DOCSLIB.ORG

Stream Monitoring and Educational Program in the Red River Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Stream Monitoring and Educational U.S. Department of the Interior Program in the Red River Basin, U.S. Geological Survey Texas, 1996–97 100 o 101 o 5 AMARILLO NORTH FORK 102 o RED RIVER 103 o A S LT 35o F ORK RED R IV ER 1 4 2 PRAIRIE DOG TOWN PEASE 3 99 o WICHITA FORK RED RIVER 7 FALLS CHARLIE 6 RIVE R o o 34 W 8 98 9 I R o LAKE CHIT 21 ED 97 A . TEXOMA o VE o 10 11 R 25 96 RI R 95 16 19 18 20 DENISON 17 28 14 15 23 24 27 29 22 26 30 12,13 LAKE PARIS KEMP LAKE LAKE KICKAPOO ARROWHEAD TEXARKANA EXPLANATION 0 40 80 120 MILES Reach 1—Lower Red River (mainstem) Basin Red River Basin in Texas Reach 2—Wichita River Basin NEW OKLAHOMA Reach 3—Pease River Basin MEXICO ARKANSAS Reach 4—Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River Basin Reach 5—North Fork and Salt Fork Red River TEXAS Basins 12 LOUISIANA USGS streamflow-gaging and water-quality station and reference number (table 1) 22 USGS streamflow-gaging station and reference number (table 1) Figure 1. Location of Red River Basin, Texas, and stream-monitoring stations. This fact sheet presents the 1996–97 Texas Panhandle, and becomes the Texas- 200,000 acre-feet are in the basin (fig. 1): stream monitoring and outreach activities Oklahoma boundary. It then flows Lake Kemp, Lake Kickapoo, Lake of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), through southwestern Arkansas and into Arrowhead, and Lake Texoma. the Red River Authority of Texas, the Louisiana, where it joins the Atchafalaya U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the City River. Amarillo is the largest city in the Texas of Wichita Falls, the Wichita County The land-surface features of the Red part of the basin, with an estimated 1997 Water Improvement District No. 2, and River Basin in Texas vary from the nearly population of about 174,000 (Texas A&M the Texas Water Development Board. The level prairie and farmland west of Ama- University, 1997). Wichita Falls is the fact sheet was prepared by the USGS in rillo, to rugged canyons and ridges east of second largest, with an estimated 1997 cooperation with the Red River Authority Amarillo, to rolling plains and prairie in population of about 102,000. The next of Texas. the Wichita Falls area and, finally, to the largest Texas cities—Burkburnett, The Red River Basin comprises parts gently rolling, wooded hills in northeast Canyon, Denison, Hereford, Paris, of five states: New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas. Rainfall increases appreciably Sherman, and Vernon—all have estimated Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The across the basin from an average of about basin covers about 94,500 square miles, 15 inches near the Texas-New Mexico 1997 populations in the 10,000-to-40,000 of which approximately 24,500 square border to about 48 inches near the Texas- range. The major industries in the region miles are in Texas (fig. 1). The river flows Arkansas border. Four major reservoirs are oil and gas production, agriculture, from eastern New Mexico, across the with impoundment capacities greater than ranching, manufacturing, and tourism. Table 1. Active stream-monitoring stations, Red River Basin, Texas, 1996–97 Drainage Period of record Reference USGS Continuous area number station Station name 2-parameter (square Streamflow Water quality (fig. 1) number monitors1 miles) 1 07297910 Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River near Wayside, Tex. 4,211 1967–97 2 07299540 Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River near Childress, Tex. 7,725 X 1964–97 1994–97 3 07299670 Groesbeck Creek at State Highway 6 near Quanah, Tex. 303 1961–97 4 07300000 Salt Fork Red River near Wellington, Tex. 1,222 1952–97 5 07301410 Sweetwater Creek near Kelton, Tex. 287 1961–97 1969–85 6 07307800 Pease River near Childress, Tex. 2,754 X 1959–62 1968–82 1967–97 7 07308200 Pease River near Vernon, Tex. 3,488 1959–82 1967–81 1992–97 8 07308500 Red River near Burkburnett, Tex. 20,570 X 1959–97 1968–81 1994–97 9 07311600 North Wichita River near Paducah, Tex. 540 X 1961–82 1994–97 1994–97 10 07311630 Middle Wichita River near Guthrie, Tex. 50 X 1994–97 1994–97 11 07311700 North Wichita River near Truscott, Tex. 937 X 1959–97 1954–59 1968–92 1994–97 12 07311782 South Wichita River at Low Flow Dam near Guthrie, Tex. 223 X 1984–85 1984–97 1987–97 13 07311783 South Wichita River below Low Flow Dam near Guthrie, Tex. 223 1985–97 1987–89 14 07311800 South Wichita River near Benjamin, Tex. 584 X 1952–57 1967–97 1959–97 15 07311900 Wichita River near Seymour, Tex. 937 X 1960–79 1969–92 1997 1997 16 07312100 Wichita River near Mabelle, Tex. 2,086 X 1959–97 1968–97 17 07312110 South Side Canal near Dundee, Tex. 2,194 1971–97 18 07312130 Wichita River at State Highway 25 near Kamay, Tex. 2246 X 1996–97 1996–97 19 07312200 Beaver Creek near Electra, Tex. 652 X 1960–97 1968–70 1996–97 20 07312500 Wichita River at Wichita Falls, Tex. 3,140 X 1938–97 1981–89 1996–97 21 07312700 Wichita River near Charlie, Tex. 3,439 X 1967–97 1967–81 1996–97 22 07314500 Little Wichita River near Archer City, Tex. 481 1932–56 1966–97 23 07314900 Little Wichita River above Henrietta, Tex. 1,037 1953–97 1952–56 1959–66 1968–85 24 07315200 East Fork Little Wichita River near Henrietta, Tex. 178 1963–97 25 07315500 Red River near Terral, Okla. 28,723 1938–97 1967–97 26 07316000 Red River near Gainesville, Tex. 30,782 X 1936–97 1994–97 27 07331600 Red River below Denison Dam, Tex. 39,720 X 1997 1997 28 07335500 Red River at Arthur City, Tex. 44,531 1905–11 1936–97 29 07336820 Red River near De Kalb, Tex. 47,348 1967–97 1968–97 30 07337000 Red River at Index, Ark. 48,030 1936–97 1997 1 Specific conductance and temperature recorded hourly. Several tributaries to the Red Salinity is the greatest limitation on In 1957, when Congress directed the River appear fairly turbid and generally water use in the Red River Basin and is improvement of water quality in the Red have visible suspended-sediment largely the result of naturally occurring River Basin, the U.S. Army Corps of concentrations during low flow, as can be salt springs in parts of the upper reaches Engineers began studying the problem of seen at the stream-monitoring station of the basin (Keller and others, 1988). salt removal from 10 salt-spring areas in Wichita River near Charlie, Tex. (photo The salt sources contribute water with the Red River Basin. Eight of these source A). Water in the mainstem of the Red large (relative to potable water) concen- River reflects the River’s namesake trations of dissolved solids, principally areas were selected by the Corps of Engi- (photo B). During low flow the Red River chloride. At certain times and locations, neers to have structural controls installed appears fairly turbid, as can be seen at the the salinity of streams in the basin to reduce salt loads reaching the main- stream-monitoring station Red River near exceeds that of seawater (Keller and stem of the Red River (Keller and others, Burkburnett, Tex. (photo B). others, 1988). 1988) (fig. 2). 2 100o 101o procedure (Brazos River Authority, writ- ten commun., 1995)), the total number of o No 102 rt domestic and industrial discharges in the h 99o rk of Fo R reach, and the total volume of effluent ed Elk discharged in the reach. The schedule for R iv E er P lm focused monitoring (high-intensity r C a S r i a r lt e o ie Re e sampling during 1 of the 5 years and low- 35 Texas Fork d Oklahoma LAKE k AREA VI Fork ALTUS intensity sampling during the other 4 D og River Creek years) reflects the ranking of the five T o wn reaches: r e t F ork Red AREA XIV t k River AREA XIII O ee Year 1 (fiscal years 1996–97)—Reach 2 Cr iver ed R le R Wichita River Basin Tu L ittle AREA V R ed Year 2 (fiscal years 1997–98)—Reach 1 N orth Pease Lower Red River (mainstem) Basin AREA IX Pe R P ase ive eas r e r e iddle iv Year 3 (fiscal years 1998–99)—Reach 4 M R se Pea Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red 34o AREA VII F C o eaver ree rk B k River Basin uth So rth N o ork r AREA X F iv e Year 4 (fiscal years 1999–2000)—Reach M R idd le ita ich W 3 Pease River Basin South Fork LAKE KEMP AREA VIII Year 5 (fiscal years 2000–2001)—Reach 5 North Fork and Salt Fork of the Red 0 20 40 60 MILES River Basins Figure 2. Location of salt-spring areas in the Red River Basin, Texas and The monitoring plan for the reaches Oklahoma (Keller and others, 1988). in the Red River Basin includes the com- The Water Resources Development Basinwide Monitoring Plan putation of salt loading for the major Act of 1974 provided funding for the con- tributaries to identify sources of salinity struction of water-control structures in The Clean Waters Act of 1991 (Texas and to determine to what extent these Area VIII in the Wichita River Basin.
Recommended publications
  • 2020 Draft Basin Highlights Report an Overview of Water Quality Issues Throughout the Canadian and Red River Basins

    2020 Draft Basin Highlights Report an Overview of Water Quality Issues Throughout the Canadian and Red River Basins

    2020 DRAFT BASIN HIGHLIGHTS REPORT AN OVERVIEW OF WATER QUALITY ISSUES THROUGHOUT THE CANADIAN AND RED RIVER BASINS The preparation of this report was financed through and in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality North Fork Red River at FM 2473 2020 Canadian and Red River Basins Highlights Report ~ Page 2020 Canadian and Red River Basins Highlights Report ~ Page 2 Lake Texoma at US 377 Bridge TABLE OF CONTENTS CANADIAN AND RED RIVER BASIN VICINITY MAP 4 INTRODUCTION 5 Public Involvement Basin Advisory Committee Meeting 6 Coordinated Monitoring Meeting 7 Zebra Mussels Origin, Transportation, Impact, Texas Bound, Current Populations, and Studies 8 Texas Legislation Action 9 CANADIAN AND RED RIVER BASINS WATER QUALITY OVERVIEW AND HIGHLIGHTS Canadian and Red River Basins Water Quality Overview, 2018 Texas IR Overview 10 TABLES Canadian River Basin 2018 Texas IR Impairment Listing 11 Red River Basin 2018 Texas IR Impairment Listing 12 Water Quality Monitoring Field Parameters, Conventional Laboratory Parameters Red River Authority Environmental Services Laboratory Environmental Services Division 15 2020 Canadian and Red River Basins Highlights Report ~ Page 3 2020 Canadian and Red River Basins Highlights Report ~ Page 4 INTRODUCTION In 1991, the Texas Legislature enacted the Texas Clean Rivers Act (Senate Bill 818) in order to assess water quality for each river basin in the state. From this, the Clean Rivers Program (CRP) was created and has become one of the most successful cooperative efforts between federal, state, and local agen- cies and the citizens of the State of Texas. It is implemented by the Texas Commission on Environ- mental Quality (TCEQ) through local partner agencies to achieve the CRP’s primary goal of maintain- ing and improving the water quality in each river basin.
  • RFP No. 212F for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub

    RFP No. 212F for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub

    1 RFP No. 212f for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub Final Report Contributing authors: David S. Ruppel, V. Alex Sotola, Ozlem Ablak Gurbuz, Noland H. Martin, and Timothy H. Bonner Addresses: Department of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666 (DSR, VAS, NHM, THB) Kirkkonaklar Anatolian High School, Turkish Ministry of Education, Ankara, Turkey (OAG) Principal investigators: Timothy H. Bonner and Noland H. Martin Email: [email protected], [email protected] Date: July 31, 2017 Style: American Fisheries Society Funding sources: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Turkish Ministry of Education- Visiting Scholar Program (OAG) Summary Four hundred mesohabitats were sampled from 36 sites and 20 reaches within the upper Red River drainage from September 2015 through September 2016. Fishes (N = 36,211) taken from the mesohabitats represented 14 families and 49 species with the most abundant species consisting of Red Shiner Cyprinella lutrensis, Red River Shiner Notropis bairdi, Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus, and Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. Red River Pupfish Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis (a species of greatest conservation need, SGCN) and Plains Killifish Fundulus zebrinus were more abundant within prairie streams (e.g., swift and shallow runs with sand and silt substrates) with high specific conductance. Red River Shiner (SGCN), Prairie Chub Macrhybopsis australis (SGCN), and Plains Minnow were more abundant within prairie 2 streams with lower specific conductance. The remaining 44 species of fishes were more abundant in non-prairie stream habitats with shallow to deep waters, which were more common in eastern tributaries of the upper Red River drainage and Red River mainstem. Prairie Chubs comprised 1.3% of the overall fish community and were most abundant in Pease River and Wichita River.
  • Classified Stream Segments and Assessments Units Covered by Hb 4146

    Classified Stream Segments and Assessments Units Covered by Hb 4146

    CLASSIFIED STREAM SEGMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS UNITS COVERED BY HB 4146 SEG ID River Basin Description Met criteria 0216 Red Wichita River Below Lake Kemp Dam 96.43% 0222 Red Salt Fork Red River 95.24% 0224 Red North Fork Red River 90.91% 1250 Brazos South Fork San Gabriel River 93.75% 1251 Brazos North Fork San Gabriel River 93.55% 1257 Brazos Brazos River Below Lake Whitney 90.63% 1415 Colorado Llano River 94.39% 1424 Colorado Middle Concho/South Concho River 95.24% 1427 Colorado Onion Creek 93.43% 1430 Colorado Barton Creek 98.25% 1806 Guadalupe Guadalupe River Above Canyon Lake 96.37% 1809 Guadalupe Lower Blanco River 95.83% 1811 Guadalupe Comal River 98.90% 1812 Guadalupe Guadalupe River Below Canyon Dam 96.98% 1813 Guadalupe Upper Blanco River 95.45% 1815 Guadalupe Cypress Creek 99.19% 1816 Guadalupe Johnson Creek 97.30% AU ID River Basin Description Met criteria 1817 Guadalupe North Fork Guadalupe River 100.00% 1414_01 Colorado Pedernales River 93.10% 1818 Guadalupe South Fork Guadalupe River 97.30% 1414_03 Colorado Pedernales River 91.38% 1905 San Antonio Medina River Above Medina Lake 100.00% 1416_05 Colorado San Saba River 100.00% 2111 Nueces Upper Sabinal River 100.00% Colorado River Below Lady Bird Lake 2112 Nueces Upper Nueces River 95.96% 1428_03 Colorado (formally Town Lake) 91.67% 2113 Nueces Upper Frio River 100.00% Medina River Below Medina 1903_04 San Antonio Diversion Lake 90.00% 2114 Nueces Hondo Creek 93.48% Medina River Below Medina 2115 Nueces Seco Creek 95.65% 1903_05 San Antonio Diversion Lake 96.84% 2309 Rio Grande Devils River 96.67% 1908_02 San Antonio Upper Cibolo Creek 97.67% 2310 Rio Grande Lower Pecos River 93.88% 2304_10 Rio Grande Rio Grande Below Amistad Reservoir 95.95% 2313 Rio Grande San Felipe Creek 95.45% 2311_01 Rio Grande Upper Pecos River 92.86% A detailed map of covered segments and assessment units can be found on the TCEQ website https://www.tceq.texas.gov/gis/nonpoint-source-project-viewer .
  • United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Land

    United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Land

    United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Land & Water Conservation Fund --- Detailed Listing of Grants Grouped by County --- Today's Date: 11/20/2008 Page: 1 Texas - 48 Grant ID & Type Grant Element Title Grant Sponsor Amount Status Date Exp. Date Cong. Element Approved District ANDERSON 396 - XXX D PALESTINE PICNIC AND CAMPING PARK CITY OF PALESTINE $136,086.77 C 8/23/1976 3/1/1979 2 719 - XXX D COMMUNITY FOREST PARK CITY OF PALESTINE $275,500.00 C 8/23/1979 8/31/1985 2 ANDERSON County Total: $411,586.77 County Count: 2 ANDREWS 931 - XXX D ANDREWS MUNICIPAL POOL CITY OF ANDREWS $237,711.00 C 12/6/1984 12/1/1989 19 ANDREWS County Total: $237,711.00 County Count: 1 ANGELINA 19 - XXX C DIBOLL CITY PARK CITY OF DIBOLL $174,500.00 C 10/7/1967 10/1/1971 2 215 - XXX A COUSINS LAND PARK CITY OF LUFKIN $113,406.73 C 8/4/1972 6/1/1973 2 297 - XXX D LUFKIN PARKS IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LUFKIN $49,945.00 C 11/29/1973 1/1/1977 2 512 - XXX D MORRIS FRANK PARK CITY OF LUFKIN $236,249.00 C 5/20/1977 1/1/1980 2 669 - XXX D OLD ORCHARD PARK CITY OF DIBOLL $235,066.00 C 12/5/1978 12/15/1983 2 770 - XXX D LUFKIN TENNIS IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LUFKIN $51,211.42 C 6/30/1980 6/1/1985 2 879 - XXX D HUNTINGTON CITY PARK CITY OF HUNTINGTON $35,313.56 C 9/26/1983 9/1/1988 2 ANGELINA County Total: $895,691.71 County Count: 7 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Land & Water Conservation Fund --- Detailed Listing of Grants Grouped by County --- Today's Date: 11/20/2008 Page: 2 Texas - 48 Grant ID & Type Grant Element Title Grant Sponsor Amount Status Date Exp.
  • National Register Nomination File

    National Register Nomination File

    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 1. Name of Property Historic Name: SH 203 (Old SH 52) Bridge at Salt Fork of the Red River Other name/site number: State Highway 52 Bridge at Salt Fork of the Red River Name of related multiple property listing: Historic Road Infrastructure of Texas 2. Location Street & number: Texas State Highway 203 at Salt Fork of the Red River City or town: Wellington State: Texas County: Collingsworth Not for publication: Vicinity: 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following levels of significance: national statewide local Applicable National Register Criteria: A B C D State Historic Preservation Officer ___________________________ Signature of certifying official / Title Date Texas Historical Commission State or Federal agency / bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria. _______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________ Signature of commenting or other official Date ____________________________________________________________ State or Federal agency / bureau or Tribal Government 4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that the property is: ___ entered in the National Register ___ determined eligible for the National Register ___ determined not eligible for the National Register.
  • Index of Surface Water Stations in Texas

    Index of Surface Water Stations in Texas

    1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY I AUSTIN, TEXAS INDEX OF SURFACE WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS Operated by the Water Resources Division of the Geological Survey in cooperation with State and Federal Agencies Gaging Station 08065000. Trinity River near Oakwood , October 1970 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey - Water Resources Division INDEX OF SURFACE WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS OCTOBER 1970 Copies of this report may be obtained from District Chief. Water Resources Division U.S. Geological Survey Federal Building Austin. Texas 78701 1970 CONTENTS Page Introduction ............................... ................•.......•...•..... Location of offices .........................................•..•.......... Description of stations................................................... 2 Definition of tenns........... • . 2 ILLUSTRATIONS Location of active gaging stations in Texas, October 1970 .•.•.•.••..•••••..•.. 1n pocket TABLES Table 1. Streamflow, quality, and reservoir-content stations •.•.•... ~........ 3 2. Low-fla.o~ partial-record stations.................................... 18 3. Crest-stage partial-record stations................................. 22 4. Miscellaneous sites................................................. 27 5. Tide-level stations........................ ........................ 28 ii INDEX OF SURFACE WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS OCTOBER 1970 The U.S. Geological Survey's investigations of the water resources of Texas are con­ ducted in cooperation with the Texas Water Development
  • Great Bowls of Fire Get Bragging Rights and a Handsome Keeping Your Community Strong

    Great Bowls of Fire Get Bragging Rights and a Handsome Keeping Your Community Strong

    THE CLARENDON 11.26.2015 The Texas Panhandle’s First Newspaper. Established 1878. Enterprise THE CLARENDON NEWS & THE DONLEY COUNTY LEADER www.ClarendonLive.com Single 00 Courthouse lighting, chili cookoff this Saturday Copy $1 The Christmas season will start endonLive.com. community. Chili Challenge with a chance to win plaque, and the ballot of one lucky in a big way in Clarendon this week- Small Business Saturday began Saturday’s highlight will be the $250 in Clarendon Cash. taster will receive $250 in Clarendon THIS WEEK end with merchant sales, the light- in 2010 when American Express second annual Courthouse Light- Chili Challenge ballots and a Cash from the Chamber. ing of the Courthouse, and the third founded it to help small businesses ing Celebration, beginning at 5 p.m. list of participating merchants will Also on Saturday night, the 2 Shopping at small annual Chili Challenge. get more exposure during one of the with an appearance by Santa Claus be available for $5 each from the VFW Ladies Auxiliary will hold a businesses can make a big Local merchants are ready to biggest shopping weekends of the and caroling featuring local chil- Clarendon Visitor Center at Mulkey soup dinner at the Clarendon Lions impact this holiday season. help you find something for every- year. dren’s groups. The formal lighting Theatre immediately following the Hall for $5 per person featuring 4 Peggy recalls past holiday one on your Christmas list with their According to small business will be at 6 p.m. Courthouse Lighting. Chili tasters homemade chicken noodle or potato cooking disasters.
  • Stormwater Management Program 2013-2018 Appendix A

    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).
  • [Short Report Title]

    [Short Report Title]

    Regional Water Plan – Panhandle Water Planning Area VOLUME I January, 2000 Prepared for the Panhandle Water Planning Group through a contract with the Panhandle Regional Water Plan Regional Planning Panhandle Water Planning Area Commission Amarillo, Texas PPC99134 Prepared by: Freese and Nichols, Inc. 4055 International Plaza Suite 200 Fort Worth, TX 76109 817/735-7300 The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station The Texas Agricultural Extension Service USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Bureau of Economic Geology TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I Chapter No. Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E-1 1.0 SENATE BILL 1 1-1 1.1 REGIONAL WATER PLANNING AREA 1-3 1.1.1 Population 1-4 1.1.2 Economic Activities 1-8 1.1.3 Climate 1-9 1.2 Major Water Providers 1-11 1.3 Sources of Water 1-12 1.3.1 Groundwater 1-12 1.3.2 Surface Water 1-20 1.4 Current Water Users and Demand Centers 1-25 1.4.1 Municipal Use 1-25 1.4.2 Industrial Use 1-26 1.4.3 Agricultural Use 1-28 1.5 Natural Resources 1-32 1.5.1 Natural Region 1-32 1.5.2 Regional Vegetation 1-34 1.5.3 Regional Geology 1-37 1.5.4 Mineral Resources 1-37 1.5.5 Soils 1-39 1.5.6 Wetlands 1-41 1.5.7 Aquatic Resources 1-42 1.5.8 Wildlife Resources 1-43 1.6 Threats and Constraints to Water Supply 1-44 1.7 Existing Programs and Goals 1-47 1.7.1 Federal Programs 1-47 1.7.2 Interstate Programs 1-48 1.7.3 State Programs 1-49 1.7.4 Local Programs 1-51 1.7.5 Other Information 1-52 2.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND FOR THE REGION 2-1 2.1 Population 2-3 2.2 Historical Water Use and Projected Water Demand 2-6 2.3 Major Water Providers 2-16 3.0 EVALUATION OF ADEQUACY OF CURRENT WATER SUPPLIES 3-1 3.1 Groundwater Supplies 3-2 3.1.1 Major Aquifers 3-5 3.1.2 Minor Aquifers 3-7 3.2 Surface Water Supplies 3-10 i TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I Chapter No.
  • Application and Utility of a Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial System to Manage and Conserve Aquatic Resources in Four Texas Rivers

    Application and Utility of a Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial System to Manage and Conserve Aquatic Resources in Four Texas Rivers

    Application and Utility of a Low-cost Unmanned Aerial System to Manage and Conserve Aquatic Resources in Four Texas Rivers Timothy W. Birdsong, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744 Megan Bean, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 5103 Junction Highway, Mountain Home, TX 78058 Timothy B. Grabowski, U.S. Geological Survey, Texas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Texas Tech University, Agricultural Sciences Building Room 218, MS 2120, Lubbock, TX 79409 Thomas B. Hardy, Texas State University – San Marcos, 951 Aquarena Springs Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Thomas Heard, Texas State University – San Marcos, 951 Aquarena Springs Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Derrick Holdstock, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 3036 FM 3256, Paducah, TX 79248 Kristy Kollaus, Texas State University – San Marcos, 951 Aquarena Springs Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Stephan Magnelia, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, P.O. Box 1685, San Marcos, TX 78745 Kristina Tolman, Texas State University – San Marcos, 951 Aquarena Springs Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Abstract: Low-cost unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have recently gained increasing attention in natural resources management due to their versatility and demonstrated utility in collection of high-resolution, temporally-specific geospatial data. This study applied low-cost UAS to support the geospatial data needs of aquatic resources management projects in four Texas rivers. Specifically, a UAS was used to (1) map invasive salt cedar (multiple species in the genus Tamarix) that have degraded instream habitat conditions in the Pease River, (2) map instream meso-habitats and structural habitat features (e.g., boulders, woody debris) in the South Llano River as a baseline prior to watershed-scale habitat improvements, (3) map enduring pools in the Blanco River during drought conditions to guide smallmouth bass removal efforts, and (4) quantify river use by anglers in the Guadalupe River.
  • Beetle - Mania Is a Ne Wsletter on Biological Control of Saltcedar in Texas, and Is Written and Produced by Allen Knutson , Texas A&M Agrilife Extension

    Beetle - Mania Is a Ne Wsletter on Biological Control of Saltcedar in Texas, and Is Written and Produced by Allen Knutson , Texas A&M Agrilife Extension

    BEETLE - MANIA IS A NE WSLETTER ON BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF SALTCEDAR IN TEXAS, AND IS WRITTEN AND PRODUCED BY ALLEN KNUTSON , TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE EXTENSION. TO BE INCLUDED ON THE MAILING LIST, PLEASE CONTACT ALLEN KNUTSON. BEETLE - MANIA BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF SALTCEDAR IN TEXAS VOL. 4 NO. 2 SUMMER - F A L L 2 0 1 2 2012. 2012. A A Very Very Good Good Year Year for for : TamariskSaltcedar Leaf Leaf Beetles Beetles in in Texas Texas ! ! The saltcedar leaf beetle feeds only on During 2012, saltcedar leaf seem to favor increase of river miles. However, follow- beetle populations increased saltcedar leaf beetles. If the ing the prolonged freeze, of saltcedar and athel. and dispersed at many loca- winter of 2012-2013 is again February 2011, none were Athel is a closely tions across the state and mild, leaf beetles should re- found and this species is now related species that more saltcedar trees were turn in force next year. believed to be absent from this grows along the Rio defoliated than ever before. There are now three spe- region. A second species, the After the early February cies of leaf beetle established subtropical leaf beetle Grande River in 2011 freeze, beetle popula- in Texas; the Uzbek beetle in (Tunisian) was released at five Texas. tions were low or absent at the Panhandle, the Mediterra- sites on the Pecos River in many sites last summer. nean (Crete) leaf beetle on 2010-2011 and quickly estab- However, the mild winter of the Upper Colorado River, lished and increased. During If saltcedar or 2011-2012 favored survival of and the subtropical leaf beetle 2012, this species, originally athel trees are not overwintering beetles.
  • Index of Surface-Water Stations in Texas, January 1989

    Index of Surface-Water Stations in Texas, January 1989

    INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS, JANUARY 1989 Compiled by Jack Rawson, E.R. Carrillo, and H.D. Buckner U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 89-265 Austin, Texas 1989 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can write to: be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports 8011 Cameron Road Federal Center, Bldg. 810 Austin, Texas 78753 Box 25425 Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Introduction.......................................................... 1 Definition of terms................................................... 2 Availability of data .................................................. 3 ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1. Map showing the locations of active surface-water stations in Texas, January 1989.................................... In pocket 2. Map showing the locations of active partia1-record surface- water stations in Texas, January 1989..................... In pocket TABLES Table 1. Streamflow, quality, reservoir-content, and partial-record stations maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with State and Federal agencies............... 5 111 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS JANUARY 1989 Compi1ed by Jack Rawson, E.R. Carrillo, and H.D. Buckner INTRODUCTION The U.S. Geological Survey's investigations of the water resources of Texas are conducted in cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board, river authorities, cities, counties, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Interna­ tional Boundary and Water Commission, and others. Investigations are under the general direction of C.W. Boning, District Chief, Texas District. The Texas District office is located at 8011A Cameron Road, Austin, Texas 78753.