DOCSLIB.ORG

Migration and Counter-Urbanization in the Edwards Plateau of Texas, 1985-1990

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Migration and Counter-Urbanization in the Edwards Plateau of Texas, 1985-1990 University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences Great Plains Studies, Center for Fall 2003 Migration and Counter-urbanization in the Edwards Plateau of Texas, 1985-1990 Jason Holcomb Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch Part of the Other International and Area Studies Commons Holcomb, Jason, "Migration and Counter-urbanization in the Edwards Plateau of Texas, 1985-1990" (2003). Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences. 673. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch/673 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Great Plains Studies, Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Great Plains Research 13 (Fall 2003): 311-27 © Copyright by the Center for Great Plains Studies MIGRATION AND COUNTERURBANIZATION IN THE EDWARDS PLATEAU OF TEXAS, 1985-1990 Jason P. Holcomb Department of Geography, Government, and History 350 Rader Hall Morehead State University Morehead, KY 40351 [email protected] ABSTRACT-Unlike most of the Great Plains, Texas's Edwards Pla­ teau lies near large, rapidly growing metropolitan centers. County-to­ county migration data for the period 1985-1990 were used to examine migration patterns in Edwards Plateau counties. Weighted standard dis­ tance and stream efficiency values were used to analyze county in­ migration fields of 28 nonmetropolitan counties. A key finding was that net in-migration to counties closest to metropolitan areas was not mere "urban spillover." There were also indications that counterurban migra­ tion extended beyond metropolitan-adjacent counties to more sparsely populated destinations. Counterurbanization was occurring from central counties of the nation's largest metropolitan areas and some Texas metropolitan areas. In-migration from the Gulf Coast of Texas played an important role in the Edwards Plateau. The migration system of the Edwards Plateau appears to have functioned differently than non­ metropolitan counties in the High Plains. Continued change is supported by data from the 2000 census. KEY WORDS: counterurbanization, Edwards Plateau, Great Plains, migra­ tion, stream efficiencies, weighted standard distance Introduction The Edwards Plateau of Texas is a region at the fringe (Fig. 1). Geo­ graphically, it lies at the southern margin of the Great Plains and is perched between zones of opposing population trends. To the west and north of the Edwards Plateau are the High Plains and Rolling Plains, two areas that have had historically high out-migration rates throughout the 20th century. East of the Edwards Plateau are burgeoning metropolitan areas that line Inter­ state 35, including the rapidly growing cities of Austin and San Antonio. Some recognizable characteristics of the Edwards Plateau are the German 311 312 Great Plains Research Vol. 13 No.2, 2003 •Amarillo High Plains Population 5,000 - 25,000 • 25,001 - 200,000 • 200,001 - 2,000,000 c=J Interstate 35 corridor Figure 1. Study area and selected cities in Texas. culture area of the dissected Hill Country, its history of goat and sheep production, and the invasion of grassland by woody plant species. Because of its location, the Edwards Plateau is an interesting subject of population inquiry. Caught between worlds of rural population decline and expanding metropolitan areas, the Edwards Plateau appears to be undergoing changes Migration in the Edwards Plateau of Texas 313 in population that are not present in most parts of the Great Plains. Evidence of this transformation can be found in recent population growth in counties with historical decline. The Edwards Plateau may be an emerging Great Plains anomaly that is an attractive destination for streams of counterurban migration. This study examines county-to-county migration flows in the region between 1985 and 1990 in order to determine whether or not counterurbanization took place during the latter half of the 1980s when nonmetropolitan counties lost population as general rule. These methods and results are a foundation for additional research when county-to-county migration data from the 2000 census become available. Studies of "counterurbanization" (Berry 1976) and a "population turn­ around" (Deavers and Brown 1980) became common themes in population research after data for the 1970s showed aggregate non metropolitan growth in the United States. During the 1980s nonmetropolitan counties nationwide reverted to net out-migration (Beale 1990; Frey and Speare 1992; Johnson 1993), followed by another period of aggregate growth during the 1990s (Beale 1996; Beale 1999; Johnson 1999; Johnson and Beale 1998). How­ ever, the Great Plains as a whole was synonymous with nonmetropolitan out-migration throughout most of the 20th century, even during periods of nonmetropolitan growth in other regions of the United States. Non­ metropolitan counties in the Great Plains generally maintained a more consistent trend of net out-migration from 1970 through 2000 as the aggre­ gate trend fluctuated. Out-migration from the nonmetropolitan Great Plains was lower dur­ ing the 1970s than in previous decades, and net in-migration took place in some years. In the 1980s net out-migration from the nonmetropolitan Great Plains was greater than for other regions of the country, reaching levels of 2% per year. Out-migration abated during the 1990s, and some non­ metropolitan county types had individual years of net in-migration (Cromartie 1998). However, Great Plains counties have demonstrated con­ sistently higher levels of net out-migration when compared to aggregate trends for the United States, regardless of decade. The Great Plains was the largest of the "emptying" areas described by Lonsdale and Archer (1998). Heaviest out-migration in the region has historically occurred in the most remote and rural counties, while stable populations have more recently been tied to counties with significant irri­ gated agriculture (White 1994), larger urban areas (White 1992), and a relatively small number of counties at urban fringes or with natural ameni­ ties (Cromartie 1998). From population change data for the 1980s and 314 Great Plains Research Vol. 13 No.2, 2003 1990s, it appears that the Edwards Plateau fits into the categories suggested by Cromartie (1998). A combination of natural amenities and proximity to metropolitan areas may explain why only 8 of the 28 counties in the study area lost population during the 1990s, while a significantly larger propor­ tion of counties in the remainder of the Texas Great Plains lost population (US Bureau of the Census 2001a). Though sparsely populated, many nonmetropolitan counties in the Edwards Plateau had net in-migration dur­ ing the 1990s. But did the Edwards Plateau experience counterurbanization during the 1980s when rural out-migration peaked? If so, this would be a marked contrast from other sparsely populated areas of the Great Plains and an indication of a different migration system. In particular, this study exam­ ines characteristics of county-level migration that may have contributed to greater population stability in the 1980s and may indicate future change in the region. Methods County-to-county migration data from the 1990 census (US Bureau of the Census 1990) were used to calculate stream efficiency and weighted standard distance values for the 28 nonmetropolitan counties in the Edwards Plateau (Fig. 1). The data reflect changes in residence that took place between 1985 and 1990 but do not include any intervening moves. Stream efficiency values for county-to-county moves demonstrate how "effective" particular migration streams were at redistributing population from one county, or in this case a cluster of counties, to another location (Plane and Rogerson 1994). Stream efficiencies were calculated as eij = lOO(nij / tij) where e .. is migration stream efficiency, n .. is the net exchange between U lj regions i and j, and tij is the total migration between regions i and j. Stream efficiencies were calculated for migration between non­ metropolitan counties in the Edwards Plateau and the following sets of counties: (1) all US counties (aggregated) that lie outside the study area, (2) each of the ten county classes (ERS codes) that comprise a rural-urban continuum defined by the Economic Research Service (ERS) (Butler 1990), and (3) selected Texas metropolitan areas. In all cases, flows were aggre­ gated for the 28 counties in order to single out net movement to and from the region. Internal flows within the study area were not included in the calcu- Migration in the Edwards Plateau of Texas 315 lations. Thus, efficiency values reflect only the redistribution that took place between Edwards Plateau counties as a whole and counties that lie outside the Edwards Plateau. In the first set of calculations, for example, a positive efficiency value would indicate the percentage of total migration that was redistributed to the Edwards Plateau from counties outside the study area. A negative value would indicate net redistribution from the Edwards Plateau to counties outside the study area. For the second set of calculations, efficiency values represent redistribution that took place be­ tween the Edwards
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Look at the Texas Hill Country Following the Path We Are on Today Through 2030
    A Look at the Texas Hill Country Following the path we are on today through 2030 This unique and special region will grow, but what will the Hill Country look like in 2030? Growth of the Hill Country The Hill Country Alliance (HCA) is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to raise public awareness and build community support around the need to preserve the natural resources and heritage of the Central Texas Hill Country. HCA was formed in response to the escalating challenges brought to the Texas Hill Country by rapid development occurring in a sensitive eco-system. Concerned citizens began meeting in September of 2004 to share ideas about strengthening community activism and educating the public about regional planning, conservation development and a more responsible approach growth in the Hill Country. This report was prepared for the Texas Hill Country Alliance by Pegasus Planning 2 Growth of the Hill Country 3 Growth of the Hill Country Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction The Hill Country Today The Hill Country in 2030 Strategic Considerations Reference Land Development and Provision of Utilities in Texas (a primer) Organizational Resources Materials Reviewed During Project End Notes Methodology The HCA wishes to thank members of its board and review team for assistance with this project, and the authors and contributors to the many documents and studies that were reviewed. September 2008 4 Growth of the Hill Country The Setting The population of the 17-County Hill Country region grew from approximately 800,000 in 1950 (after the last drought on record) to 2.6 million in 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Populations in Texas
    Wildlife Populations in Texas • Five big game species – White-tailed deer – Mule deer – Pronghorn – Bighorn sheep – Javelina • Fifty-seven small game species – Forty-six migratory game birds, nine upland game birds, two squirrels • Sixteen furbearer species (i.e. beaver, raccoon, fox, skunk, etc) • Approximately 900 terrestrial vertebrate nongame species • Approximately 70 species of medium to large-sized exotic mammals and birds? White-tailed Deer Deer Surveys Figure 1. Monitored deer range within the Resource Management Units (RMU) of Texas. 31 29 30 26 22 18 25 27 17 16 24 21 15 02 20 28 23 19 14 03 05 06 13 04 07 11 12 Ecoregion RMU Area (Ha) 08 Blackland Prairie 20 731,745 21 367,820 Cross Timbers 22 771,971 23 1,430,907 24 1,080,818 25 1,552,348 Eastern Rolling Plains 26 564,404 27 1,162,939 Ecoregion RMU Area (Ha) 29 1,091,385 Post Oak Savannah 11 690,618 Edwards Plateau 4 1,308,326 12 475,323 5 2,807,841 18 1,290,491 6 583,685 19 2,528,747 7 1,909,010 South Texas Plains 8 5,255,676 28 1,246,008 Southern High Plains 2 810,505 Pineywoods 13 949,342 TransPecos 3 693,080 14 1,755,050 Western Rolling Plains 30 4,223,231 15 862,622 31 1,622,158 16 1,056,147 39,557,788 Total 17 735,592 Figure 2. Distribution of White-tailed Deer by Ecological Area 2013 Survey Period 53.77% 11.09% 6.60% 10.70% 5.89% 5.71% 0.26% 1.23% 4.75% Edwards Plateau Cross Timbers Western Rolling Plains Post Oak Savannah South Texas Plains Pineywoods Eastern Rolling Plains Trans Pecos Southern High Plains Figure 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of Texas
    Ecoregions of Texas 23 Arizona/New Mexico Mountains 26 Southwestern Tablelands 30 Edwards Plateau 23a Chihuahuan Desert Slopes 26a Canadian/Cimarron Breaks 30a Edwards Plateau Woodland 23b Montane Woodlands 26b Flat Tablelands and Valleys 30b Llano Uplift 24 Chihuahuan Deserts 26c Caprock Canyons, Badlands, and Breaks 30c Balcones Canyonlands 24a Chihuahuan Basins and Playas 26d Semiarid Canadian Breaks 30d Semiarid Edwards Plateau 24b Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands 27 Central Great Plains 31 Southern Texas Plains 24c Low Mountains and Bajadas 27h Red Prairie 31a Northern Nueces Alluvial Plains 24d Chihuahuan Montane Woodlands 27i Broken Red Plains 31b Semiarid Edwards Bajada 24e Stockton Plateau 27j Limestone Plains 31c Texas-Tamaulipan Thornscrub 25 High Plains 29 Cross Timbers 31d Rio Grande Floodplain and Terraces 25b Rolling Sand Plains 29b Eastern Cross Timbers 25e Canadian/Cimarron High Plains 29c Western Cross Timbers 25i Llano Estacado 29d Grand Prairie 25j Shinnery Sands 29e Limestone Cut Plain 25k Arid Llano Estacado 29f Carbonate Cross Timbers 25b 26a 26a 25b 25e Level III ecoregion 26d 300 60 120 mi Level IV ecoregion 26a Amarillo 27h 60 0 120 240 km County boundary 26c State boundary Albers equal area projection 27h 25i 26b 25j 27h 35g 35g 26b Wichita 29b 35a 35c Lubbock 26c Falls 33d 27i 29d Sherman 35a 25j Denton 33d 35c 32a 33f 35b 25j 26b Dallas 33f 35a 35b 27h 29f Fort 35b Worth 33a 26b Abilene 32c Tyler 29b 24c 29c 35b 23a Midland 26c 30d 35a El Paso 24a 23b Odessa 35b 24a 24b 25k 27j 33f Nacogdoches 24d Waco Pecos 25j
    [Show full text]
  • Final Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan
    FINAL FINAL NOVEMBER 13, 2015 BOWMAN PROJECT NO. 005520-01-001 SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN PREPARED FOR COUNTY OF BEXAR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 233 N. PECOS, SUITE 420 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78207 PREPARED BY BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP, LTD. 3101 BEE CAVE ROAD, SUITE 100 AUSTIN, TX 78746 WITH JACKSON WALKER LLP ZARA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC WENDELL DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES M.E. ALLISON & ASSOCIATES FINAL SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN BOWMAN © 2015 PROJECT NO. 005520-01-001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHAT IS THE SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN? The Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan (“SEP-HCP” or the “Plan”) is a way for Bexar County and the City of San Antonio (the “Permittees”) to assist with compliance of the Endangered Species Act. These compliance issues threaten the economic growth of the greater San Antonio region. The purposes of the SEP-HCP are to: (1) Promote regional conservation; (2) Provide support for Camp Bullis; (3) Involve local stakeholders in conservation planning; (4) Streamline endangered species permitting; (5) Implement locally appropriate and cost-effective permitting and conservation strategies; and (6) Leverage available resources. Upon approval of the SEP-HCP by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”), a 30-year Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) would be issued. The Permit would authorize a limited amount of “incidental taking” of nine federally listed endangered species (the “Covered Species”) within the jurisdictions of Bexar County and the City of San Antonio. In return, the SEP-HCP will promote the conservation of the Covered Species and related natural resources in Bexar County and other counties of the Southern Edwards Plateau.
    [Show full text]
  • A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion
    A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion June 2004 © The Nature Conservancy This document may be cited as follows: The Nature Conservancy. 2004. A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion. Edwards Plateau Ecoregional Planning Team, The Nature Conservancy, San Antonio, TX, USA. Acknowledgements Jasper, Dean Keddy-Hector, Jean Krejca, Clifton Ladd, Glen Longley, Dorothy Mattiza, Terry The results presented in this report would not have Maxwell, Pat McNeal, Bob O'Kennon, George been possible without the encouragement and Ozuna, Jackie Poole, Paula Power, Andy Price, assistance of many individuals and organizations. James Reddell, David Riskind, Chuck Sexton, Cliff Most of the day-to-day work in completing this Shackelford, Geary Shindel, Alisa Shull, Jason assessment was done by Jim Bergan, Bill Carr, David Singhurst, Jack Stanford, Sue Tracy, Paul Turner, O. Certain, Amalie Couvillion, Lee Elliott, Aliya William Van Auken, George Veni, and David Wolfe. Ercelawn, Mark Gallyoun, Steve Gilbert, Russell We apologize for any inadvertent omissions. McDowell, Wayne Ostlie, and Ryan Smith. Finally, essential external funding for this work This project also benefited significantly from the came from the Department of Defense and the U. S. involvement of several current and former Nature Army Corps of Engineers through the Legacy Grant Conservancy staff including: Craig Groves, Greg program. Without this financial support, many of the Lowe, Robert Potts, and Jim Sulentich. Thanks for critical steps in the planning process might not have the push and encouragement. Our understanding of ever been completed. Thank you. the conservation issues important to the Edwards Plateau was greatly improved through the knowledge and experiences shared by many Conservancy staff including Angela Anders, Gary Amaon, Paul Barwick, Paul Cavanagh, Dave Mehlman, Laura Sanchez, Dan Snodgrass, Steve Jester, Bea Harrison, Jim Harrison, and Nurani Hogue.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumulative Impacts Technical Report
    Cumulative Impacts Technical Report U.S. Highway 79 (US 79) from Interstate Highway 35 (I-35) to East of Farm-to-Market Road 1460 (FM 1460) Williamson County, Texas TxDOT Austin District CSJ: 0204-01-063 March 2020 The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 9, 2019, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Technical Report ................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Overview .......................................................................................... 1 2.0 DEFINITIONS AND GUIDANCE ............................................................................... 2 2.1 Definitions of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts ............................ 2 2.2 Guidance ..................................................................................................... 3 3.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................... 3 3.1 Step 1 — Resource Study Area, Conditions, and Trends ........................... 4 3.1.1 Identification of Resources ............................................................. 4 3.1.2 Resource Study Area ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hill Country Is Located in Central Texas
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Regional Description ……………………………………………………1 Topography and Characteristics………………………………..2 Major Cities / Rainfall / Elevation……………………………….3 Common Vegetation……………………………………………..4 Rare Plants and Habitats……………………………………..…4 Common Wildlife ……………………………………………..….4 Rare Animals …………………………………………….……....4 Issues and Topics of Concern ……………………….…………..……5 Project WILD Activities …………………….……………….………….6 TPWD Resources …………………………………………….….…….6 REGIONAL DESCRIPTION The Texas Hill Country is located in Central Texas. A drive through the Hill Country will take the visitor across rolling hills, crisscrossed with many streams and rivers. The Edwards Plateau dominates a large portion of the Texas Hill Country and is honeycombed with thousands of caves. Several aquifers lie beneath the Texas Hill Country. The Edwards Aquifer is one of nine major state aquifers. It covers 4,350 square miles and eleven counties. It provides drinking and irrigation water as well as recreational opportunities for millions of people. San Antonio obtains its entire municipal water supply from the Edwards Aquifer and is one of the largest cities in the world to rely solely on a single ground-water source. Springs are created when the water in an aquifer naturally emerges at the surface. Central Texas was once a land of many springs. Statewide, it is estimated that Texas currently has nearly 1,900 known springs. The majority of these springs are located within the Texas Hill Country. Many of the streams that flow through the rocky, tree-shaded hills of Central Texas are fed by springs. These streams are home to many species of fish, amphibians, plants and insects, which depend on a steady flow of clean water for survival. Some of these species (salamanders in particular) are found only in these spring- fed environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Report 360 Aquifers of the Edwards Plateau Chapter 2
    Chapter 2 Conceptual Model for the Edwards–Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer System, Texas Roberto Anaya1 Introduction The passage of Senate Bill 1 in 1997 established a renewed public interest in the State’s water resources not experienced since the drought of the 1950s. Senate Bill 1 of 1999 and Senate Bill 2 of 2001 provided state funding to initiate the development of groundwater availability models for all of the major and minor aquifers of Texas. The development and management of Groundwater Availability Models (GAMs) has been tasked to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) to provide reliable and timely information on the State’s groundwater resources. TWDB staff is currently developing a GAM for the Edwards–Trinity (Plateau) aquifer. An essential task in the design of a numerical groundwater flow model is the development of a conceptual model. The conceptual model is a generalized description of the aquifer system that defines boundaries, hydrogeologic parameters, and hydrologic stress variables. The conceptual model helps to compile and organize field data and to simplify the real-world aquifer flow system into a graphical or diagrammatical representation while retaining the complexity needed to adequately reproduce the system behavior (Anderson and Woessner, 1992). The first step in the development of a conceptual model is to delineate the study area and form an understanding of its physical landscape with regard to the physiography, climate, and geology. Another early step also involves the research and investigation of previous aquifer studies. Intermediate steps bring together all of the information for establishing the hydrogeologic setting which consists of the hydrostratigraphy, structural geometry, hydraulic properties, water levels and regional groundwater flow, recharge, interactions between surface water and groundwater, well discharge, and water quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Landscape Report the Browning Ranch Blanco County
    Cultural Landscape Report For The Browning Ranch Blanco County, Texas Laura Knott, Jeffrey Chusid and the University of Texas School of Architecture Historic Preservation Program Cultural Landscape Class of Spring, 2003. Copyright, August 2003, Laura Knott and Jeffrey Chusid, Austin, Texas Browning Ranch Cultural Landscape Report Table of Contents Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................. iii Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... iv Chapter I: Prehistory and History .........................................................................................................1 Chapter II: Conditions Assessment.....................................................................................................11 Chapter III: Recommendations...........................................................................................................77 Appendices...........................................................................................................................................95 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................149 University of Texas School of Architecture ii Browning Ranch Cultural Landscape Report Acknowledgements The production of this report would not have been possible without the generous support
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Technical Report for the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority 183 North Mobility Project
    Groundwater Technical Report for the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority 183 North Mobility Project CSJ # 0151-05-100 and 3136-01-185 Prepared for CP&Y, Inc. Prepared by Cambrian Environmental with SWCA Environmental Consultants July 2, 2015 SWCA Project Number 25572-AUS This page left intentionally blank ES-1 Groundwater Technical Report for the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority 183 North Mobility Project CAMBRIAN ENVIRONMENTAL 4422 Pack Saddle Pass No. 204 Austin, Texas 78745 with SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 4407 Monterey Oaks Blvd No. 110 Austin, Texas 78749 Submitted to: CP&Y, Inc. The Chase Bank Building Tower of the Hills 13809 Research Blvd, No. 300 Austin, Texas 78750 Attn: Andy Atlas July 2, 2015 Geological analysis and interpretations conducted by and under the direct supervision of Kemble White Ph.D., P.G., Texas Professional Geoscientist license number 3863. As a licensed professional geoscientist I attest that the contents of this report are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ES-2 This page left intentionally blank ES-3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed 183 North Mobility Project (Project) is a cooperative effort by the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to improve US 183 from State Highway (SH) 45/Ranch-to-Market Road (RM) 620 to Loop 1 (MoPac) (CSJ 0151-05-100 and 3136-01-185).Proposed Project activities involve a total of approximately 724.6 acres; 714.2 acres of existing right-of-way (ROW), 8.0 acres of proposed ROW, and 2.4 acres of existing easements, as shown in Figure 1 (Project Area).
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Selected Natural Resources Within Williamson and Parts of Adjacent Counties, Texas
    Area Study: Williamson and Parts of Adjacent Counties Evaluation of Selected Natural Resources within Williamson and Parts of Adjacent Counties, Texas South San Gabriel (Blue Hole), Williamson County, Texas. RESOURCE PROTECTION DIVISION: WATER RESOURCES TEAM Evaluation of Selected Natural Resources within Williamson and Parts of Adjacent Counties, Texas By: Albert El-Hage Daniel W. Moulton January 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages Tables ................................................................................................................. ii Figures ................................................................................................................ ii Executive Summary............................................................................................. iii INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 1 Location and Extent............................................................................................. 1 Geography and Ecology....................................................................................... 1 Population ........................................................................................................... 4 Economy and Land Use....................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bedrock Geology of Round Rock and Surrounding Areas, Williamson and Travis Counties, Texas
    Bedrock Geology of Round Rock and Surrounding Areas, Williamson and Travis Counties, Texas Todd B. Housh Bedrock Geology of Round Rock and Surrounding Areas, Williamson and Travis Counties, Texas Todd B. Housh Copyright 2007 Todd B Housh, PhD, PG Round Rock, TX 78664 Cover photograph: The “Round Rock,” an erosional pedestal of Edward’s limestone that marked the low‐water crossing of Brushy Creek by the Chisholm Trail. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 5 Tectonic History 6 Previous Studies 8 Other Geologic Constraints 9 Stratigraphy 9 Comanche Series Fredericksburg Group Walnut Formation 10 Comanche Peak 10 Edwards 12 Kiamichi 13 Washita Group Georgetown 14 Del Rio 15 Buda 16 Gulf Series Woodbine Group Pepper 16 Eagle Ford Group 17 Austin Group 19 Taylor Group 21 Tertiary and Quaternary Systems Plio‐Pleistocene to Recent 22 Structure 23 Acknowledgements 27 Bibliography 28 Appendix 1. Compilation of sources of other geologic information. 34 Appendix 2. Localities of note to observe important geologic 40 features in the Round Rock Area. Appendix 3. Checklist of Cretaceous and Pleistocene fossils 45 3 4 Bedrock Geology of Round Rock and Surrounding Areas, Williamson and Travis Counties, Texas Todd B. Housh Introduction The purpose of this study was to produce a map of the bedrock geology of the city of Round Rock, Texas and its environs and to evaluate the geologic structure of the area. Most of the City of Round Rock lies within the Round Rock 7.5 minute quadrangle, Williamson County, Texas1, although parts of the city also lie within the Pflugerville West 7.5 minute quadrangle, Travis County, Texas2 and the Hutto 7.5 minute quadrangle, Williamson County, Texas3.
    [Show full text]