1 Italy Covington 4 4 StHwy 6 4 7 S 1 1 t y H DISTRICT y Hw NAVARRO t w Emhouse w S y Itasca H t 1 7 S 6 1 USHwy 67 Blum Kerens I - Bus 4 StHwy 31 5 Milford F De Leon Powell Blooming Barry StHwy 6 Grove StHwy 22 Corsicana Richland-Chambers S Carl’s Corner Reservoir t H w Dublin y 8 Lake Halbert 1 22 Frost 4 wy 17 StH Location of Texas’ 31st Congressional District - 32 Districts Total StHwy 220 y S w tHwy 6 H t Mildred Walnut Springs S 106 W 104 W 102 W 100 W98 W96 W94 W Mertens 2 Hillsboro y 2 Hw St 36 N 36 N 6 1 y USHwy 67 HILL Oak Valley Eureka S Morgan w t H Proctor Lake H t 1 w S 3 S t Navarro y Hw y OKLAHOMARetreat 1 y w 4 2 1 tH 4 2 7 ARKANSAS DISTRICT wy 1 S -
TPWD Strategic Planning Regions
River Basins TPWD Brazos River Basin Brazos-Colorado Coastal Basin W o lf Cr eek Canadian River Basin R ita B l anca C r e e k e e ancar Cl ita B R Strategic Planning Colorado River Basin Colorado-Lavaca Coastal Basin Canadian River Cypress Creek Basin Regions Guadalupe River Basin Nor t h F o r k of the R e d R i ver XAmarillo Lavaca River Basin 10 Salt Fork of the Red River Lavaca-Guadalupe Coastal Basin Neches River Basin P r air i e Dog To w n F o r k of the R e d R i ver Neches-Trinity Coastal Basin ® Nueces River Basin Nor t h P e as e R i ve r Nueces-Rio Grande Coastal Basin Pease River Red River Basin White River Tongue River 6a Wi chita R iver W i chita R i ver Rio Grande River Basin Nor t h Wi chita R iver Little Wichita River South Wichita Ri ver Lubbock Trinity River Sabine River Basin X Nor t h Sulphur R i v e r Brazos River West Fork of the Trinity River San Antonio River Basin Brazos River Sulphur R i v e r South Sulphur River San Antonio-Nueces Coastal Basin 9 Clear Fork Tr Plano San Jacinto River Basin X Cypre ss Creek Garland FortWorth Irving X Sabine River in San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal Basin ity Rive X Clea r F o r k of the B r az os R i v e r XTr n X iityX RiverMesqu ite Sulphur River Basin r XX Dallas Arlington Grand Prai rie Sabine River Trinity River Basin XAbilene Paluxy River Leon River Trinity-San Jacinto Coastal Basin Chambers Creek Brazos River Attoyac Bayou XEl Paso R i c h land Cr ee k Colorado River 8 Pecan Bayou 5a Navasota River Neches River Waco Angelina River Concho River X Colorado River 7 Lampasas -
2014 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards
Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. 2014 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (updated September 23, 2014) EPA has not approved the definition of “surface water in the state” in the TX WQS, which includes an area out 10.36 miles into the Gulf of Mexico by reference to §26.001 of the Texas Water Code. Under the CWA, Texas does not have jurisdiction to establish water quality standards more than three nautical miles from the coast, but does not extend past that point. Beyond three miles, EPA retains authority for CWA purposes. EPA’s approval also does not include the application the TX WQS for the portions of the Red River and Lake Texoma that are located within the state of Oklahoma. Finally, EPA is not approving the TX WQS for those waters or portions of waters located in Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. The following sections in the 2014 Texas WQS have been approved by EPA and are therefore effective for CWA purposes: • §307.1. General Policy Statement • §307.2. Description of Standards • §307.5. Antidegradation • §307.6. Toxic Materials (see “No Action” section) • §307.8. Application of Standards (see “No Action” section) • Appendix B – Sole-source Surface Drinking Water Supplies • Appendix E – Site-specific Toxic Criteria • Appendix F – Site-specific Nutrient Criteria for Selected Reservoirs (see “No Action” section) The following sections in the 2014 Texas WQS have been approved by EPA, except for specific items as noted: • §307.3. -
Lake Granbury Water Quality Modeling
Lake Granbury Overview Water Quality Modeling Update • History of studies on Lake Granbury • Watershed Protection Plans in Texas • Data evaluation – Whole lake – Canal by canal David Harkins, Ph.D., P.E. – Findings Tim Osting, P.E. Espey Consultants, Inc. • Modeling approach February 13, 2007 • Recommendations Lake Granbury History Watershed Protection Plan • Dam completed in 1969 • BRA study in 1982 •Why? – Reviewed earlier reports (TDWR, USGS) – Existing bacteria concentrations – Development of areas around the lake – Evaluated treatment of septic systems • What is the result? – Evaluated nutrient loads – Partnership • BRA study 1995 – Ensure good water quality – Identified canal systems with high bacteria – Roadmap for all agencies concentrations – Identify all options • Clean Rivers Program special studies 2001-current – Choose the best options – 50 monitoring locations • Golden Alga study Watershed Protection Plan Examples • Texas • Trinity River Basin WPP – Similarities and Differences – Concho River – Lake Bridgeport – Little Wichita River – Eagle Mountain Lake • Most WPPs address sediment, nutrients – Pecos River –Lake Benbrook – Plum Creek – Cedar Creek Reservoir • Bacteria WPPs usually agricultural or wildlife – Arroyo Colorado – Richland-Chambers Reservoir – Caddo Lake • National sources – Dickinson Bayou – Dungeness River, WA – Hickory Creek – Nooksack River, WA • Some address specific pollutants (eg, atrazine) – Upper San Antonio River – Grand Traverse Bay, MI • Brazos River Basin – Green Valley Lake, IA • All recommend region-wide -
Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(1) Appendix A
Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(1) Appendix A - Site-specific Uses and Criteria for Classified Segments The following tables identify the water uses and supporting numerical criteria for each of the state's classified segments. The tables are ordered by basin with the segment number and segment name given for each classified segment. Marine segments are those that are specifically titled as "tidal" in the segment name, plus all bays, estuaries and the Gulf of Mexico. The following descriptions denote how each numerical criterion is used subject to the provisions in §307.7 of this title (relating to Site-Specific Uses and Criteria), §307.8 of this title (relating to Application of Standards), and §307.9 of this title (relating to Determination of Standards Attainment). Segments that include reaches that are dominated by springflow are footnoted in this appendix and have critical low-flows calculated according to §307.8(a)(2) of this title. These critical low-flows apply at or downstream of the spring(s) providing the flows. Critical low-flows upstream of these springs may be considerably smaller. Critical low-flows used in conjunction with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regulatory actions (such as discharge permits) may be adjusted based on the relative location of a discharge to a gauging station. -1 -2 The criteria for Cl (chloride), SO4 (sulfate), and TDS (total dissolved solids) are listed in this appendix as maximum annual averages for the segment. Dissolved oxygen criteria are listed as minimum 24-hour means at any site within the segment. Absolute minima and seasonal criteria are listed in §307.7 of this title unless otherwise specified in this appendix. -
Stillhouse Hollow Sanctuary
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW SANCTUARY 65+ Acres Bell County 9177 FM 2410, Harker Heights, TX DESCRIPTION This premier unrestricted property becomes the ultimate for improvements of choice with panoramic Stillhouse Hollow Lake views, prominent residential home sites and ample hardwood trees. The property is located within the ETJ of the city of Harker Heights. In between the property and the Lake lies a protected greenbelt owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers, never to be built upon. IMPROVEMENTS There are 60± feet of FM 2410 frontage for easy access. There is a caliche trail system in place to traverse the property. The western side of the property is not fenced. TERRAIN-VEGETATION Topography ranges from 689-820 feet, with 2 scenic hilltops. There is a 1.5± acre cleared pasture. 65+ Acres Bell County 9177 FM 2410, Harker Heights, TX UTILITIES Available is Oncor Electric, Dog Ridge Water Supply Corp., phone/cable/ internet WATER No well. The top of Elf Trail shows 800± feet to the water table and is 820± feet ASL. There is a 12” water pipe (Dog Ridge) across FM 2410 currently in place. SCHOOLS Belton I.S.D. STILLHOUSE HOLLOW LAKE This is a US Army Corps of Engineers reservoir with a dam on the Lampasas River in the Brazos River basin, 5± miles southwest of Belton. Activities in and near the lake include water sports, boating, fishing, hiking, camping, and playground / sport park. TAXES $7,347.75 (2019) Ag Exempt 11.223± acres were $26. 65+ Acres Bell County 9177 FM 2410, Harker Heights, TX STILLHOUSE HOLLOW SANCTUARY 65± ACRES BELL CO 9177 FM 2410, HARKER HEIGHTS, TX The property is one ± hour north of metro Austin. -
FALL 1969 Bulletin 17 RAYMOND L
BAYLOR FALL 1969 Bulletin 17 The Evolution of the Leon River System RAYMOND L JR. thinking is more important than elaborate FRANK PH.D. PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY BAYLOR UNIVERSITY 1929-1934 Objectives of Geological Training at Baylor The training of a geologist in a university covers but a few years; his education continues throughout his active The purposes of training geologists at Baylor University are to provide a sound basis of understanding and to foster a truly geological point of view, both of which are essential for continued pro fessional growth. The staff considers geology to be unique among sciences since it is primarily a field science. All geologic research in cluding that done in laboratories must be firmly supported by field observations. The student is encouraged to develop an inquiring objective attitude and to examine critically all geological concepts and principles. The development of a mature and professional attitude toward geology and geological research is a principal concern of the department. THE BAYLOR UNIVERSITY PRESS TEXAS BAYLOR GEOLOGICAL STUDIES BULLETIN NO. 17 The Geomorphic Evolution of the Leon River System RAYMOND L JR. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY Department of Geology Waco, Texas Fall, 1969 Baylor Geological Studies EDITORIAL STAFF Jean M. Spencer, M.S., Editor environmental and medical geology O. T. Hayward, Ph.D., Advisor, Cartographic Editor stratigraphy-sedimentation, structure, geophysics-petroleum, groundwater R. L. M.A., Business Manager archeology, geomorphology, vertebrate paleontology James W. Dixon, Jr., Ph.D. stratigraphy, paleontology, structure Walter T. Huang, Ph.D. mineralogy, petrology, metallic minerals Gustavo A. Morales, Ph.D. micropaleontology, stratigraphy STUDENT EDITORIAL STAFF Lawrence W. -
Watershed Protection Plan for the Leon River Below Proctor Lake and Above Belton Lake
Watershed Protection Plan for the Leon River Below Proctor Lake and Above Belton Lake Prepared for the Stakeholders of the Leon River Watershed by Parsons Water & Infrastructure Inc. and the Brazos River Authority PARSONS Funding for the development of this Watershed Protection Plan was provided by the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through a federal Clean Water Act §319(h) nonpoint source grant to the Brazos River Authority. This WPP is available on the Brazos River Authority website at: http://www.brazos.org/LeonRiverWPP.asp January 2015 Watershed Protection Plan for the Leon River Below Proctor Lake Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 : Introduction .............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Watershed Characteristics .........................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Climate ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.1.2 Demographics and Economy ........................................................................................... 6 1.1.3 History .............................................................................................................................. 7 1.2 Project Background ...................................................................................................................8 1.3 Elements of