DOCSLIB.ORG

Index of Surface Water Stations in Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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 Board, Texas Highway Department, river authorities, cities, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, and others. Investigations are under the general direction of Trigg Twichell, District Chief, Water Resources Division. The Texas District Office is located in the Federal Building, 300 East 8th Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Copies of basic data prior to publication and other unpublished records may be obtained upon request. Information regarding provisional records of discharge prior to publication and other hydrologic data collected within their respective areas may also be obtained from any of the five subdistrict offices located in Fort Worth, Houston, San Angelo, San Antonio, and Wichita Falls. Requests for information from subdistrict offices should be directed to the following: J. H. Montgomery, Subdistrict Chief R. E. Smith, Subdistrict Chief U.S. Geological Survey, WRD U.S. Geological Survey, WRD P. 0. Box 6976 2320 LaBranch Street, Room 174 Fort Worth Federal Center, Bldg. 23 Houston, Texas 77004 Fort Worth, Texas 76104 E. S. Denison, Subdistrict Chief A. E. Hulme, Subdistrict Chief U.S. Geological Survey, WRD U.S. Geological Survey, WRD 1409 Knickerbocker Road 7077 San Pedro, Room 116 San Angelo, Texas 76901 San Antonio, Texas 78216 J. 0. Joerns, Subdistrict Chief U.S. Geo 1ogi ca 1 Survey~ WRD 318-320A Federal Building Wichita Falls, Texas 76301 This index shows the station number and name, type of record collected, and the office at which the basic data are permanently filed. A permanent numerical designation for ~aging stations has been adopted on a nationwide basis; stations are numbered and listed in downstream order. In this report, in a downstream direction along the main stem, all stations on a tribu­ tary entering above a main-stem station are listed before that station. A tributary entering between two main-stem stations is listed between them. A similar order is followed in listing stations on first rank, second rank, and other ranks of tributaries. To indicate the rank of any tributary on which a gaging station is situated and the stream to which ,it is an immediate tributary, each indention in the listing of gaging stations represents one rank. This down­ stream order and system of indention show which gaging stations are on tributaries between any two stations on a main stem and the rank of the tributary on which each gaging station is sit­ uated. As of October 1, 1970, 481 streamflow, 75 reservoir-content, 14 stage, 113 low-flow partial-record, 192 crest-stage partial-record, 3 miscellaneous, 107 chemical quality, 25 continuous recording water-quality, 92 periodic chemical-quality, 133 periodic organic quality, 111 pesticides, 10 sediment, 26 periodic sediment, and 53 reservoir inventory stations were in operation. -1- At each STREAMFLOW STATION a permanent gage is maintained from which a daily record of stage is obtained. Actual measurements of discharge are made to develop stage-discharge re~ation curve. Discharge records showing the mean daily discharge in cubic feet per second, peak dls­ charges for the major floods of each year, and total monthly and yearly runoff expressed in acre­ feet, are computed from basic hydrologic data on the basis of the water year ending September 30. At each RESERVOIR-CONTENT STATION the data consist of a description of the station and a monthly summary table of stage and contents. For some reservoirs a table showing daily contents is given. PARTIAL-RECORD STATION. As the number of streams on which streamflow information is likely to be desired far exceeds the number of streamflow stations feasible to operate at one time, the Geological Survey collects limited streamflow data at sites other than streamflow sta­ tions. When limited streamflow data are collected on a systematic basis over a period of years for use in hydrologic analyses, the site at which the data are collected is called a PARTIAL­ RECORD STATION. There are two kinds of partial-record stations: (1) Those operated for the pur­ pose of defining annual minimum discharges, low-flow partial-record stations; and ·.(2) those oper­ ated for the purpose of defining annual maximum discharges, crest-stage partial-record stations. At each CHEMICAL-QUALITY STATION samples are collected for analysis. At most stations, daily samples are collected and the temperature is measured. At daily stations where discharge records are available, discharge-weighted average concentrations of the chemical constituents are computed for each water year·. At each PERIODIC CHEMICAL-QUALITY STATION a sample for chemical analysis is collected at about one-month intervals. An attempt is made to collect samples over as wide a range in discharge as possible. Periodic chemical-quality stations are operated in conjunction with a streamflow sta­ tion or a partial-record station. At PERIODIC ORGANIC QUALITY STATIONS from 6 to 12 samples per year are collected for analysis. The analysis includes biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), dissolved oxygen (DO), nitrate (N03), phosphate (P04), and pH. At many of the stations all the above determinations are made and many of the stations are at daily chemical-quality stations. At PESTICIDE STATIONS samples are collected from 4 to 12 times per year for analysis. Bottom deposit samples are collected at selected stations for pesticide analysis 4 times a year. SEDIMENT STATIONS are maintained to determine the quantity of sediment transported by streams. Samples are collected on a daily, weekly, or periodic schedule for determinations of suspended load, particle-size distribution of suspended load and bed material, or unmeasured­ sediment discharge. In addition to streamflow information collected at the regular gaging stations and the partial-record stations, measurements of flow and chemical quality-of-water data have been col­ lected for specific purposes at various other locations in the State. Many of these measurements show the peak discharge for the greatest flood that has been known to occur at that site. Others show minimum flows or channel losses experienced in various streams. Water-supply papers, circulars, and other reports containing special detailed information on flood discharges, rainfall intensities, hydrology of small watersheds and other related data, have been prepared by the Geological Survey. In addition to published reports, records not yet published and file copies of special reports covering floods and other special investigations are available for consultation at the district and subdistrict offices of the Geological Survey in Texas. -2- Table 1.--Streamflow, quality, and reservoir-content stations. Surface-water stations maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with State and federal agencies. Permanent Type of Per~anent location station No. Station record of record a/ ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN Arkansas River: Canadian River: 07227448 Punta de Agua Creek near Channing, Tex. DQp Wichita Falls 07227470 Canadian River at Tas cos a, Tex. DQOpP Do. 07227500 Canadian River near Amarillo, Tex. DQOpP Do. 07227900 Lake Meredith near Sanford, Tex. R Do. 07228000 Canadian River near Canadian, Tex. DOpP Do. North Canadian River: 07233500 Palo Duro Creek near Spearman, Tex. DQp Do. 07235000 Wolf Creek at Lipscomb, Tex. D Do. RED RIVER BASIN Red River: Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River: 07295500 Tierra Blanca Creek above Buffalo Lake near D Wichita Falls lhnbarger, Tex. 07296000 Buffalo Lake near Umbarger, Tex. R Do. 07296100 Tierra Blanca Creek below Buffalo Lake near D Do. Umbarger, Tex. 07297910 Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River near Wayside, Tex. DQc Do. Tule Creek: 07298000 North Tule Draw at reservoir near' Tulia, Tex. D Do. 07298200 Tule Creek near Silverton, Tex. DQp Do. 07299200 Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River near Lakeview, Tex. DQc Do. 07299300 Little Red River near Turkey, Tex. DQc Do. 07299540 Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River near Childress,
Recommended publications
  • University of Texas Bulletin No

    University of Texas Bulletin No

    University of Texas Bulletin No. 2607: February IS, 1926 THE SAN ANGELO FORMATION THE GEOLOGY OF FOARD COUNTY J. W. BEEDE AND D. D. CHRISTNER BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY J. A. Udden, Director E. H. Sellards, Associate Director PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN Publications of the University of Texas Publications Committee : Frederic Duncalf C. T. McCormick D. G. Cooke E. K.McGinnis J. L.Henderson H. J. MULLER E. J. Mathews Hal G Weaver The University publishes bulletins four times a month, so numbered that the first two digits of the number show the year of issue, the last two the position in the yearly series. (For example, No. 2201 is the first bulletin of the year 1922.) These comprise the official publications of the University, publications on humanistic and scientific sub- jects, bulletins prepared by the Divisionof Extension, by the Bureau of Economic Geology, and other bulletins of general educational interest. With the exception of special num- bers, any bulletin willbe sent to a citizen of Texas free on request. Allcommunications about University publications should be addressed to University Publications, University of Texas, Austin. oiSi§ste> UNIVERSITY OP TEXAS PRESS. AUSTIN University of Texas Bulletin No. 2607: February 15, 1926 THE SAN ANGELO FORMATION THE GEOLOGY OF FOARD COUNTY J. W. BEEDE AND D. D. CHRISTNER BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY J. A. Udden, Director E. H. Sellards, Associate Director PUBLISHED BYTHE UNIVERSITYFOUR TIMES AMONTH,AND ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER AT THE POSTOFFICE AT AUSTIN,TEXAS, UNDER THEACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912 The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally diffused through a community, are essential to the preservation of a free govern- ment.
  • 4-Year Work Plan by District for Fys 2015-2018

    4-Year Work Plan by District for Fys 2015-2018

    4 Year Work Plan by District for FYs 2015 - 2018 Overview Section §201.998 of the Transportation code requires that a Department Work Program report be provided to the Legislature. Under this law, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) provides the following information within this report. Consistently-formatted work program for each of TxDOT's 25 districts based on Unified Transportation Program. Covers four-year period and contains all projects that the district proposes to implement during that period. Includes progress report on major transportation projects and other district projects. Per 43 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 16 Subchapter C rule §16.106, a major transportation project is the planning, engineering, right of way acquisition, expansion, improvement, addition, or contract maintenance, other than the routine or contracted routine maintenance, of a bridge, highway, toll road, or toll road system on the state highway system that fulfills or satisfies a particular need, concern, or strategy of the department in meeting the transportation goals established under §16.105 of this subchapter (relating to Unified Transportation Program (UTP)). A project may be designated by the department as a major transportation project if it meets one or more of the criteria specified below: 1) The project has a total estimated cost of $500 million or more. All costs associated with the project from the environmental phase through final construction, including adequate contingencies and reserves for all cost elements, will be included in computing the total estimated cost regardless of the source of funding. The costs will be expressed in year of expenditure dollars. 2) There is a high level of public or legislative interest in the project.
  • Guide to MS042 International Boundary and Water Commission Records

    Guide to MS042 International Boundary and Water Commission Records

    University of Texas at El Paso ScholarWorks@UTEP Finding Aids Special Collections Department 12-9-1975 Guide to MS042 International Boundary and Water Commission records Raymond Daguerre Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.utep.edu/finding_aid This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Special Collections Department at ScholarWorks@UTEP. It has been accepted for inclusion in Finding Aids by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UTEP. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Guide to MS042 International Boundary and Water Commission records Span dates, 1850 – 1997 Bulk dates, 1953 – 1974 3 feet, 5 inches (linear) Processed by Raymond P. Daguerre December 9, 1975 Donated by Joseph Friedkin, International Boundary and Water Commission. Citation: International Boundary and Water Commission, 1975, MS042, C.L. Sonnichsen Special Collections Department. The University of Texas at El Paso Library. C.L. Sonnichsen Special Collections Department University of Texas at El Paso IBWC Biography or Historical Sketch Established in 1889, the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) has responsibility for applying the boundary and water treaties between the United States and Mexico and settling differences that may arise in their application. The IBWC is an international body composed of the United States Section and the Mexican Section, each headed by an Engineer-Commissioner appointed by his/her respective president. Each Section is administered independently of the other. The United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) is a federal government agency and is headquartered in El Paso, Texas. The IBWC operates under the foreign policy guidance of the Department of State.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Stream Monitoring and Educational Program in the Red River Basin

    Stream Monitoring and Educational Program in the Red River Basin

    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.
  • 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).
  • Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4 COLA

    Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4 COLA

    Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4 COL Application Part 3 - Environmental Report CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................ 2.0-1 2.1 STATION LOCATION ................................................................................................. 2.1-1 2.1.1 REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 2.1-2 2.2 LAND........................................................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1 THE SITE AND VICINITY .................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1.1 The Site........................................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1.2 The Vicinity...................................................................................................... 2.2-2 2.2.2 TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AND OFF-SITE AREAS..................................... 2.2-5 2.2.3 THE REGION........................................................................................................ 2.2-6 2.2.4 REFERENCES:..................................................................................................... 2.2-7 2.3 WATER ...................................................................................................................... 2.3-1 2.3.1 HYDROLOGY ......................................................................................................
  • Rio Grande Project

    Rio Grande Project

    Rio Grande Project Robert Autobee Bureau of Reclamation 1994 Table of Contents Rio Grande Project.............................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................3 Project Authorization.....................................................6 Construction History .....................................................7 Post-Construction History................................................15 Settlement of the Project .................................................19 Uses of Project Water ...................................................22 Conclusion............................................................25 Suggested Readings ...........................................................25 About the Author .............................................................25 Bibliography ................................................................27 Manuscript and Archival Collections .......................................27 Government Documents .................................................27 Articles...............................................................27 Books ................................................................29 Newspapers ...........................................................29 Other Sources..........................................................29 Index ......................................................................30 1 Rio Grande Project At the twentieth
  • Results of Streamflow Gain-Loss Studies in Texas, with Emphasis on Gains from and Losses to Major and Minor Aquifers

    Results of Streamflow Gain-Loss Studies in Texas, with Emphasis on Gains from and Losses to Major and Minor Aquifers

    DistrictCover.fm Page 1 Thursday, February 14, 2002 1:33 PM In cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board Results of Streamflow Gain-Loss Studies in Texas, With Emphasis on Gains From and Losses to Major and Minor Aquifers Open-File Report 02–068 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Results of Streamflow Gain-Loss Studies in Texas, With Emphasis on Gains From and Losses to Major and Minor Aquifers By Raymond M. Slade, Jr., J. Taylor Bentley, and Dana Michaud U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 02–068 In cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board Austin, Texas 2002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, 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 District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 8027 Exchange Dr. Austin, TX 78754–4733 E-mail: [email protected] Copies of this report can be purchased from U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225–0286 E-mail: [email protected] ii CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................
  • December 2014 Congressional Report (PDF)

    December 2014 Congressional Report (PDF)

    EPA Review under Clean Water Act Section 404 Congressional Request: 113 HR 3547 – Water: Ecosystems Fiscal Year 2015– December Section I. of the following table lists the Corps of Engineers Individual Standard Permit public notices received by EPA in December 2014 and all comment letters on individual standard permit public notices issued by EPA in December 2014. Section II. of the following table lists all comment letters on Corps of Engineers Individual Standard Permit public notices issued by EPA between October 1, 2013 and November 31, 2014. Where the Corps has made a final permit decision, it is documented below and will not appear in subsequent reports. During this reporting period, EPA received 136 Individual standard permit public notices, performed a detailed review of 89%, and subsequently provided comment letters on 10% of them. EPA is not the only commenter on Corps public notices. Other federal and state agencies and the public routinely provide comments to the Corps. Of the new public notices in Section I, the Corps has issued 14 permits, 0 permit were denied, 8 applications were withdrawn, 108 are still being processed, and 1 was verified as General Permit. Days Date(s) Date of Final Corps DA under Project Name Tracked by EPA County State EPA Review Received by Comment Decision by Decision Number review by EPA2 Letter(s)2 the Corps Date4 EPA2,3 Section I. New Actions (Public Notices and Comment Letters) SAJ-2009- Detailed Review – Municipality of Caguas Caguas Puerto Rico N/A N/A N/A TBD TBD 02331 general comments SAJ-2014-