DOCSLIB.ORG

And Streamflow Gain and Loss (2010) of the Brazos River from the New Mexico–Texas State Line to Waco, Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
And Streamflow Gain and Loss (2010) of the Brazos River from the New Mexico–Texas State Line to Waco, Texas Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board Base Flow (1966–2009) and Streamflow Gain and Loss (2010) of the Brazos River from the New Mexico–Texas State Line to Waco, Texas Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5224 Version 1.1, June 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front cover: Looking downstream from Highway 16 and U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 08088610 Brazos River near Graford, Texas Back cover: Looking downstream from U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 08091500 Paluxy River at Glen Rose, Texas, April 27, 2010 Base Flow (1966–2009) and Streamflow Gain and Loss (2010) of the Brazos River from the New Mexico–Texas State Line to Waco, Texas By Stanley Baldys III and Frank E. Schalla Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5224 Version 1.1, June 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 First release: 2012 Revised: June 2016 (ver. 1.1) For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Baldys, Stanley, III, and Schalla, F.E., 2016, Base flow (1966–2009) and streamflow gain and loss (2010) of the Brazos River from the New Mexico–Texas State line to Waco, Texas (ver. 1.1, June 2016): U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5224, 53 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20115224. ISSN 2328-031X (print) ISSN 2328-0328 (online) ISBN 978-1-4113-3318-5 iii Acknowledgments The authors thank the following individuals for their assistance with data-collection activities throughout the study: Clint Walker, John R. Howell, Dana A. Blanchette, Gary F. Burke, Brandon A. Cooper, Travis T. Dowell, Nathan J. McSloy, Samuel W. Kelley, Jeffrey T. Sandlin, Michael D. Scheider, Phillip C. Teeters, Jason L. Taylor, and Steven T. Loesch. v Contents Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................iii Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2 Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2 Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................................6 Methods.........................................................................................................................................................12 Hydrograph Separation and Trend Analysis ..................................................................................12 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................15 Streamflow Gain and Loss Computation .........................................................................................20 Quality Assurance...............................................................................................................................20 Base Flow ......................................................................................................................................................20 Salt Fork and Double Mountain Fork Brazos River Basin ............................................................21 Clear Fork Brazos River Basin ..........................................................................................................21 North Bosque River Basin .................................................................................................................21 Brazos River Basin (main stem) .......................................................................................................27 Streamflow Gain and Loss Assessment ..................................................................................................33 Salt Fork Brazos River Basin .............................................................................................................33 Double Mountain Fork Brazos River Basin .....................................................................................34 Clear Fork Brazos River Basin ..........................................................................................................35 North Bosque River Basin ...............................................................................................................36 Brazos River Basin (main stem) .......................................................................................................38 Contributions of Streamflow to the Main Channels of Each of the Five Subbasins ...............41 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................41 References ....................................................................................................................................................44 Appendix 1. Hydrographic Separation Results ...................................................................................46 Figures 1. Map showing upper Brazos River Basin, Texas ......................................................................3 2. Map showing major-aquifer boundaries and sites where streamflow and specific conductance were measured, June and October 2010, upper Brazos River Basin, Texas ...........................................................................................................4 3. Map showing minor-aquifer boundaries and sites where streamflow and specific conductance were measured, June and October 2010, upper Brazos River Basin, Texas ...........................................................................................................5 4. Map showing sites where streamflow and specific conductance were measured in June and October 2010, Salt Fork Brazos River Basin, Texas ........................7 5. Map showing sites where streamflow and specific conductance were measured in June and October 2010, Double Mountain Fork Brazos River Basin, Texas ...................................................................................................................................8 vi 6. Map showing sites where streamflow and specific conductance were measured in June and October 2010, Clear Fork Brazos River Basin, Texas .....................9 7. Map showing sites where streamflow and specific conductance were measured in June and October 2010, North Bosque River Basin, Texas ..........................10 8. Map showing sites where streamflow and specific conductance were measured in June and October 2010, main stem of the Brazos River and tributaries to the main stem, Texas .........................................................................................11 9. Graph showing hydrograph separation of streamflow for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 08089000 Brazos River near Palo Pinto, Texas, 1978 water year...............................................................................................................14 10. Graph showing annual base-flow index for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 08082000 Salt Fork Brazos River near Aspermont, Texas, 1966–2009 ...................................................................................................22 11. Graph showing annual base-flow index for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 08080500 Double Mountain Fork Brazos River near Aspermont, Texas, 1966–2009 ..........................................................................................22 12. Graphs showing A, Time series of annual base-flow index and B, Relation between annual base-flow index for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow- gaging stations 08080500 Double Mountain Fork Brazos River near Aspermont, Texas, and 08082000 Salt Fork Brazos River near Aspermont, Tex., 1966–2009 ............................................................................................................................23 13. Graph showing annual base-flow index for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 08084000 Clear Fork Brazos River at Nugent, Texas, 1966–2009 .........................................................................................................................24 14. Graph showing annual base-flow index for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 08085500 Clear Fork Brazos River at Fort Griffin, Texas, 1966–2009 .........................................................................................................................24
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumer Plannlng Section Comprehensive Plannlng Branch
    Consumer Plannlng Section Comprehensive Plannlng Branch, Parks Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Texans Outdoors: An Analysis of 1985 Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities By Kathryn N. Nichols and Andrew P. Goldbloom Under the Direction of James A. Deloney November, 1989 Comprehensive Planning Branch, Parks Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744 (512) 389-4900 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Conducting a mail survey requires accuracy and timeliness in every single task. Each individualized survey had to be accounted for, both going out and coming back. Each mailing had to meet a strict deadline. The authors are indebted to all the people who worked on this project. The staff of the Comprehensive Planning Branch, Parks Division, deserve special thanks. This dedicated crew signed letters, mailed, remailed, coded, and entered the data of a twenty-page questionnaire that was sent to over twenty-five thousand Texans with over twelve thousand returned completed. Many other Parks Division staff outside the branch volunteered to assist with stuffing and labeling thousands of envelopes as deadlines drew near. We thank the staff of the Information Services Section for their cooperation in providing individualized letters and labels for survey mailings. We also appreciate the dedication of the staff in the mailroom for processing up­ wards of seventy-five thousand pieces of mail. Lastly, we thank the staff in the print shop for their courteous assistance in reproducing the various documents. Although the above are gratefully acknowledged, they are absolved from any responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have occurred. ii TEXANS OUTDOORS: AN ANALYSIS OF 1985 PARTICIPATION IN OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc
    CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED RED GATE POWER PLANT AND LATERAL PROJECT, HIDALGO AND STARR COUNTIES, TEXAS INTENSIVE ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY Prepared for South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc by Debra L. Beene, Joseph M. Sanchez, and Timothy B. Griffith Principal Investigators: Brandon S. Young and Timothy B. Griffith AUGUST 2014 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED RED GATE POWER PLANTAND LATERAL PROJECT HIDALGO AND STARR COUNTIES, TEXAS INTENSIVE ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY By Debra L. Beene, Joseph M. Sanchez, and Timothy B. Griffith Prepared for South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. Principal Investigators: Brandon S. Young and Timothy B. Griffith August 2014 ABSTRACT Between 2012 and 2014, archeologists from Blanton & Associates, Inc., at the request of the South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., conducted an intensive, non-collection, archeological survey of the proposed Red Gate Power Plant project in Hidalgo and Starr Counties, Texas. The area of potential effect (APE) comprised the 336-acre power plant site property in Hidalgo County, and an 891-acre, 24.5-mile proposed natural gas pipeline right-of-way in Hidalgo and Starr Counties. Investigation of the power plant APE discovered one mid to late twentieth century historic residential complex (41HG238), with an associated corral and minor structures. Based on the recent date of construction, lack of integrity, and paucity of buried material, site 41HG238 is recommended as ineligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP). Investigation of the pipeline APE did not discover any additional archeological resources. In summary, no NHRP-eligible sites were discovered, no artifacts were collected, and curation was unnecessary. CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED RED GATE POWER PLANT AND i LATERAL PROJECT, HIDALGO AND STARR COUNTIES, TEXAS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT TITLE: Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Red Gate Power Plant and Lateral Project, Hidalgo and Starr Counties, Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Field Summary Report Mapping Conventions for Texas PI and Draft
    .. ,Field summary Report-Mapping Conventions for Texas PI and Draft Project Date of field trip: 1/12-1/16/87 Personnel: Warren Hagenbuck USFWS Curtis Carley USFWS Frank Spague SCS Frank J. sargent Martel Lynn Ashby Hartel 1:100,000 Hap Names: Sherman NW (16 quads), SW; Dallas NW, SW Co~lateral Data: USGS topographical quads- 1:24,100, 1:250,000 SOil survey for all maps where available. Rainfall data for all maps where available. Photography The CrR photography being used is produced by NHAP at a scale of 1:58,000 with flight dates of.september to December 1981. The quality \. is good for both resolution and emulsion. Climate conditions at the time of photography appear to be typical. All photo signatures reviewed during field reconnaissance reflect emulsion and resolution qualities consistently throughout the project area. ".Ecoregion and Physiography '. The project area is located· primarily within the Prairie Parkland Province, oak-Bluestem Sec-l:ion. This region is characterized by 23" to 40" of precipitation annually-with yearly average temperatures between e 47-F-83 F. ~he topography of the maps' northern and eastern sections are comprised of irregular plains (gently rolling) wiu{ relief upwards of 100-300 feet. In the remaining western half of the work area the relief may vary from 300-500 feet with tableland features. Within this western section , in the very southwest corner of Dallas SW, is the Prairie Bushland Province, Juniper-Oak-MesquitJ Section. / The Prairie Bushland Province also has an ar~a of irregUlar plains, yet the relief is 300-500' in elevation.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Matching the Hatch for the TX Hill Country[2]
    MATCHING THE HATCH FOR THE TX HILL COUNTRY Tying and choosing proper fly patterns to increase your success on the water. Matt Bennett Fly Geek Custom Flies [email protected] Why should you listen to me? • Fishing the Austin area since 2008 • LWFF – 2012 through 2015 • Fly Geek Custom Flies – 2015 – now • Past Austin Fly Fishers President • Current TX Council Vice President Overview of the TX Hill Country Llano River near Kingsland Guadalupe River at Lazy L&L Brushy Creek near Round Rock Characteristics of Hill Country Rivers ¨ There’s a bunch! Guadalupe, Comal, San Marcos, Colorado, Llano, Blanco, Nueces, Frio, Sabinal, Concho, Lampasas and associated feeder creeks ¨ Majority are shallow and wadeable in stretches ¨ Extremely Clear Water (some clearer than others) ¨ Sandy, limestone and granite bottoms with lots of granite boulders/outcroppings ¨ Extreme flooding events YEARLY on average. Sept 11, 1952 – Lake Travis rises 57 feet in 14 hours. 23-26” of rain Guadalupe River, July 17,1987 Llano River / Lake LBJ – Nov. 4 2000 Why does flooding matter to fishing? ¨ Because of the almost-annual flooding / drought cycle of our rivers, they are constantly changing ¨ Holes get filled in and dug out, gravel gets moved around, banks get undercut ¨ We have to constantly relearn our fisheries to stay successful on the water ¨ Choosing the right flies with the proper triggers is an important part of your success on the water Overview of our forage Baitfish, crawfish, insects, and other terrestrials Why is forage important? ¨ #1 rule of all fishing – know your forage! ¨ Knowing the common forage where you fish increases your chances of success as it clues you in on what flies you should be fishing ¨ Forage base will vary between water bodies, time of year, species targeted, and more, as well as year-to-year.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Rock, Arkansas
    LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS The civil works portion of this District covers an area of the District is responsible for the portion of the Little approximately 36,414 square miles in northern, western, River and its tributaries that are in the state of Arkansas, and southwestern Arkansas and a portion of Missouri. above its mouth near Fulton, AR. In the White River This area is within the Arkansas River, Little River, and Basin, the District is responsible for those portions in White River basins. In the Arkansas River Basin, the southern Missouri and northern and eastern Arkansas in District is responsible for planning, design, construction, the White River drainage basin and its tributaries above operation, and maintenance of the navigation portion of Peach Orchard Bluff, AR. The Memphis District is re- the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System sponsible for navigation maintenance on the White River (MKARNS). The District is also responsible for the below Newport, AR, to the mouth of Wild Goose areas included in the Arkansas River drainage basin Bayou, in Arkansas County, AR. The White River from above Pine Bluff, AR, to below the mouth of the downstream from the mouth of Wild Goose Bayou is Poteau River, near Fort Smith, AR. In Little River Basin, part of the MKARNS. IMPROVEMENTS NAVIGATION Multiple-Purpose Projects Including Power 1. Arkansas River Basin, AR, OK, And KS ........... 3 2. Arthur V. Ormond Lock & Dam (No.9), AR ..... 3 28. Beaver Lake, AR ………………………………9 3. David D. Terry Lock And Dam (No. 6), AR ...... 4 29. Bull Shoals Lake, AR.................................. ….10 4.
    [Show full text]
  • TPWD Strategic Planning Regions
    River Basins TPWD Brazos River Basin Brazos-Colorado Coastal Basin W o lf Cr eek Canadian River Basin R ita B l anca C r e e k e e ancar Cl ita B R Strategic Planning Colorado River Basin Colorado-Lavaca Coastal Basin Canadian River Cypress Creek Basin Regions Guadalupe River Basin Nor t h F o r k of the R e d R i ver XAmarillo Lavaca River Basin 10 Salt Fork of the Red River Lavaca-Guadalupe Coastal Basin Neches River Basin P r air i e Dog To w n F o r k of the R e d R i ver Neches-Trinity Coastal Basin ® Nueces River Basin Nor t h P e as e R i ve r Nueces-Rio Grande Coastal Basin Pease River Red River Basin White River Tongue River 6a Wi chita R iver W i chita R i ver Rio Grande River Basin Nor t h Wi chita R iver Little Wichita River South Wichita Ri ver Lubbock Trinity River Sabine River Basin X Nor t h Sulphur R i v e r Brazos River West Fork of the Trinity River San Antonio River Basin Brazos River Sulphur R i v e r South Sulphur River San Antonio-Nueces Coastal Basin 9 Clear Fork Tr Plano San Jacinto River Basin X Cypre ss Creek Garland FortWorth Irving X Sabine River in San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal Basin ity Rive X Clea r F o r k of the B r az os R i v e r XTr n X iityX RiverMesqu ite Sulphur River Basin r XX Dallas Arlington Grand Prai rie Sabine River Trinity River Basin XAbilene Paluxy River Leon River Trinity-San Jacinto Coastal Basin Chambers Creek Brazos River Attoyac Bayou XEl Paso R i c h land Cr ee k Colorado River 8 Pecan Bayou 5a Navasota River Neches River Waco Angelina River Concho River X Colorado River 7 Lampasas
    [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]
  • Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(1) Appendix A
    Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(1) Appendix A - Site-specific Uses and Criteria for Classified Segments The following tables identify the water uses and supporting numerical criteria for each of the state's classified segments. The tables are ordered by basin with the segment number and segment name given for each classified segment. Marine segments are those that are specifically titled as "tidal" in the segment name, plus all bays, estuaries and the Gulf of Mexico. The following descriptions denote how each numerical criterion is used subject to the provisions in §307.7 of this title (relating to Site-Specific Uses and Criteria), §307.8 of this title (relating to Application of Standards), and §307.9 of this title (relating to Determination of Standards Attainment). Segments that include reaches that are dominated by springflow are footnoted in this appendix and have critical low-flows calculated according to §307.8(a)(2) of this title. These critical low-flows apply at or downstream of the spring(s) providing the flows. Critical low-flows upstream of these springs may be considerably smaller. Critical low-flows used in conjunction with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regulatory actions (such as discharge permits) may be adjusted based on the relative location of a discharge to a gauging station. -1 -2 The criteria for Cl (chloride), SO4 (sulfate), and TDS (total dissolved solids) are listed in this appendix as maximum annual averages for the segment. Dissolved oxygen criteria are listed as minimum 24-hour means at any site within the segment. Absolute minima and seasonal criteria are listed in §307.7 of this title unless otherwise specified in this appendix.
    [Show full text]