DOCSLIB.ORG

Groundwater Technical Report for the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority 183 North Mobility Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Groundwater Technical Report for the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority 183 North Mobility Project Groundwater Technical Report for the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority 183 North Mobility Project CSJ # 0151-05-100 and 3136-01-185 Prepared for CP&Y, Inc. Prepared by Cambrian Environmental with SWCA Environmental Consultants July 2, 2015 SWCA Project Number 25572-AUS This page left intentionally blank ES-1 Groundwater Technical Report for the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority 183 North Mobility Project CAMBRIAN ENVIRONMENTAL 4422 Pack Saddle Pass No. 204 Austin, Texas 78745 with SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 4407 Monterey Oaks Blvd No. 110 Austin, Texas 78749 Submitted to: CP&Y, Inc. The Chase Bank Building Tower of the Hills 13809 Research Blvd, No. 300 Austin, Texas 78750 Attn: Andy Atlas July 2, 2015 Geological analysis and interpretations conducted by and under the direct supervision of Kemble White Ph.D., P.G., Texas Professional Geoscientist license number 3863. As a licensed professional geoscientist I attest that the contents of this report are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ES-2 This page left intentionally blank ES-3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed 183 North Mobility Project (Project) is a cooperative effort by the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to improve US 183 from State Highway (SH) 45/Ranch-to-Market Road (RM) 620 to Loop 1 (MoPac) (CSJ 0151-05-100 and 3136-01-185).Proposed Project activities involve a total of approximately 724.6 acres; 714.2 acres of existing right-of-way (ROW), 8.0 acres of proposed ROW, and 2.4 acres of existing easements, as shown in Figure 1 (Project Area). Construction activities are expected to include the reconfiguration of existing road surfaces and the addition of new lanes. This work will involve reconfiguration of some existing structures; surface grading (generally to a depth of three to four feet below existing grade); excavation for piers to support bridges, overpasses, or flyovers (generally to depths of between 10 and 45 feet); construction of new road surfaces and ancillary structures; the expansion or improvement of existing water quality controls; and the addition of new water quality controls, as needed. Groundwater resources in the Project Area primarily include the Trinity and Edwards Aquifers. The Trinity Aquifer is an important source of groundwater for public use both in the Project Area and the region, but the Edwards Aquifer is the primary focus of conservation concerns due to its ecological significance and vulnerability to contamination. The Edwards Aquifer is not a sufficiently productive water source within the Project Area to satisfy current demand for human consumption, but it is an important source of groundwater for ecological purposes. The Edwards Aquifer supplies numerous low- flow springs that provide habitat for rare wildlife species including the Jollyville Plateau Salamander (Eurycea tonkawae , JPS) that was listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act on September 19, 2013 (USFWS 2013). The northern two-thirds of the Project Area generally follows the drainage divide between the Colorado and Brazos River basins. This divide occurs on a broad upland ridge known as the Jollyville Plateau (see Figure 1). The Jollyville Plateau is the primary recharge area for numerous known locations for the JPS in both drainage basins. Spring and aquifer hydrology differ somewhat between these basins due to variations in stratigraphy and terrain. Stream piracy is occurring along the plateau as the more steeply incised Colorado River captures both surface water and groundwater from the upper headwaters of the Brazos River Basin in Brushy Creek. This study was conducted in order to determine the potential for the Project to affect groundwater and associated resources. The results of groundwater modeling conducted for this study indicate that the Project can be divided into three sections based on the likely direction of groundwater flow and the potential for storm water to reach habitat for the JPS. The first section extends from the northern Project limit to approximately the intersection with McNeil Road. Within this area, the potentiometric surface indicates that karst stream piracy is occurring. Although the surface drainage divide occurs west of this section of the project, well data and spring elevations suggest that groundwater is moving to the southwest, feeding springs and seeps within the Bull Creek Basin (see Figure 2). Known JPS locations down-gradient from this section include those within Critical Habitat Unit 22 (see Figure 1). The second section extends from approximately McNeil Road to approximately the intersection with Loop 360. Along this section of the project it appears that both the surface and subsurface drainage divides occur near or beneath the Project Area. Within this area, groundwater may pass from the Project Area either southwest into Bull Creek or northeast into the Lake Creek or Walnut Creek basins (see Figure 2). Known JPS locations down-gradient from this section include those within Critical Habitat Units 24, 25, 26, 27, and 32 (see Figure 1). The third section extends from approximately the Loop 360 intersection to the southern terminus of the Project. In this area the Project Area is clearly down-gradient of any known JPS locations or habitats. Groundwater in this area may enter the confined zone of the northern Edwards Aquifer. ES-4 This page left intentionally blank ES-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ ES-4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Geology of the Project Area ......................................................................................................................... 2 Stratigraphy ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Trinity Group ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Fredericksburg Group ............................................................................................................................... 7 The Washita, Eagle Ford, and Austin Groups .......................................................................................... 7 Relationship Between Geomorphology and Hydrogeology ......................................................................... 8 The Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer ....................................................................................... 9 Hydrological Modeling ............................................................................................................................... 14 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix A – Potentiometric Surface Points FIGURES Figure 1. Project location. ......................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Project location with reference to watersheds. .......................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Generalized stratigraphy of the aquifer-bearing rocks exposed in the Project Area (From Black and Veatch and Stephens and Associates 2010). ............................................................ 5 Figure 4. Regional stratigraphy of northern Travis and southern Williamson Counties. ......................... 5 Figure 5. Geologic map of the Project Area using Texas Commission on Environmental Quality boundaries for the Edwards Aquifer.......................................................................................... 6 Figure 6. Hydrogeology of the water-table zone of the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer. (From Snyder 1985). ................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 7. Hydrogeology of the artesian zone of the Edwards Aquifer (Snyder 1985). .......................... 10 Figure 8. Water levels in the Edwards Limestone in the spring of 1978 indicating groundwater flow to the northeast (Modified from Figure 21, Brune and Duffin 1983). ......................................... 12 Figure 9. Hydrogeology of Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat in Upper Bull Creek. ........................ 14 Figure 10. Spring-fed section of Davis Spring Branch, south of the old Ranch to Market Road 620 prior to the construction of SH 45. This was an expression of the potentiometric surface approximately 2.7 miles east of the Project Area. ................................................................... 15 i Figure 11. Spring-fed section of Bull Creek Tributary 6 within Critical Habitat Unit 16 below the Edwards outcrop approximately 2 miles southwest of the Project Area. ................................ 16 Figure 12. Davis Spring occurs in an impounded area on Davis Spring Branch approximately 2 miles northeast of the Project Area. .................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Helpful Numbers: in Austin & Central Texas
    Helpful Numbers: In Austin & Central Texas CITY/AREA WATER GAS ELECTRIC CABLE PHONE Austin Austin Water Utility Southern Union City of Austin Time Warner AT&T www.ci.austin.tx.us 512.972.0101 512.477.5981 512.494.9400 800.485.5555 800.464.7928 Bastrop City of Bastrop Centerpoint Power & Light Time Warner SW Bell www.cityofbastrop.org 512.321.3941 512.281.3515 512-321-2601 800.485.5555 800.464.7928 Bee Cave LCRA Texas Gas Service City of Austin Time Warner Verizon www.beecavetexas.com 800.776.5272 800.700.2443 512.494.9400 800.485.5555 800.483.4000 Buda City of Buda Centerpoint Pedernales Time Warner Verizon www.ci.buda.tx.us 512.312.0084 512.329.6672 512.554.4732 800.485.5555 800.483.4000 Cedar Park Cedar Park Water Atmos Energy Pedernales Time Warner AT&T www.cedarparktx.us 512.258.6651 800.460.3030 512.554.4732 800.485.5555 800.464.7928 Dripping Springs Water Supply Corp Centerpoint Pedernales Time Warner Verizon cityofdrippingsprings.com 512.858.7897 800.427.7142 512.554.4732 800.485.5555 800.483.4000 Elgin City of Elgin Centerpoint TXU Time Warner AT&T www.elgintx.com 512.281.5724 800.427.7142 800.242.9113 800.485.5555 800.464.7928 Georgetown Georgetown Utilities Atmos Energy Pedernales Time Warner Verizon www.georgetown.org 512.930.3640 800.460.3030 512.554.4732 800.485.5555 800.483.4000 Hutto City of Hutto Atmos Energy TXU Time Warner Embarq www.huttotx.gov 512.759.4055 800.460.3030 800.242.9113 800.485.5555 800.788.3500 Kyle County Line Water Centerpoint Pedernales Time Warner AT&T www.cityofkyle.com 512.398.4748 800.427.7142 512.554.4732
    [Show full text]
  • WOMEN's ISSUES Are COMMUNITY ISSUES
    WOMEN’S ISSUES are COMMUNITY ISSUES 2017 Status Report on Women & Children in Central Texas 1 WOMEN’S ISSUES ARE COMMUNITY We believe that when women ISSUES are economically secure, safe and healthy, then families and communities thrive. WOMEN’S FUND LEADERSHIP AUSTIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION IN V Jessica Weaver, Chair M IT R E Austin Community Foundation is the catalyst O Fayruz Benyousef F N for generosity in Austin — and has been I Mollie Butler for the past 40 years. We bring together Amber Carden philanthropists, dollars and ideas to create Lexie Hall the Austin where we all want to live. ST Sara Boone Hartley Our approach is to: INVE Sara Levy Carla Piñeyro Sublett / Inform. We apply data to understand the greatest needs to close Terri Broussard Williams the opportunity gap in Central Texas. / Invite. We bring funders, leaders and organizations to the table. / Invest. We make a collective impact by informing and engaging donors and fundholders and together making philanthropic investments that shape Austin’s future, today. THE WOMEN’S FUND The Women’s Fund at Austin Community Foundation was founded in 2004 to focus on the needs of women and children in Central Texas. At the time, there was a lack of philanthropic support targeting the specific needs of women and children and no comprehensive data set tracking their well-being in our community. Since then, Women’s Fund investors have granted over $1.4 million to more than 60 local nonprofit programs, and in 2015, the Women’s Fund issued its first report, Stronger Women, Better Austin: A Status Report on Women & Children in Central Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • A Look at the Texas Hill Country Following the Path We Are on Today Through 2030
    A Look at the Texas Hill Country Following the path we are on today through 2030 This unique and special region will grow, but what will the Hill Country look like in 2030? Growth of the Hill Country The Hill Country Alliance (HCA) is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to raise public awareness and build community support around the need to preserve the natural resources and heritage of the Central Texas Hill Country. HCA was formed in response to the escalating challenges brought to the Texas Hill Country by rapid development occurring in a sensitive eco-system. Concerned citizens began meeting in September of 2004 to share ideas about strengthening community activism and educating the public about regional planning, conservation development and a more responsible approach growth in the Hill Country. This report was prepared for the Texas Hill Country Alliance by Pegasus Planning 2 Growth of the Hill Country 3 Growth of the Hill Country Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction The Hill Country Today The Hill Country in 2030 Strategic Considerations Reference Land Development and Provision of Utilities in Texas (a primer) Organizational Resources Materials Reviewed During Project End Notes Methodology The HCA wishes to thank members of its board and review team for assistance with this project, and the authors and contributors to the many documents and studies that were reviewed. September 2008 4 Growth of the Hill Country The Setting The population of the 17-County Hill Country region grew from approximately 800,000 in 1950 (after the last drought on record) to 2.6 million in 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4133
    HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK AND GEOCHEMISTRY OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER SALINE-WATER ZONE, SOUTH-CENTRAL TEXAS U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4133 FRESHWATER ZONE SALINE-WATER ZONE Prepared in cooperation with the EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY and SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK AND GEOCHEMISTRY OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER SALINE-WATER ZONE, SOUTH-CENTRAL TEXAS By George E. Groschen and Paul M. Buszka U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4133 Prepared in cooperation with the EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY and SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM Austin, Texas 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Acting Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 8011 Cameron Rd. Box 25286 Austin, TX 78754–3898 Denver, CO 80225–0286 ii CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas
    HUD PD&R Housing Market Profiles Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas Quick Facts About Fort Worth-Arlington By T. Michael Miller | As of May 1, 2016 Current sales market conditions: tight. Current apartment market conditions: balanced. Overview The Fort Worth-Arlington, TX (hereafter Fort Worth) metropolitan As of April 2016, the Fort Worth-Arlington division consists of the six westernmost counties (Hood, Johnson, metropolitan division had the eighth lowest Parker, Somervell, Tarrant, and Wise) of the Dallas-Fort Worth- percentage of home loans in negative equity, at Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area in north-central Texas. 1.48 percent of total home loans, of all metro- The Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, which is mostly lo- politan areas in the nation. cated in the Fort Worth metropolitan division, covers 29.8 square miles, and served 64 million passengers in 2015, is the second largest and fourth busiest airport in the nation. American Airlines Group, Inc., with 24,000 employees, is the largest employer in the metropolitan division. • As of May 1, 2016, the estimated population of the Fort Worth metropolitan division is 2.43 million, an average increase of 41,800, or 1.8 percent, annually since July 2014. By comparison, the population increased at a slower average rate of 1.6 percent, or 36,450, annually from April 2010 to July 2014, when a high- er unemployment rate discouraged in-migration by job seekers. • Net in-migration has averaged 24,100 people annually and has accounted for nearly 58 percent of the population growth since July 2014. By comparison, net in-migration accounted for 52 percent of the growth from April 2010 to July 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2021 Historical Winter Storm Event South-Central Texas
    Austin/San Antonio Weather Forecast Office WEATHER EVENT SUMMARY February 2021 Historical Winter Storm Event South-Central Texas 10-18 February 2021 A Snow-Covered Texas. GeoColor satellite image from the morning of 15 February, 2021. February 2021 South Central Texas Historical Winter Storm Event South-Central Texas Winter Storm Event February 10-18, 2021 Event Summary Overview An unprecedented and historical eight-day period of winter weather occurred between 10 February and 18 February across South-Central Texas. The first push of arctic air arrived in the area on 10 February, with the cold air dropping temperatures into the 20s and 30s across most of the area. The first of several frozen precipitation events occurred on the morning of 11 February where up to 0.75 inches of freezing rain accumulated on surfaces in Llano and Burnet Counties and 0.25-0.50 inches of freezing rain accumulated across the Austin metropolitan area with lesser amounts in portions of the Hill Country and New Braunfels area. For several days, the cold air mass remained in place across South-Central Texas, but a much colder air mass remained stationary across the Northern Plains. This record-breaking arctic air was able to finally move south into the region late on 14 February and into 15 February as a strong upper level low-pressure system moved through the Southern Plains. As this system moved through the region, snow began to fall and temperatures quickly fell into the single digits and teens. Most areas of South-Central Texas picked up at least an inch of snow with the highest amounts seen from Del Rio and Eagle Pass extending to the northeast into the Austin and San Antonio areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Cretaceous and Tertiary Burial History, Central Texas 143
    A Publication of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies www.gcags.org L C T B H, C T Peter R. Rose 718 Yaupon Valley Rd., Austin, Texas 78746, U.S.A. ABSTRACT In Central Texas, the Balcones Fault Zone separates the Gulf Coastal Plain from the elevated Central Texas Platform, comprising the Hill Country, Llano Uplift, and Edwards Plateau provinces to the west and north. The youngest geologic for- mations common to both regions are of Albian and Cenomanian age, the thick, widespread Edwards Limestone, and the thin overlying Georgetown, Del Rio, Buda, and Eagle Ford–Boquillas formations. Younger Cretaceous and Tertiary formations that overlie the Edwards and associated formations on and beneath the Gulf Coastal Plain have no known counterparts to the west and north of the Balcones Fault Zone, owing mostly to subaerial erosion following Oligocene and Miocene uplift during Balcones faulting, and secondarily to updip stratigraphic thinning and pinchouts during the Late Cretaceous and Tertiary. This study attempts to reconstruct the burial history of the Central Texas Platform (once entirely covered by carbonates of the thick Edwards Group and thin Buda Limestone), based mostly on indirect geological evidence: (1) Regional geologic maps showing structure, isopachs and lithofacies; (2) Regional stratigraphic analysis of the Edwards Limestone and associated formations demonstrating that the Central Texas Platform was a topographic high surrounded by gentle clinoform slopes into peripheral depositional areas; (3) Analysis and projection
    [Show full text]
  • Map Showing Geology and Hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards Aquifer Catchment Area, Northern Bexar County, South-Central Texas
    Map Showing Geology and Hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards Aquifer Catchment Area, Northern Bexar County, South-Central Texas By Amy R. Clark1, Charles D. Blome2, and Jason R. Faith3 Pamphlet to accompany Open-File Report 2009-1008 1Palo Alto College, San Antonio, TX 78224 2U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO 80225 3U.S. Geological Survey, Stillwater, OK 74078 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado: 2009 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested citation: Clark, A.R., Blome, C.D., and Faith, J.R, 2009, Map showing the geology and hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards aquifer catchment area, northern Bexar County, south- central Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1008, 24 p., 1 pl. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 2 Contents Page Introduction……………………………………………………………………….........……..…..4 Physical Setting…………………………………………………………..………….….….….....7 Stratigraphy……………..…………………………………………………………..….…7 Structural Framework………………...……….……………………….….….…….……9 Description of Map Units……………………………………………………….…………...….10 Summary……………………………………………………………………….…….……….....21 References Cited………………………………………….…………………………...............22 Figures 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Populations in Texas
    Wildlife Populations in Texas • Five big game species – White-tailed deer – Mule deer – Pronghorn – Bighorn sheep – Javelina • Fifty-seven small game species – Forty-six migratory game birds, nine upland game birds, two squirrels • Sixteen furbearer species (i.e. beaver, raccoon, fox, skunk, etc) • Approximately 900 terrestrial vertebrate nongame species • Approximately 70 species of medium to large-sized exotic mammals and birds? White-tailed Deer Deer Surveys Figure 1. Monitored deer range within the Resource Management Units (RMU) of Texas. 31 29 30 26 22 18 25 27 17 16 24 21 15 02 20 28 23 19 14 03 05 06 13 04 07 11 12 Ecoregion RMU Area (Ha) 08 Blackland Prairie 20 731,745 21 367,820 Cross Timbers 22 771,971 23 1,430,907 24 1,080,818 25 1,552,348 Eastern Rolling Plains 26 564,404 27 1,162,939 Ecoregion RMU Area (Ha) 29 1,091,385 Post Oak Savannah 11 690,618 Edwards Plateau 4 1,308,326 12 475,323 5 2,807,841 18 1,290,491 6 583,685 19 2,528,747 7 1,909,010 South Texas Plains 8 5,255,676 28 1,246,008 Southern High Plains 2 810,505 Pineywoods 13 949,342 TransPecos 3 693,080 14 1,755,050 Western Rolling Plains 30 4,223,231 15 862,622 31 1,622,158 16 1,056,147 39,557,788 Total 17 735,592 Figure 2. Distribution of White-tailed Deer by Ecological Area 2013 Survey Period 53.77% 11.09% 6.60% 10.70% 5.89% 5.71% 0.26% 1.23% 4.75% Edwards Plateau Cross Timbers Western Rolling Plains Post Oak Savannah South Texas Plains Pineywoods Eastern Rolling Plains Trans Pecos Southern High Plains Figure 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of Texas
    Ecoregions of Texas 23 Arizona/New Mexico Mountains 26 Southwestern Tablelands 30 Edwards Plateau 23a Chihuahuan Desert Slopes 26a Canadian/Cimarron Breaks 30a Edwards Plateau Woodland 23b Montane Woodlands 26b Flat Tablelands and Valleys 30b Llano Uplift 24 Chihuahuan Deserts 26c Caprock Canyons, Badlands, and Breaks 30c Balcones Canyonlands 24a Chihuahuan Basins and Playas 26d Semiarid Canadian Breaks 30d Semiarid Edwards Plateau 24b Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands 27 Central Great Plains 31 Southern Texas Plains 24c Low Mountains and Bajadas 27h Red Prairie 31a Northern Nueces Alluvial Plains 24d Chihuahuan Montane Woodlands 27i Broken Red Plains 31b Semiarid Edwards Bajada 24e Stockton Plateau 27j Limestone Plains 31c Texas-Tamaulipan Thornscrub 25 High Plains 29 Cross Timbers 31d Rio Grande Floodplain and Terraces 25b Rolling Sand Plains 29b Eastern Cross Timbers 25e Canadian/Cimarron High Plains 29c Western Cross Timbers 25i Llano Estacado 29d Grand Prairie 25j Shinnery Sands 29e Limestone Cut Plain 25k Arid Llano Estacado 29f Carbonate Cross Timbers 25b 26a 26a 25b 25e Level III ecoregion 26d 300 60 120 mi Level IV ecoregion 26a Amarillo 27h 60 0 120 240 km County boundary 26c State boundary Albers equal area projection 27h 25i 26b 25j 27h 35g 35g 26b Wichita 29b 35a 35c Lubbock 26c Falls 33d 27i 29d Sherman 35a 25j Denton 33d 35c 32a 33f 35b 25j 26b Dallas 33f 35a 35b 27h 29f Fort 35b Worth 33a 26b Abilene 32c Tyler 29b 24c 29c 35b 23a Midland 26c 30d 35a El Paso 24a 23b Odessa 35b 24a 24b 25k 27j 33f Nacogdoches 24d Waco Pecos 25j
    [Show full text]
  • L ANDERSON Thinking Is More Important Than Elaborate
    Stratigraphy of the Fredericksburg Group, East Texas Basin L ANDERSON 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 life. The purposes of train­ ing 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 professional 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 ob­ jective attitude and to examine critically all geological and principles. The development of a mature and professional attitude toward geology and geological research is a principal concern of the department. Cover: Isopach of the Fredericksburg Group. THE BAYLOR PRINTING SERVICE WACO, TEXAS BAYLOR GEOLOGICAL STUDIES BULLETIN NO. 47 Stratigraphy of the Fredericksburg Group, East Texas Basin L. Marlow Anderson BAYLOR UNIVERSITY Department of Geology Waco, Texas Spring 1989 Baylor Geological Studies EDITORIAL STAFF Janet L. Burton, Editor O. T. Hayward, Ph.D., Advisor, Cartographic Editor general and urban geology and what have you Joe C. Yelderman, Jr., Ph.D., Associate Editor hydrogeology Peter M. Allen, Ph.D. urban and environmental geology, hydrology Harold H. Beaver, Ph.D. stratigraphy, petroleum geology Rena Bonem, Ph.D. paleontology, paleoecology Brown, Ph.D. structural tectonics S.
    [Show full text]
  • Albian Rudist Biostratigraphy (Bivalvia), Comanche Shelf to Shelf Margin, Texas
    Carnets Geol. 16 (21) Albian rudist biostratigraphy (Bivalvia), Comanche shelf to shelf margin, Texas Robert W. SCOTT 1, 2 2 Yulin WANG 2 Rachel HOJNACKI Yulin WANG 3 Xin LAI 4 Highlights • Barremian-Albian caprinids biostratigraphic zones are revised and integrated with ammonites and benthic foraminifers. • New caprinid rudist species are the key to revising long-held correlations of Albian strata on the Co- manche shelf, Texas. • On the San Marcos Arch, central Texas, the shallow shelf Person Formation is the upper unit of the Fredericksburg Group. • The Person underlies the basal Washita Group sequence boundary Al Sb Wa1 and the Georgetown Formation. Abstract: Rudists were widespread and locally abundant carbonate producers on the Early Cretaceous Comanche Shelf from Florida to Texas, and on Mexican atolls. As members of the Caribbean Biogeogra- phic Province, their early ancestors emigrated from the Mediterranean Province and subsequently evol- ved independently. Comanchean rudists formed biostromes and bioherms on the shelf interior and at the shelf margin. Carbonate stratigraphic units of the Comanche Shelf record rudist evolution during the Barremian through the Albian ages and an established zonal scheme is expanded. This study documents new Albian rudist occurrences from the Middle-Upper Albian Fredericksburg and Washita groups in Central and West Texas. Rudists in cores at and directly behind the shelf margin southeast of Austin and San Antonio, Texas, complement the rudist zonation that is integrated with ammonites and foraminifers. These new rudist data test long-held correlations of the Edwards Group with both the Fredericksburg and Washita groups based solely on lithologies. Rudist and foraminifer biostratigraphy indicate that the Edwards Group is coeval with the Fredericksburg not the Washita Group.
    [Show full text]