The Floods in Central Texas in September, 1921

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Floods in Central Texas in September, 1921 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ALBERT B. FALL, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 488 THE FLOODS IN CENTRAL TEXAS IN SEPTEMBER, 1921 BY C. E. ELLSWORTH Prepared in cooperation with THE STATE OF TE?A8 WASHINGTON 0OYERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1923 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE PROCURED FKOM ' THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVEKNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 15 CENTS PER COPY PURCHASER AGREES NOT TO RESELL OR DISTRIBUTE 1ES3 COPY FOR PROFIT. P.UB. RES. 67, APPROVED MAT 11, 1923 V CONTENTS. Page. Introduction_________________ 1 Acknowledgments_________________ _ _ ___ _ _ 2 Area covered by the storm__________ _ _ _ 3 General features _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 3 Topography and geology-______ ___ _ _ _ _ _ 3 Damage caused by flood ___ 4 Precipitation ________________, ___________________ 7 Maximum discharge per square mile _ : _ _ 13 Flood flows_________________-__-_ - _ 14 Brazos River flood______________ _ _ _ 14 General features___________________________ 14 Determination of flow ________ ______ _______ 16 Little River and tributaries______________________ 17 General features__________________________ 17 Determination of flow_______________________ 18 Little River below junction .of Leon and Lampasas rivers 19 Little River at Cameron______________________ 20 Salado Creek near Salado________________: 22 San Gabriel River at Georgetown________________ 24 Brushy Creek at Round Rock______________ __ 27 Colorado River flood_______________________________ 29 Guadalupe River flood____________________________ 31 The flood at San Antonio_________________________ 33 General features_____________________________ 33 Determination of discharge_______________ ___ 37 Previous floods__________________________________ 46 General features of flood of 1913______________________ 46 Brazos River_________________________________ 48 Colorado River__________________ __________,___ 49 Guadalupe River- _____________ ____________ 51 San Antonio River _____________________ ______ 53 Index________ _________________ _____________ 55 in IV CONTENTS. ILLUSTRATIONS. Pas* PIATE I. Map of central Texas, showing drainage basins and total rain­ fall September 7-11, 1921_____________________ 4 II. A., View of Little River valley below junction of Leon and Lampasas rivers; B, View of Little River at Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway crossing near Cameron, Tex., at crest of flood _________________________________ 20 III. A, View across Little River valley near Cameron, Tex., from Marlow Bridge; J5, View up Salado Creek from Jones mill, near Salado, Tex__________________________ 20 IV. A, View down San Gabriel River valley below Georgetown, Tex.; B, View up Brushy Creek near Round Rock, Tex______ 20 V. A, Bridge across San Antonio Ri3ver near Pioneer Mills after flood of September 9-10, 1921; B, Bridge across San Antonio River at Romana Street, San Antonio, Tex., after flood of September 9-10, 1921____________________^__ 44 VI. A, Water-stage recorder at South Alamo Street, San Antonio, Tex.; B, South Alamo Street Bridge, San Antonio, Tex., after flood of September 9-10, 1921_______________ 44 VII. Map of San Antonio, Tex., showing area flooded, September 9-10, 1921 ______________________________ 44 VIII. A, View of San Antonio River showing slope stretch used in determination of maximum discharge during flood of Sep­ tember 9-10, 1921; B, View from right bank near center of slope stretch shown in A_________________ _ _ 44 . Map of San Antonio River and tributaries in vicinity of San Antonio, Tex., showing drainage basins and total rainfall, September 8-10, 1921__________________^__.___._ 8 2. Gage-height graph of Little River at Cameron, Tex., during flood of September, 1921___________ _ 21 3. Gage-height graph of San Antonio River and San Pedro Greek at San Antonio Tex., during flood of September 9-10, 1921 40 4. Rating curves of San Antonio River at South Alamo Street Bridge, San Antonio, Tex_______ 42 5. Mean cross section of San Antonio River used in determination of discharge at maximum stage of flood of September 9-10, 1921____________._____________-_ 44 IV THE FLOODS IN CENTKAL TEXAS IN SEPTEMBER 1921. By C. E. ELLSWORTH. INTRODUCTION. Heavy rainfall over a large area in south-central Texas from Sep­ tember 8 to September 10, 1921, produced great floods which caused the loss of at least 224 lives and damage to property amounting to more than $10,000,000. The most destructive flood in Texas prior to 1921 occurred in December, 1913. That flood, which is described on pages 46-47, caused the loss of 177 lives and destroyed prop­ erty valued at more than $8,500,000. The most densely populated and most highly developed com­ munity affected by the flood of 1921 was the city of San Antonio, where 51 lives were lost and property worth more than $3,000,000 was destroyed. It was the disaster at San^Antonio that received the most widespread notice in the press, though the aggregate loss of both life and property in other areas far exceeded that at San Antonio. The total rainfall and the run-off per square mile of drainage area were much less in the basin of San Antonio River than in the basins of many other streams in the path of the storm. If the rainfall in the basin of San Antonio River had been as heavy as it was in much of the basin of Little River, in Bell, Milam, and Williamson counties, the destruction at San Antonio would have been so great as to make that actually suffered tKere seem insignificant. The United States Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Texas Board of "Water Engineers, made special determination of the flood flow of San Antonio River at San Antonio and of Little River at Cameron immediately after the flood. Several months later, determinations were made of the maximum discharge of Lit­ tle River near the junction of Leon and Lampasas rivers, of Salado Creek near Salado, of San Gabriel River near Georgetown, and of Brushy Creek at Round Rock. The amount available for the work was so small that measurements were made only on streams where the conditions were favorable for obtaining reasonably accurate 1 2 FLOODS IN CENTRAL TEXAS IN SEPTEMBER, 1921. results. In addition to the-measurements made on the streams men­ tioned above determinations of the flood flow at several regular gaging stations were made by routine methods. In the area north and east of Taylor, where the total rainfall exceeded 36 inches, the flood was so wide and was so much obstructed in its course down the valleys of San Gabriel River and Brushy Creek that the maximum discharge of those streams could not be determined with sufficient accuracy to make the determination valuable. The average annual losses in Texas by floods amount to several million dollars, and the people of the State are beginning to realize that its future prosperity must depend in large measure upon the wisdom with which they can control and utilize the streams. Over 30,000,000 acre-feet of water annually passes unutilized from the streams of Texas to the Qulf of Mexico, much of it in floods that cause great destruction. Good business sense demands that the floods of Texas be controlled and that the flood water be stored, so far as practicable, for the many uses for which it is needed. The Board of Water Engineers of Texas has planned a compre­ hensive study of the streams of the State and of the best methods of controlling floods and utilizing flood water. The report here presented has been compiled for the purpose of assembling under one cover all the essential information now available concerning the flood of 1921 and of giving a brief summary of the information available concerning previous floods. The report is in many respects incomplete, but it should be a valuable contribution to the body of information on floods that must eventually be compiled. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The steam-gaging work done in Texas by the United States Geo­ logical Survey is carried on in cooperation with the State Board of Water Engineers, consisting of John A. Norris, chairman; C. S. Clark, and A. H. Dunlap. This board allots a large part of the funds available for such work. Acknowledgments are due the United States Weather Bureau for practically all the data on rainfall, many gage heights, and much in­ formation about the storm and its effect; to Col. Edgar Jadwin and Maj. W. N. Vance, of the United States Engineer Corps at Fort Sam Houston, for their kindness in giving the writer access to their excellent unpublished report of the San Antonio flood; to C. Terrell Bartlett, for information that has been quoted freely from his published statements in engineering periodicals and local news­ papers regarding the flood at San Antonio; and to many county officials, engineers, railroad companies, residents, and the public press for statements of losses and other information which could AREA COVERED BY THE STOBM. O not have been obtained without their cooperation. Individual ac­ knowledgments are given throughout the report. In determining discharge of streams during the flood the .writer was assisted by C. E. McCashin, D. A. Dudley, R. G. West, and Trigg Twitchell. The office computations of discharge were made principally by C. E. McCashin and Trigg Twitchell, and assistance in assembling the matter and preparing it for publication was ren­ dered by Kate Casparis. AREA COVERED BY THE STORM. GENEBAL FEATURES. % The rainfall that caused the flood covered an elliptical area that includes nearly 10,000 square miles, whose longer axis extends southwestward along the Balcones escarpment from Temple beyond San Antonio, a distance of more than 150 miles. (See PI. I.) The larger streams that cross this area, all flowing southeastward, are Brazos, Colorado, Guadalupe, and San Antonio rivers. The counties within the storm area are Bell, Milam, Williamson, Travis, Hays, Comal, and Bexar. These counties contain much of the richest agricultural land in Texas. Practically all the area lying southeast of a line extending from Temple through Belton, George­ town, Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels, and San Antonio is under cultivation.
Recommended publications
  • The Native Vegetation of the Nattai and Bargo Reserves
    The Native Vegetation of the Nattai and Bargo Reserves Project funded under the Central Directorate Parks and Wildlife Division Biodiversity Data Priorities Program Conservation Assessment and Data Unit Conservation Programs and Planning Branch, Metropolitan Environmental Protection and Regulation Division Department of Environment and Conservation ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CADU (Central) Manager Special thanks to: Julie Ravallion Nattai NP Area staff for providing general assistance as well as their knowledge of the CADU (Central) Bioregional Data Group area, especially: Raf Pedroza and Adrian Coordinator Johnstone. Daniel Connolly Citation CADU (Central) Flora Project Officer DEC (2004) The Native Vegetation of the Nattai Nathan Kearnes and Bargo Reserves. Unpublished Report. Department of Environment and Conservation, CADU (Central) GIS, Data Management and Hurstville. Database Coordinator This report was funded by the Central Peter Ewin Directorate Parks and Wildlife Division, Biodiversity Survey Priorities Program. Logistics and Survey Planning All photographs are held by DEC. To obtain a Nathan Kearnes copy please contact the Bioregional Data Group Coordinator, DEC Hurstville Field Surveyors David Thomas Cover Photos Teresa James Nathan Kearnes Feature Photo (Daniel Connolly) Daniel Connolly White-striped Freetail-bat (Michael Todd), Rock Peter Ewin Plate-Heath Mallee (DEC) Black Crevice-skink (David O’Connor) Aerial Photo Interpretation Tall Moist Blue Gum Forest (DEC) Ian Roberts (Nattai and Bargo, this report; Rainforest (DEC) Woronora, 2003; Western Sydney, 1999) Short-beaked Echidna (D. O’Connor) Bob Wilson (Warragamba, 2003) Grey Gum (Daniel Connolly) Pintech (Pty Ltd) Red-crowned Toadlet (Dave Hunter) Data Analysis ISBN 07313 6851 7 Nathan Kearnes Daniel Connolly Report Writing and Map Production Nathan Kearnes Daniel Connolly EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report describes the distribution and composition of the native vegetation within and immediately surrounding Nattai National Park, Nattai State Conservation Area and Bargo State Conservation Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Gandhi As Mahatma: Gorakhpur District, Eastern UP, 1921-2'
    Gandhi as Mahatma 289 of time to lead or influence a political movement of the peasantry. Gandhi, the person, was in this particular locality for less than a day, but the 'Mahatma' as an 'idea' was thought out and reworked in Gandhi as Mahatma: popular imagination in subsequent months. Even in the eyes of some local Congressmen this 'deification'—'unofficial canonization' as the Gorakhpur District, Eastern UP, Pioneer put it—assumed dangerously distended proportions by April-May 1921. 1921-2' In following the career of the Mahatma in one limited area Over a short period, this essay seeks to place the relationship between Gandhi and the peasants in a perspective somewhat different from SHAHID AMIN the view usually taken of this grand subject. We are not concerned with analysing the attributes of his charisma but with how this 'Many miracles, were previous to this affair [the riot at Chauri registered in peasant consciousness. We are also constrained by our Chaura], sedulously circulated by the designing crowd, and firmly believed by the ignorant crowd, of the Non-co-operation world of primary documentation from looking at the image of Gandhi in this district'. Gorakhpur historically—at the ideas and beliefs about the Mahatma —M. B. Dixit, Committing Magistrate, that percolated into the region before his visit and the transformations, Chauri Chaura Trials. if any, that image underwent as a result of his visit. Most of the rumours about the Mahatma.'spratap (power/glory) were reported in the local press between February and May 1921. And as our sample I of fifty fairly elaborate 'stories' spans this rather brief period, we cannot fully indicate what happens to the 'deified' image after the Gandhi visited the district of Gorakhpur in eastern UP on 8 February rioting at Chauri Chaura in early 1922 and the subsequent withdrawal 1921, addressed a monster meeting variously estimated at between 1 of the Non-Co-operation movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Dubbo Zirconia Project
    Dubbo Zirconia Project Aquatic Ecology Assessment Prepared by Alison Hunt & Associates September 2013 Specialist Consultant Studies Compendium Volume 2, Part 7 This page has intentionally been left blank Aquatic Ecology Assessment Prepared for: R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty Limited 62 Hill Street ORANGE NSW 2800 Tel: (02) 6362 5411 Fax: (02) 6361 3622 Email: [email protected] On behalf of: Australian Zirconia Ltd 65 Burswood Road BURSWOOD WA 6100 Tel: (08) 9227 5677 Fax: (08) 9227 8178 Email: [email protected] Prepared by: Alison Hunt & Associates 8 Duncan Street ARNCLIFFE NSW 2205 Tel: (02) 9599 0402 Email: [email protected] September 2013 Alison Hunt & Associates SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES AUSTRALIAN ZIRCONIA LTD Part 7: Aquatic Ecology Assessment Dubbo Zirconia Project Report No. 545/05 This Copyright is included for the protection of this document COPYRIGHT © Alison Hunt & Associates, 2013 and © Australian Zirconia Ltd, 2013 All intellectual property and copyright reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, 1968, no part of this report may be reproduced, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system or adapted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Alison Hunt & Associates. Alison Hunt & Associates RW CORKERY & CO. PTY. LIMITED AUSTRALIAN ZIRCONIA LTD Dubbo Zirconia Project Aquatic Ecology Final September 2013 SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES AUSTRALIAN ZIRCONIA LTD Part 7: Aquatic Ecology Assessment Dubbo Zirconia Project Report No. 545/05 SUMMARY Alison Hunt & Associates Pty Ltd was commissioned by RW Corkery & Co Pty Limited, on behalf of Australian Zirconia Limited (AZL), to undertake an assessment of aquatic ecology for the proposed development of the Dubbo Zirconia Project (DZP), which would be located at Toongi, approximately 25 km south of Dubbo in Central West NSW.
    [Show full text]
  • Mid Coxs River Subcatchment
    Mid Coxs River Mid Coxs Appendix 4.2 Appendix Subcatchment summaries Subcatchment Mid Coxs River Subcatchment River Mid Coxs The Mid Coxs River subcatchment is located in the far-west section of the Hawkesbury Nepean catchment. It is characterised by narrow granite valleys and contains the World Heritage listed Jenolan Caves Karst Conservation Reserve. The subcatchment has signifi cant areas in reserved land in its lower reaches in the Kanagra Boyd National Park, part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. The subcatchment is highly valued for its recreational values by local and regional communities. Flows in the Mid Coxs River are impacted by impoundment at Lake Lyell. In the upper area of the subcatchment, there is signifi cant rural development, and pine plantations in the tributary headwaters both of which have altered the vegetation of this subcatchment. The impacts of these activities need to be well managed to prevent degradation of the near intact reaches downstream. There is a major Landcare association, the Lithgow Oberon Landcare Association, and numerous Landcare groups working in the subcatchment, as well as weed control and mapping programs undertaken by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. HAWKESBURY NEPEAN RIVER HEALTH STRATEGY 53 54 54 Reach Management Recommendations – Mid Coxs River Subcatchment Reach Name Reach Riparian Land Reach Values Reach Threats Reach management recommendations Description Management (Planning, Education, Works, Monitoring, Institutional) Category Megalong Conservation • Develop
    [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]
  • NRCS Assisted Watershed Dams in Texas 23Rd Congressional District
    NRCS Assisted Watershed Dams in Texas rd 23 Congressional District In the mid-1930s, Congress began looking at ways to Three of the dams in the 23rd Congressional District are complement the downstream flood control program of in need of funding for repairs at an estimated cost of $6 the Corps of Engineers. It passed flood control acts in million. 1936, 1944, and 1954 and assigned responsibility of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program to the USDA Soil Conservation Service, now the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Since that time, the NRCS has assisted watershed sponsors in construction of nearly 2,000 floodwater retarding structures (dams) in 145 watershed projects across Texas. In addition, the NRCS has assisted watershed sponsors with the installation of land treatment practices and channel improvements for watershed protection. Texas watershed projects provide $150 million in annual benefits. The watershed projects which impact the rd 23 Congressional District provide $18.4 million in Rehabilitation of Aging Dams annual benefits, as well as capturing over 471,000 tons of sediment annually. Over 225 bridges and numerous NRCS assistance is available to rehabilitate aging county, state, and federal roads are also protected. watershed dams. A typical candidate site for rehabilitation was constructed between the late 1950’s There are 54 watershed dams in 15 watershed projects to the middle 1960’s and no longer meets current safety located in the district. See the table on the back of this criteria. page for the annual benefits provided by each watershed project in the district. There are 25 dams in the 23rd Congressional District that are over 50 years old, 6 dams that are 40-49 years The Salado Creek Watershed dams provided $900,000 old, and 7 dams that are 30-39 years old.
    [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]
  • NWS Instruction 10-605, Tropical Cyclone Official Geographic Defining Points, Dated March 17, 2020
    Department of Commerce •National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration •National Weather Service NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE INSTRUCTION 10-605 MARCH 4, 2021 Operations and Services Tropical Cyclone Weather Services Program, NWSPD 10-6 TROPICAL CYCLONE OFFICIAL GEOGRAPHIC DEFINING POINTS NOTICE: This publication is available at: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/. OPR: W/AFS26 (J. Cline) Certified by: W/AFS2 (A. Allen) Type of Issuance: Emergency SUMMARY OF REVISIONS: This directive supersedes NWS Instruction 10-605, Tropical Cyclone Official Geographic Defining Points, dated March 17, 2020. The following revisions were made to this directive: • Rename the current “Port Mansfield” breakpoint to “North of Port Mansfield”, TX. • Add a breakpoint at the Coastal Willacy/Coastal Cameron, TX county line. • Move Indian Pass, FL from the city to the geographical feature. • Remove Panama City, Apalachicola, St. Marks and Keaton Beach as breakpoints. • Add Wakulla/Jefferson County line (FL) as a breakpoint. • Remove New River Inlet, NC as a breakpoint. • Add Beaufort Inlet, NC as a breakpoint. • Add Hatteras Inlet, NC as a breakpoint. • Add Teraina Atoll under Honolulu, HI (Other Central Pacific Islands) as a breakpoint • Add Tabuaeran Atoll under Honolulu, HI (Other Central Pacific Islands) as a breakpoint • Add Kiritimati (Christmas) Island under Honolulu, HI (Other Central Pacific Islands) as a breakpoint Digitally signed by STERN.ANDRE STERN.ANDREW.D.13829 W.D.13829203 20348 Date: 2021.02.18 08:45:54 2/18/2021 48 -05'00' Andrew D. Stern Date Director Analyze, Forecast and Support Office NWSI 10-605 MARCH 4, 2021 OFFICIAL DEFINING POINTS FOR TROPICAL CYCLONE WATCHES AND WARNINGS *An asterisk following a breakpoint indicates the use of the breakpoint includes land areas adjacent to the body of water.
    [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]
  • Projects in Texas (2000 - 2012)
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation - Projects in Texas (2000 - 2012) Award NFWF NFWF Non- Grantee NFWF Total Project Fiscal EZG# Project Title Grantee Project Description Federal Federal Matching Location Award Funds Year Funds Funds Funds Short Grass Prairie Protect, restore and enhance shortgrass prairie, LPC Conservation in The Nature habitat, and playas in the southeastern New Mexico and 2013 34736 $60,000 $60,000 $50,000 $110,000 New Mexico; Texas New Mexico and Conservancy Texas focal area and implement public education and Texas outreach activities. Aerial Survey Western The Lesser Prairie Chicken Interstate Working Group will Assessment of Association of Fish use the newly developed range-wide aerial survey to Colorado; Kansas; New 2013 35249 $125,000 $125,000 $250,000 $375,000 Lesser Prairie and Wildlife assess Farm Bill Programs for each of the 15X15 km Mexico; Oklahoma; Texas Chicken (LPC) Agencies survey blocks. Assess the abundance of Guadalupe Bass in the San Antonio River basin and re-introduce the species on the San Antonio River Upper San Antonio River in Texas. Project, which Basin Guadalupe San Antonio River supports the goals of the Southeast Aquatic Resources 2012 31188 Bass Assessment $44,201 $44,201 $300,000 $344,201 Texas Authority Partnership as part of the National Fish Habitat Action and Re- Plan, will restore aquatic and riparian habitats, expand of introduction (TX) the range and distribution of Guadalupe Bass, and improve the biotic integrity of the San Antonio River. Continue to reduce the gaps in knowledge of American Texas American Gulf Coast Bird Oystercatcher population status and breeding 2012 30267 Oystercatcher $134,975 $67,487 $67,487 $134,989 $269,964 Texas Observatory parameters, and begin implementation of conservation Conservation strategies on the Texas Gulf Coast.
    [Show full text]
  • A Jewel in the Crown of Texas
    SALADO A JEWEL IN THE CROWN OF TEXAS First Quarter 2018 Published by Salado Village Voice saladovillagevoice.com Magnolias of Salado #1 Salado Square | Main Street | Salado 254-947-0323 | www.magnoliasofsalado.com Indulge your imagination unique home decor. furnishings, gifts & accessories 21 North Main Street, Salado open 7 days (254) 947-4000 - twentyonemain.com PAGE 3 Calendar of Events January 3 Adult Crafts, 2 - 4 p.m. at Sala- do Public Library. Register at (254) 947-9191 January 4 Salado Writers organizational meeting, 7 p.m. at Salado Public Library. info: 947-9191 January 5 Grand Opening & Ribbon Cut- ting, 6 - 7 p.m. at Salado Montes- sori, 10880 FM 1670 Salado info: (817) 690-3744 Fridays and Saturdays Live Music at Chupacabra begins at 7 p.m. January 6 3 Kings 3 Miler at St. Joseph’s Episcopal Church. Registration info: runsignup.com/Race/TX/ Salado/3Kings3Miler January 6 Daniel Thomas Phipps, 7 p.m. at Barrow Brewing Co January 8 First Day of School at Salado Montessori info: (817) 690-3744 January 8 Coloring with Karen Class, Come and Go 10:30 a.m. - 2:30 The family friendly Texas Wine & Rogue Art Fest returns for a 10th year March 24-25 at Salado Winery on p.m. at Stamp Salado Main Street. (Photo by Marilyn Fleischer) January 10 January 26 3 p.m. at Tablerock. info: Don- February 23-24 Tablerock’s Young Writers Poet- Fourth Friday Gospel Singing, nie Williams, (254) 947-0717or Blow Your Own Beer Mugs for ry Contest submissions guidelines: 7 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Distances Between United States Ports 2019 (13Th) Edition
    Distances Between United States Ports 2019 (13th) Edition T OF EN CO M M T M R E A R P C E E D U N A I C T I E R D E S M T A ATES OF U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) RDML Timothy Gallaudet., Ph.D., USN Ret., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere National Ocean Service Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management Cover image courtesy of Megan Greenaway—Great Salt Pond, Block Island, RI III Preface Distances Between United States Ports is published by the Office of Coast Survey, National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), pursuant to the Act of 6 August 1947 (33 U.S.C. 883a and b), and the Act of 22 October 1968 (44 U.S.C. 1310). Distances Between United States Ports contains distances from a port of the United States to other ports in the United States, and from a port in the Great Lakes in the United States to Canadian ports in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Distances Between Ports, Publication 151, is published by National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and distributed by NOS. NGA Pub. 151 is international in scope and lists distances from foreign port to foreign port and from foreign port to major U.S. ports. The two publications, Distances Between United States Ports and Distances Between Ports, complement each other.
    [Show full text]