DOCSLIB.ORG

Process Framework for Identifying and Prioritizing Water Quality Improvement for Meeting Tmdls in Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Process Framework for Identifying and Prioritizing Water Quality Improvement for Meeting Tmdls in Texas Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/TX-04/0-4252-1 Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date August 2003 PROCESS FRAMEWORK FOR IDENTIFYING AND 6. Performing Organization Code PRIORITIZING WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FOR MEETING TMDLS IN TEXAS 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Samantha L. Hon, Michael E. Barrett, and Joseph F. Malina, 0-4252-1 Jr. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research 11. Contract or Grant No. The University of Texas at Austin 0-4252 3208 Red River, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78705-2650 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research Report Research and Technology Implementation Office January 2002 to August 2003 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, TX 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Texas Department of Transportation. 16. Abstract The objectives of this research are to help TxDOT anticipate the requirements of the TMDL process and to have the data at hand to respond if TxDOT is identified as contributing to the impairment. An interactive GIS map of the impaired streams was created in ArcGIS to aid TxDOT in identifying where the impaired segments are in relation to major highways and roads. Runoff quality data from TxDOT facilities in the state were compiled and compared to water quality standards to determine constituents of concern. Existing BMPs were assessed for their effectiveness in treating highway runoff. A toolbox of appropriate BMPs for specific pollutants was developed from this assessment. The results from this study indicate that the major causes of impairment of water bodies in Texas are bacteria and low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Unfortunately, there are currently no BMPs that effectively address pathogens and nutrients. It is recommended that TxDOT pursue a pollutant trading program as an alternative to implementing BMPs if required to reduce loadings of pollutants to impaired segments. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement stormwater, water quality, best management No restrictions. This document is available to the practices, BMPs, TMDL, highway runoff public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 19. Security Classif. (of report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 246 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized Process Framework for Identifying and Prioritizing Water Quality Improvement for Meeting TMDLs in Texas Samantha L. Hon Michael E. Barrett Joseph F. Malina, Jr. CTR Research Report: 0-4252-1 Report Date: August 2003 Research Project: 0-4252 Research Project Title: Process Framework for Identifying and Prioritizing Water Quality Improvement for Meeting TMDLs in Texas This research was conducted for the Texas Department of Transportation in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration by the Center for Transportation Research, Bureau of Engineering Research, The University of Texas at Austin. Center for Transportation Research The University of Texas at Austin 3208 Red River Austin, TX 78705 www.utexas.edu/research/ctr Copyright © 2004 Center for Transportation Research The University of Texas at Austin All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America iv Disclaimers The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the Federal Highway Administration or the Texas Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, OR PERMIT PURPOSES. Project Engineer: Michael E. Barrett, Ph.D., P.E. Professional Engineer License State and Number: Texas No. 82582 P. E. Designation: Research Supervisor v Acknowledgments The authors would like to express their thanks to the TxDOT project director, Norm King, for his helpful suggestions and guidance during the course of this project. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Problem Identification................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Background Information about TMDLs...................................................................... 3 1.3 Study Objectives.......................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Scope of Work............................................................................................................. 6 2 IMPAIRED WATERBODIES OF TEXAS....................................................................... 7 2.1 Development of a GIS Geodatabase of Impaired Water Bodies in Texas .................. 7 2.2 Distribution of 303(d) Listed Streams and their Respective Impairments ................ 20 2.2.1 Water Bodies Impaired by Bacteria.................................................................... 20 2.2.2 Water Bodies Impaired by Low Dissolved Oxygen Levels ................................. 22 2.3 Summary Guide for Identifying Water Quality Issues.............................................. 23 2.4 Guidelines for Updating Geodatabase....................................................................... 24 3 STORMWATER RUNOFF QUALITY OF URBAN TEXAS HIGHWAYS................. 25 3.1 Compilation of Highway Runoff Monitoring Data ................................................... 25 3.2 Analysis of Compiled Highway Water Quality Monitoring Data............................. 30 4 ASSESSMENT OF BMPS FOR TREATMENT OF HIGHWAY RUNOFF ................. 43 4.1 Sand Filters................................................................................................................ 44 4.2 Extended Detention Basins........................................................................................ 47 4.3 Wet Basins................................................................................................................. 49 4.4 Infiltration Basins...................................................................................................... 52 4.5 Infiltration Trenches.................................................................................................. 54 4.6 Vegetated Swales....................................................................................................... 55 4.7 Vegetated Buffer Strips ............................................................................................. 57 4.8 BMPs that Address Specific Water Quality Constituents ......................................... 61 5 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENTLY INSTALLED BMPs ............................................... 63 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................... 73 vii 6.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 73 6.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 74 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 75 APPENDIX A......................................................................................................................... 77 APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................... 159 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Major Causes of Water Body Impairments in Texas .............................................. 2 Table 1-2: Summary of Water Bodies with Current EPA-Approved TMDLs ......................... 4 Table 2-1: Summary of Definitions of Rankings in 303(d) List............................................... 9 Table 2-2: Characteristics of the Shackelford Projection ....................................................... 13 Table 3-1: Summary of Monitoring Sites in Texas ................................................................ 25 Table 3-2: Description for Each Site for Each City................................................................ 26 Table 3-3: List of Constituents Measured............................................................................... 29 Table 3-4: List of Information about Sampling Locations and Rain Events .......................... 30 Table 3-5: Probability that the Concentrations at Different Monitoring Sites are Not Significantly Different ............................................................................................................ 32 Table 3-6: Summary of Results of ANOVA........................................................................... 32 Table 3-7: Summary of Average Concentrations ................................................................... 34 Table 4-1: Performance of Austin Sand Filters ...................................................................... 46 Table 4-2: Performance of Delaware Sand Filters.................................................................. 47 Table 4-3: Performance of Unlined Extended Detention Basins...........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Swim at Your Own Risk
    Swim at Your Own Risk Bacteria Pollution in Texas Beaches and Waterways Threatens Public Health Swim at Your Own Risk Bacteria Pollution in Texas Beaches and Waterways Threatens Public Health Gideon Weissman, Frontier Group Brian Zabcik and Luke Metzger, Environment Texas Research & Policy Center August 2018 Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Dr. Hanadi Rifai of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Houston, Ken Kramer of the Sierra Club–Lone Star Chapter, John Rumpler of Environment America Research and Policy Center, and additional individuals for their review of drafts of this document, and for their valuable insights and suggestions. Thanks also to Tony Dutzik and Abigail Bradford of Frontier Group for editorial support. Environment Texas Research & Policy Center thanks the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation, the Meadows Foundation, the Jacob and Terese Hershey Foundation, and the Pisces Foundation for making this report possible. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of Environment Texas Research & Policy Center. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. 2018 Environment Texas Research & Policy Center. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 U.S. License. To view the terms of this license, visit http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/3.0/us. Environment Texas Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicated to protecting our air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision-makers, and help the public make their voices heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Nolan River Bridge 303‐A of the GC&SF Railway, Blum, Hill County, Texas Page 2
    USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Nolan River Bridge 303‐A of the GC&SF Railway, Blum, Hill County, Texas Page 2 5. CLASSIFICATION OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY private X public - Local public - State public - Federal CATEGORY OF PROPERTY building(s) district site X structure object NUMBER OF RESOURCES WITHIN PROPERTY contributing noncontributing 0 0 buildings 0 0 sites 1 0 structures 0 0 objects 1 0 total NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES PREVIOUSLY LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER: 0 NAME OF RELATED MULTIPLE PROPERTY LISTING: N/A 6. FUNCTION OR USE HISTORIC FUNCTIONS: TRANSPORTATION: rail‐related CURRENT FUNCTIONS: TRANSPORATION: road‐related (vehicular) 7. DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTURAL CLASSIFICATION: N/A MATERIALS: FOUNDATION STONE: Limestone (piers and abutment); CONCRETE (abutment) WALLS ROOF OTHER METAL: Steel (girders) NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION (see continuation sheets 7‐5 through 7‐6) USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Nolan River Bridge 303‐A of the GC&SF Railway, Blum, Hill County, Texas Page 3 8. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE APPLICABLE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA Property: X A is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. X C embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. D has yielded, or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS: N/A AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE: transportation; engineering PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1899‐1952 SIGNIFICANT DATES: N/A SIGNIFICANT PERSON: N/A CULTURAL AFFILIATION: N/A ARCHITECT / BUILDER: Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway Company NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE (see continuation sheets 8‐7 through 8‐10) 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Compiled by E. R. Carrillo and H. D. Buckner Open-File Report 84-147
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey - Water Resources Division INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS, JANUARY 1984 Compiled by E. R. Carrillo and H. D. Buckner Open-File Report 84-147 Austin, Texas 1984 CONTENTS Page Introduction.......................................................... 1 Description of stations............................................... 2 Availability of data.................................................. 3 ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1. Map showing the locations of active surface-water stations in Texas, January 1984.................................... In pocket 2. Map showing the locations of active partial-record, surface- water stations in Texas, January 1984..................... In pocket TABLES Table 1. Streamflow, quality, reservoir-content, and partial-record stations maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with State and Federal agencies.............. ii INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS JANUARY 1984 Compiled by E. R. CarriTlo and H. D. Buckner INTRODUCTION The U.S. Geological Survey's investigations of the water resources of Texas are conducted in cooperation with the Texas Department of Water Resources, river authorities, cities, counties, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Re­ clamation, International Boundary and Water Commission, and others. Investigations are under the general direction of C. W. Boning, District Chief, Texas District. The Texas District office is located in the Federal Build­ ing, 300 East 8th Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Information regarding hydro!ogic data collected within their respective areas may be obtained from the subdistrict offices listed below: W. E. Reeves, Chief J. H. Eade, Subdistrict Chief Field Headquarters U.S. Geological Survey, WRD U.S. Geological Survey, WRD 1409 Knickerbocker Road 300 E. 8th Street, Federal Bldg., Rm. 867 San Angel o, Texas 76901 Austin, Texas 78701 C.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(3) Appendix C
    Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(3) Appendix C - Segment Descriptions The following descriptions define the geographic extent of the state's classified segments. Boundaries of bay and estuary segments have not been precisely defined. Segment boundaries are illustrated in the document entitled The Atlas of Texas Surface Waters (GI-316) as amended and published by the commission. SEGMENT DESCRIPTION 0101 Canadian River Below Lake Meredith - from the Oklahoma State Line in Hemphill County to Sanford Dam in Hutchinson County 0102 Lake Meredith - from Sanford Dam in Hutchinson County to a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Camp Creek in Potter County, up to the normal pool elevation of 2936.5 feet (impounds Canadian River) 0103 Canadian River Above Lake Meredith - from a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Camp Creek in Potter County to the New Mexico State Line in Oldham County 0104 Wolf Creek - from the Oklahoma State Line in Lipscomb County to a point 2.0 km (1.2 mi) upstream of FM 3045 in Ochiltree County 0105 Rita Blanca Lake - from Rita Blanca Dam in Hartley County up to the normal pool elevation of 3860 feet (impounds Rita Blanca Creek) 0201 Lower Red River - from the Arkansas State Line in Bowie County to the Arkansas- Oklahoma State Line in Bowie County 0202 Red River Below Lake Texoma - from the Arkansas-Oklahoma State Line in Bowie County to Denison Dam in Grayson County 0203 Lake Texoma - from Denison Dam in Grayson County to a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Sycamore Creek in Cooke County, up to
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (Updated July 2, 2013)
    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. 2000 and 2010 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (updated July 2, 2013) EPA has completed review of all new and revised provisions of the 2010 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, except for the following items in Appendix A - Site-specific Uses and Criteria for Classified Segments: • revised temperature criteria (and associated footnotes) for segment 1811 – Comal River and segment 1814 – San Marcos River; new temperature criterion for segment 0410 – Black Cypress Bayou • new or revised minerals criteria (and associated footnotes) for the following segments: 0307, 0410, 0507, 0803, 0812, 0821, 1206, 1227, 1238, 1240, 1241, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1421, 1426, 1433, 2106, and 2116. The complete summary of EPA’s previous actions on the 2000 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards is shown below and has not been altered since November 2009. The pages following the 2009 summary have been reduced from the complete version of the 2000 standards to only include pages with criteria (and associated footnotes) that are effective for Clean Water Act purposes because EPA disapproved the corresponding provision in the 2010 standards or those items are currently under EPA review (page 1 included only for reference). For a complete copy of the 2000 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, please see the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s website at: http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/standards Revisions to §307 - Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (updated November 12, 2009) EPA has not approved the revised definition of “surface water in the state” in the TX WQS, which includes an area out 10.36 miles into the Gulf of Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Maximum Known Peak Discharges for Sites with Streamflow-Gaging Stations in Natural Basins in Texas (As of June 2002) [USGS, U.S
    Maximum known peak discharges for sites with streamflow-gaging stations in natural basins in Texas (as of June 2002) [USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square miles; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; SWS, subwatershed; --, historical data unavailable] USGS Contributing Maximum known peak station drainage discharge no. USGS station name Latitude Longitude area Discharge (mi2) Date (ft3/s) Arkansas River Basin (Canadian River) 07227448 Punta De Agua Creek near Channing, Texas 35°40'05" 102°28'50" 3,568 08/28/1972 24,200 07227460 East Cheyenne Creek tributary near Channing, Texas 35°40'35" 102°16'55" .86 06/25/1965 2,260 07227470 Canadian River at Tascosa, Texas 35°31'08" 102°15'35" 14,713 07/27/1971 27,500 07227480 Tecovas Creek tributary near Bushland, Texas 35°15'55" 102°00'20" 1.27 04/11/1969 105 07227500 Canadian River near Amarillo, Texas 35°28'13" 101°52'45" 15,376 07/25/1941 135,000 07227920 Dixon Creek near Borger, Texas 35°39'53" 101°21'02" 134 05/26/1977 3,640 07228000 Canadian River near Canadian, Texas 35°56'06" 100°22'13" 18,178 09/23/1941 122,000 07233500 Palo Duro Creek near Spearman, Texas 36°12'08" 101°18'20" 440 00/00/1938 34,000 07234150 White Woman Creek tributary near Darrouzett, Texas 36°24'00" 100°16'30" 4.03 08/31/1966 416 07235000 Wolf Creek at Lipscomb, Texas 36°14'19" 100°16'31" 475 10/21/1941 20,000 Red River Basin 07295500 Tierra Blanca Creek above Buffalo Lake near Umbarger, Texas 34°50'55" 102°10'32" 538 06/06/1941 11,300 07297500 Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River near Canyon, Texas 35°00'38" 101°53'29" 711 10/24/1941
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4117
    ANALYSIS OF MINIMUM 7-DAY DISCHARGES AND ESTIMATION OF MINIMUM 7-DAY, 2-YEAR DISCHARGES FOR STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATIONS IN THE BRAZOS RIVER BASIN, TEXAS U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4117 Brazos River Basin TEXAS GULF OF MEXICO Prepared in cooperation with the BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY ANALYSIS OF MINIMUM 7-DAY DISCHARGES AND ESTIMATION OF MINIMUM 7-DAY, 2-YEAR DISCHARGES FOR STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATIONS IN THE BRAZOS RIVER BASIN, TEXAS By Timothy H. Raines and William H. Asquith U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4117 Prepared in cooperation with the BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY Austin, Texas 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Acting Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 8011 Cameron Rd. Box 25286 Austin, TX 78754–3898 Denver, CO 80225–0286 ii CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]