DOCSLIB.ORG

Update on Preliminary Sampling Activities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Update on Preliminary Sampling Activities INSTREAM FLOWS RESEARCH AND VALIDATION METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK EXPERT WORKSHOP JULY 29, 2017 OVERVIEW • Funded - Texas Water Development Board • Via the SB3 BBASC process • 1st round – 2014-2015 • 2nd round – 2016-2017 • Three major basins • Guadalupe – San Antonio Basin • Colorado – Lavaca Basin • Brazos Basin – including Brazos Estuary • Project goals: • To enhance the understanding of flow-ecology relationships in the three major basins • To initiate the process for developing a methodology for testing established flow standards ECOLOGICAL COMPONENTS • Aquatic • Riparian • Oxbow Connectivity • Brazos Estuary SAMPLING ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS BRAZOS ESTUARY - George Guillen Brazos Estuary Characterization Influence of Freshwater Inflow on Nekton of the Brazos River Estuary George Guillen, Jenny Oakley, Mandi Moss and Cory Scanes and Tyler Swanson Environmental Institute of Houston University of Clear Lake BBASC Meeting San Antonio, TX, June 28, 2017 Alber (2002) Sediments Nutrients Salinity Biota Positive Salt-Wedge Estuary Salt-wedge and Turbidity Maxima – another effect of the salt wedge and freshwater mixing science.kennesaw.edu Many juvenile organisms require access to upstream tidal creeks and rivers. Deegan 1985 6/30/2017 10 Freshwater Inflow vs. Salinity, Dissolved oxygen, Biota Day6/30/2017 et al. 1989 11 Freshwater inflow creates a mosaic of habitat for both freshwater and marine organisms Nybakken and Bertness 2004 6/30/2017 12 Default Freshwater Inflow Standards for Brazos River Estuary is the freshwater inflow standard for this gage site Study Objectives 1. Characterize the estuarine flow regime, and water quality (salinity, dissolved oxygen) - Phase 1 and 2 2. Quantify species composition, distribution and density of juvenile and adult nekton, and 3. Validate environmental flow recommendations in the lower tidal portion of the Brazos River using historical AND current data. Data Collection Historical Johnson 1977 (Feb 1973-Jan 1975) Kirkpatrick 1979 – limited summer 1977 data Emitte 1983 – limited survey 1982 Miller 2014 (2012 nekton data) Phase 1: (Nov. ‘14 – May ’15 – 10 events) Phase 2: (Dec. ‘16-May ‘17 - 6 events) Study Area Methods • USGS flows at Rosharon gage = “index” of the flow regime in the lower estuary. Compliance point for flow standard. Reviewed historical data Evaluated surface and bottom water temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen versus flow regime salinity and dissolved oxygen (bottom – surface values) index of stratification calculated. Evaluate response of nekton to changing flow, salinity and dissolved oxygen Current Study • 5 primary sites; 1, 10, 22, 31, 42 rkm; 4 secondary sites (Nov 2014 - May 2015; Dec 16- May ‘17) • Monitored various flow tiers. • Trawling – (3 rep) 10 ft, 5 minute tow, ¼” mesh; (3 rep) 4 ft wide, 1/8” mesh in cod –end. • Renfro Beam trawl – shoreline. Each primary site (3 reps; 1/8 inch mesh). • Water quality profiles – 1, 5, 10, 15, 22, 25, 31, 36, and 42 rkm, temp, pH, sal, DO, NTU • Continuous monitoring sondes: rkm 10, 22, 36 Methods • Sampling limited to periods < 10,000 cfs for safety and logistical operation • Biological data exploration: PRIMER - cluster analysis, NMDS, ANOSIM. • Linear (linear, quadratic, cubic) – salinity vs. flow • ANOVA – variable, flow X rkm • Limited comparisons with historical data – flow regime Preliminary Results Focus on most recent study 100,000 2014-15 2ps 2ps 2ps 2ps 4ps 4ps 10,000 Wet Average 1,000 Dry Subsistence 100 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2012 100,000 1ps 1ps USGS Rosharon Gage 2ps Base Flow 3ps Event: HFP Event: Base/Sub Flow 10,000 Wet Mean Daily Discharge (cfs) Average 1,000 Dry Subsistence 100 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Miller 2012 Phase 1 Phase 2 Salinity (psu) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 0.2 April 1 - 2ps April 1 - 2ps 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 April 28 - 2ps April 28 - 2ps 0.4 Current Study 0.6 0.8 0.2 Feb 4 - 2ps Feb 4 - 2ps 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 May 6 - 2ps May 6 - 2ps 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 Dec 9 - 4ps Dec 9 - 4ps 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 Jan 6 - 4ps Jan 6 - 4ps % of Total Depth 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 Feb 18 - Avg Feb 18 - Avg 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 Nov 11 - Dry Nov 11 - Dry 0.4 0.6 0.8 B42 B36 B31 B26 B22 B15 B10 B05 B01 B42 B36 B31 B26 B22 B15 B10 B05 B01 0 15 30 12 6 2 Salinity psu DO (mg/L) (Six Dates: Dec. '16- May '17) Trawl Nekton - Dec '16 - May '17 Group average Transform: Square root Resemblance: S17 Bray-Curtis similarity 0 Cluster b c 20 a 40 y t i r a l i m i S 60 80 100 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 4 2 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 4 River km (Six Dates: Dec. '16- May '17) Shallow Water Nekton - Dec '16 - May '17 Group average Transform: Square root Resemblance: S17 Bray-Curtis similarity 0 Site 1 20 10 22 31 42 y 40 t i r a l i m i S 60 80 100 5 1 0 1 1 1 0 5 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 0 1 1 0 / / / / / / / / / / 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 / 2 / / 2 2 / / 2 / / / / / 5 / / / / / 5 5 / / 2 / 5 5 / 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 5 5 5 1 5 5 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 River km Current Study (Phase 1) and Miller (2014) combined. Significant relationship between salinity vs. flow tier and discharge Current (Phase 1) and Miller 2014 Study: Otter and Beam Trawl NMDS plot for nekton abundance (log+1 transformed with Bray-Curtis resemblance) from 2012 and 2014-15 using combined otter trawl and beam trawl data. Relationships by Flow Tier (from top right to bottom left) and Site location (from bottom right to top left) are shown with general trend lines. Points are labeled by Flow Tier Category (1=Subsistence flow 2=dry base flow, 3=average wet flow, 5=four per season, 7=two per season events, and 8=one per season.. Conclusions Salinity and dissolved oxygen responds rapidly to changes in freshwater inflow. Prob. of hypoxia lower when flow is high and salt wedge is reduced or pushed downstream Species composition sensitive to salinity but some species exhibit strong seasonal response, i.e. overall proportion of each species may be less sensitive = broad tolerance to salinity changes? Latitudinal gradients related to salinity and dissolved oxygen are likely interacting with strong seasonal pulses of juvenile fish. Recommended Future Work Targeted investigation of flow tiers during summer /early fall months: currently lacking; critical period for dissolved oxygen Mark/recapture, length freq, otolith aging to evaluate growth of immigrating YOY fish vs. flow regime Stable isotope analysis – assess contribution of upstream nutrients to estuarine juvenile fauna Response of larval fish and zooplankton communities to flow regime - ongoing Telemetry of larger fauna (alligator, juvenile bull shark) Acknowledgments • Funding: Biowest, TWDB, EIH, UHCL • Collaborators and Reviewers: Edmond Oborny - BioWest, Dr. Tim Bonner - TX. State University; Dr. Jacquelyn Duke – Baylor; Dr. Kirk Winemiller – TAMU Phase 1 only. • Field Assistance: Phase 1: Kristi Fazioli, Bryan Alleman, Michael Lane, Natasha Zarnstorff, Sherah Loe, Rachel Byrne, James Yokely, Josi Robertson, Nicole Morris & Raphaelita Bishara; Phase 2: Kristi, Tyler Swanson, Natasha, Sherah, James, Nicole, Raul Sarmiento, Anna Vallery, Kaylei Chau Questions? Citations Alber, 2002. A conceptual model of estuarine freshwater inflow management. Estuaries 25(68): 1246-1261. Anderson, J.B. 2007. Formation and future of the Upper Texas Coast. Bird, E. 2000. Coastal Geomorphology. Day, J.W. et al. Estuarine Ecology. 1989. McFarlane et al. 2015. The effect of four environmental parameters on the structure of estuarine shoreline communities in TX. Ecosphere 6(12): 258 McLusky, D. and M. Elliott. 2006. The Estuarine Ecosystem. Tolan, J.M. 2013. Estuarine fisheries community level response to freshwater inflows Coastal and Estuarine 6/30/2017 39 Ecology SAMPLING ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS OXBOW CONNECTIVITY - Brad Littrell IMPORTANCE OF FLOODPLAIN CONNECTIVITY • Habitat for unique floodplain specialists • Maintains basin-level diversity • Provides important recruitment habitat for many species Slough darter Etheostoma gracile • Source-sink dynamics • Periodic connection is necessary to maintain water levels and allow for biotic exchange FLOODPLAIN SPECIALISTS OTHER FLOODPLAIN INHABITANTS FLOODPLAIN CONNECTIVITY • Previous studies described ecological function and connection discharge for Brazos River oxbows • No such data was available in GSA basin • What fish communities inhabit these areas? What flows are required to connect them? 44 FLOODPLAIN CONNECTIVITY FIRST ROUND • 7 floodplain lakes evaluated • 5 on lower Guadalupe • 2 on lower San Antonio • Fish Community Data • Electrofishing, seining • Connection Data • Elevation of control points and water surface • Connection discharge interpolated from nearest gauges (Osting et al. 2004) FISH COMMUNITY DATA • Species richness ranged from 2 – 23 among floodplain collections • Fish communities significantly different between floodplain and riverine collections 100% 90% 80% 70% Riverine Species Riverine 60% - 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Percent Riverine vs. Non vs. Riverine Percent 0% % Riverine % Non-Riverine FLOODPLAIN VS. RIVERINE Family Scientific Name Common Name Classification Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Floodplain Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Generalist Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Floodplain Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Floodplain Cyprinidae Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Riverine Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Floodplain Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Riverine Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner Riverine Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stormwater Management Program 2013-2018 Appendix A
    Appendix A 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) As required under Sections 303(d) and 304(a) of the federal Clean Water Act, this list identifies the water bodies in or bordering Texas for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards, and for which the associated pollutants are suitable for measurement by maximum daily load. In addition, the TCEQ also develops a schedule identifying Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that will be initiated in the next two years for priority impaired waters. Issuance of permits to discharge into 303(d)-listed water bodies is described in the TCEQ regulatory guidance document Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (January 2003, RG-194). Impairments are limited to the geographic area described by the Assessment Unit and identified with a six or seven-digit AU_ID. A TMDL for each impaired parameter will be developed to allocate pollutant loads from contributing sources that affect the parameter of concern in each Assessment Unit. The TMDL will be identified and counted using a six or seven-digit AU_ID. Water Quality permits that are issued before a TMDL is approved will not increase pollutant loading that would contribute to the impairment identified for the Assessment Unit. Explanation of Column Headings SegID and Name: The unique identifier (SegID), segment name, and location of the water body. The SegID may be one of two types of numbers. The first type is a classified segment number (4 digits, e.g., 0218), as defined in Appendix A of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS).
    [Show full text]
  • Lampasas River Watershed Final Report
    Texas Water Resources Institute TR-442 April 2013 Bacterial Source Tracking to Support the Development and Implementation of Watershed Protection Plans for the Lampasas and Leon Rivers Lampasas River Watershed Final Report L. Gregory, E. Casarez, J. Truesdale, G. Di Giovanni, R. Owen, J. Wolfe Bacterial Source Tracking to Support the Development and Implementation of Watershed Protection Plans for the Lampasas and Leon Rivers Lampasas River Watershed Final Report Funding provided through a Texas State General Revenue Grant from the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board TSSWCB Project 10-51 Authored By: Lucas Gregory1, Elizabeth Casarez2, Joy Truesdale2, George Di Giovanni2, Tony Owen3, and June Wolfe3 1Texas A&M AgriLife Research– Texas Water Resource Institute 2University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health El Paso Regional Campus 3Texas A&M AgriLife Research - Blackland Research and Extension Center Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report 442 April 2013 Table of Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... iii Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................... iv Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... v Figures ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife & Watershed Planning
    Wildlife & Watershed Planning Kevin Wagner, PhD WPPs & TMDLs Addressing Non-Domesticated Species (Wildlife) Wildlife Measures in 10 of 11 EPA Accepted WPPs Attoyac Bayou Buck Creek Cypress Creek Geronimo & Alligator Creeks Lake Granbury Lampasas River Leon River Plum Creek Upper Cibolo Creek Upper San Antonio River Wildlife Measures Included in TMDL Implementation Plans Copano Bay Dickinson Bayou Gilleland Creek Guadalupe River above Canyon Texas BST Studies To Date 5-Way Split (averages based on findings in 10 watersheds) Non-Avian Avian Wildlife Wildlife 32% 18% Pets Unidentified 5% 11% All Livestock Human 24% 10% Mean Background Levels in Runoff Fecal Coliform E. coli Site (#/100 mL) (cfu/100 mL) Reference Ungrazed pasture 10,000 Robbins et al. 1972 Ungrazed pasture 6,600 Doran et al. 1981 Control plots 6,800 Guzman et al. 2010 Pasture destocked >2 mos. 1,000-10,000 Collins et al. 2005 Ungrazed pasture 6,200-11,000 Wagner et al. 2012 Pasture destocked >2 wks. 2,200-6,000 Wagner et al. 2012 Impacts of Migratory Wildlife E. coli concentrations at ungrazed site BB1 (2009-2010) Date BB1 BB2 BB3 300,000 3/13/09 140 3/25/09 1,200 250,000 3/26/09 1,000 7,200 /100 mL) 3/27/09 2,000 200,000 cfu 4/17/09 1,155 980 450 4/18/09 4,400 2,225 2,100 150,000 4/28/09 7,600 12,200 24,000 100,000 10/4/09 57,000 5,114 3,065 Concentration ( 10/9/09 36,000 24,043 15,000 coli 50,000 10/13/09 42,851 23,826 5,591 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributional Surveys of Freshwater Bivalves in Texas: Progress Report for 1999
    DISTRIBUTIONAL SURVEYS OF FRESHWATER BIVALVES IN TEXAS: PROGRESS REPORT FOR 1999 by Robert G. Howells MANAGEMENT DATA SERIES No. 170 2000 Texas Parks and Wildlife Inland Fisheries Division 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many biologists and technicians with Texas Parks and Wildlife's (TPWD) Inland Fisheries Research and Management offices assisted with surveys and collections of freshwater mussels. Pam Baker (Kerrville, Texas) assisted the HOH staff with collections on the Pecos River and the Rio Grande. Baldo Loya (Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, Mission, Texas) assisted with survey efforts in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Volunteers also collected mussel survey data; these included: Marv Eisthen (Dallas, Texas) examined Lake Lewisville, Mike Hernandez and other Brazos River Authority staff members (Waco, Texas) examined a number of sites in the Central Brazos River drainage; A. Tucker Davis (Dallas, Texas) used SCUBA to survey sites near Dallas; Dan Warren and Charles Keith (Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, Abilene, Texas) examined a site on the Clear Fork of the Brazos River; Roe Davenport (San Antonio, Texas) examined sites the central and lower Brazos River and lower Rio Grande; Melba Sexton (Luling, Texas) reported on specimens found in the San Marcos River; Steve Ansley and other U.S. Geological Survey (Austin, Texas) personnel provided information on sites on the Rio Grande and also joined with TPWD to examine other areas in Big Bend; Sally Strong, Bernice Speer and Betsin Maxim
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. 2014 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (updated September 23, 2014) EPA has not approved the definition of “surface water in the state” in the TX WQS, which includes an area out 10.36 miles into the Gulf of Mexico by reference to §26.001 of the Texas Water Code. Under the CWA, Texas does not have jurisdiction to establish water quality standards more than three nautical miles from the coast, but does not extend past that point. Beyond three miles, EPA retains authority for CWA purposes. EPA’s approval also does not include the application the TX WQS for the portions of the Red River and Lake Texoma that are located within the state of Oklahoma. Finally, EPA is not approving the TX WQS for those waters or portions of waters located in Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. The following sections in the 2014 Texas WQS have been approved by EPA and are therefore effective for CWA purposes: • §307.1. General Policy Statement • §307.2. Description of Standards • §307.5. Antidegradation • §307.6. Toxic Materials (see “No Action” section) • §307.8. Application of Standards (see “No Action” section) • Appendix B – Sole-source Surface Drinking Water Supplies • Appendix E – Site-specific Toxic Criteria • Appendix F – Site-specific Nutrient Criteria for Selected Reservoirs (see “No Action” section) The following sections in the 2014 Texas WQS have been approved by EPA, except for specific items as noted: • §307.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Streams of Texas
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRANKLIN K. LANE, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 448 GAZETTEER OF STREAMS OF TEXAS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF GLENN A. GRAY WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICE 1919 GAZETTEER OF STREAMS OF TEXAS. Prepared under the direction of GLENN A. GRAY. INTRODUCTION. The following pages contain a gazetteer of streams, lakes, and ponds as shown by the topographic maps of Texas which were pre­ pared by the United States Geological Survey and, in areas not covered by the topographic maps, by State of Texas county maps and the post-route map of Texas. For many streams a contour map of Texas, prepared in 1899 by Robert T. Hill, was consulted, as well as maps compiled by private surveys, engineering corporations, the State Board of Water Engineers, and the International Boundary Commission. An effort has been made to eliminate errors where practicable by personal reconnaissance. All the descriptions are based on the best available maps, and their accuracy therefore depends on that of the maps. Descriptions of streams in the central part of the State, adjacent to the Bio Grande above Brewster County, and in parts of Brewster, Terrell, Bowie, Casg, Btirleson, Brazos, Grimes, Washington, Harris, Bexar, Wichita, Wilbarger, Montague, Coke, and Graysoh counties were compiled by means of topographic maps and are of a good degree of accuracy. It should be understood, however, that all statements of elevation, length, and fall are roughly approximate. The Geological Survey topographic maps used are cited in the de­ scriptions of the streams and are listed below.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Geological Survey
    DEFARTM KUT OF THE 1STEK1OK BULLETIN OK THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY No. 19O S F, GEOGRAPHY, 28 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1902 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR GAZETTEEK OF TEXAS BY HENRY G-A-NNETT WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1902 CONTENTS Page. Area .................................................................... 11 Topography and drainage..... ............................................ 12 Climate.................................................................. 12 Forests ...............................................................'... 13 Exploration and settlement............................................... 13 Population..............'................................................. 14 Industries ............................................................... 16 Lands and surveys........................................................ 17 Railroads................................................................. 17 The gazetteer............................................................. 18 ILLUSTRATIONS. Page. PF,ATE I. Map of Texas ................................................ At end. ry (A, Mean annual temperature.......:............................ 12 \B, Mean annual rainfall ........................................ 12 -ryj (A, Magnetic declination ........................................ 12 I B, Wooded areas............................................... 12 Density of population in 1850 ................................ 14 B, Density of population in 1860
    [Show full text]
  • FALL 1969 Bulletin 17 RAYMOND L
    BAYLOR FALL 1969 Bulletin 17 The Evolution of the Leon River System RAYMOND L JR. thinking is more important than elaborate FRANK PH.D. PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY BAYLOR UNIVERSITY 1929-1934 Objectives of Geological Training at Baylor The training of a geologist in a university covers but a few years; his education continues throughout his active The purposes of training geologists at Baylor University are to provide a sound basis of understanding and to foster a truly geological point of view, both of which are essential for continued pro­ fessional growth. The staff considers geology to be unique among sciences since it is primarily a field science. All geologic research in­ cluding that done in laboratories must be firmly supported by field observations. The student is encouraged to develop an inquiring objective attitude and to examine critically all geological concepts and principles. The development of a mature and professional attitude toward geology and geological research is a principal concern of the department. THE BAYLOR UNIVERSITY PRESS TEXAS BAYLOR GEOLOGICAL STUDIES BULLETIN NO. 17 The Geomorphic Evolution of the Leon River System RAYMOND L JR. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY Department of Geology Waco, Texas Fall, 1969 Baylor Geological Studies EDITORIAL STAFF Jean M. Spencer, M.S., Editor environmental and medical geology O. T. Hayward, Ph.D., Advisor, Cartographic Editor stratigraphy-sedimentation, structure, geophysics-petroleum, groundwater R. L. M.A., Business Manager archeology, geomorphology, vertebrate paleontology James W. Dixon, Jr., Ph.D. stratigraphy, paleontology, structure Walter T. Huang, Ph.D. mineralogy, petrology, metallic minerals Gustavo A. Morales, Ph.D. micropaleontology, stratigraphy STUDENT EDITORIAL STAFF Lawrence W.
    [Show full text]
  • Time of Travel of Translatory Waves on the Brazos, Leon, and Little
    TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPORT 115 TIME OF TRAVEL OF TRANSLATORY WAVES ON THE BRAZOS, LEON, AND LITTLE RIVERS, TEXAS By Willard B. Mills U.S. Geological Survey Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperalion with rhe Te"as Water Development Board and lhe Brazos River Authority April 1970 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION 2 BRAZOS RIVER REACH 2 Description 2 Travel Time. 4 LEON, LITTLE, AND BRAZOS RIVERS REACH 5 Description 5 Travel Time. 5 Leon River Near Belton to Little River at Cameron 6 Little River at Cameron to Brazos River Near BrY<ln 7 REFERENCES CITED 14 TABLES 1. Stream-Gaging Stations in Operation on the Brazos River Reach During Period of Report 4 2, Travel Time of Peaks on the Brazos River .. 5 3. Stream-Gaging Stations in Operation on the Leon, Little, and Brazos Rivers Reach During Period of Report B 4. Travel Times in the Subreaches From Leon River Near Belton to Little River at Cameron 9 FIGURES 1. Map Showing Study Reaches and Locations of Gaging Stations in the Lower Brazos River Basin 3 2. Definition Sketches of Points for Which Travel Times Were Obtained From Gage-Height Charts 4 3. Graph Showing Relationship of Travel Time to Peak Discharge on the Brazos River From the Whitney Gaging Station to the Richmond Gaging Station 6 4. Graph Showing Travel Time of Peak Discharge on the Brazos River From the Whitney Gaging Station to the Waco Gaging Station 7 5. Graph Showing Travel Time of Peak Discharge on the Brazos River From the Waco Gaging Station to the Bryan Gaging Station 7 '" TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Page 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of April-June 1957 in Texas and Adjacent States
    Floods of April-June 1957 in Texas and Adjacent States By I. D. YOST FLOODS OF 1957 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1652-B Prepared in cooperation with the States of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and with other agencies UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1963 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. CONTENTS Page Abstract__ _ _____________________________________________________ Bl Introduction._____________________-___________-___-_-__------_---- 1 Acknowledgments ____________-_-__-____--__------_---__-__-------- 4 Definition of terms and abbreviations_-_____-_-_--___-----_---------- 5 General features of the floods_--__-_-____--._------------__---_------ 5 Precipitation..________________________________________________ 5 Thefloods_-____________________________________ - 10 Flood-control reservoirs-___________---___------_---_----------- 13 Determination of flood discharges____________________-___---___---- 13 Explanation of data___________________--_-________--____-_------- 15 Station data______________________________________________________ 16 Arkansas River basin_______________-____--__---_--_-_--_------ 16 Canadian River near Amarillo, Tex_______________-_-___.---_- 16 Red River basin_____________________-__-_--_---__------------- 18 Salt Fork Red River at Mangum, Okla_--__-_-_-__---_------- 18 North Fork Red River near Headrick,
    [Show full text]
  • Lampasas River Watershed Protection Plan
    LLaammppaassaass RRiivveerr WWaatteerrsshheedd PPrrootteeccttiioonn Plan DDeevveellooppeedd bbyy TThhee LLaammppaassaass RRiivveerr WWaatteerrsshheedd PPaarrttnneerrsshhiipp 78 MMaayy 22001133 Page ii THE LAMPASAS RIVER WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN Prepared for the Lampasas River Watershed Partnership by Lisa Prcin and Raghavan Srinivasan Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Blackland Research and Extension Center and Pamela Casebolt Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board Funding for the development of this Watershed Protection Plan was provided through a federal Clean Water Act §319(h) grant to Texas A&M AgriLife Research, administered by the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Page i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. II LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................IV LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ VII LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................. IX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. XI 1. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT .............................................................................. 1 WATERSHED DEFINITION ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Riparian Training Proj QPR 12 31 12
    Texas Riparian and Stream Ecosystem Education Project CWA 319(h) NPS Grant Program TSSWCB Contract No. 12-07 Quarter no. 1 From 10/1/12 Through 12/31/12 I. Abstract In this initial quarter of the project work primarily focused on meetings with agency partners and confirming members of the Planning Team, setting up subcontracts with Nueces River Authority and Texas A&M Forest Service, and a contract kickoff meeting. Tasks also included updating webpages, gathering educational materials/presentations/evaluations, and visiting with some of the watershed coordinators about this program. To advertise the new program we have also scheduled to provide brief program presentations at several regional meetings. TWRI has kept in touch with the Riparian Team in these initials steps to move the project forward. II. Overall Progress and Results by Objective and Task OBJECTIVE 1: PROJECT ADMINISTRATION Administer, coordinate and monitor all work performed under this project including technical and financial supervision and preparation of status and final reports. Task 1.1: Project Administration –TWRI/IRNR will prepare electronic quarterly progress reports (QPRs) for submission to TSSWCB. QPRs shall document all activities performed within a quarter and shall be submitted by the 15th of January, April, July and October. QPRs shall be distributed to all project partners. The following actions have been completed during this reporting period: a. The workplan was converted into the format of a QPR for the first quarter. The QPR for this first quarter will be submitted by the 1/15/13 date. 8% Complete Task 1.2: TWRI/IRNR will perform accounting functions for project funds and will submit appropriate Reimbursement Forms to TSSWCB at least quarterly.
    [Show full text]