North Concho River Watershed

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

North Concho River Watershed ~- Prepared by the: Uppe-r Colomdo Rive-r Authwit4 Brush Control Planning, Assessment ~ f=easiblity S-tudy Upper Colorado River Authority • Final Report amended January 1999 N_Q_r~b____ QQ-n:~bQ ____~i~~--r ____ ~_gJ;_~r:§_b~~-- BRusl-l CONTROL PLANNING. ASSt:;;SSMt:;;NT &.l=t:;;ASIBILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS • 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... page 2 • 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................ page 4 • 3.0 HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION ................................................ page 11 3.1 Description of the Watershed 3.2 Historical Considerations 3.21 Ecological History 3.22 Hydrological History 3.3 Geological Considerations 3.4 Existing Surface Water Hydrology 3.5 Existing Groundwater Hydrogeology 3.6 Description of the Watershed Hydrologic System 3. 7 Hydrologic Evaluation Summary & Conclusions • 4.0 DATABASE AND GIS DEVELOPMENT.. ............................... page 34 ANALYSIS OF WATERSHED MODELING • 5.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ......................................................... page 50 • 6.0 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ............................................ page 56 • LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. page 60 • LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... page 63 • LIST OF PLATES ............................................................................. page 66 ~CKNOWLEDGMENTS The preparation of this report is the result of more than a dozen state, federal and local entities uniting under a common brush control banner lo marshal all possible resources which would develop data conclusions and recommendations for feasible and practical means of providing water for the North Concho River Watershed. The catalyst for this cooperation is due to State Representative Robert /unel/ and his efforts to tmite all parties into a common goal. Special thanks are also due to Craig Pedersen, Executive Administrator of the Texas Water Development Board for support of tl1is project. In addition, more than forty individuals have been involved in the preparation of the report and include: John Walker Stephen Brown johnny Oswald Darrell Ueckert Fred Teagarden ]ames Moore Stan Reineke Ellen Groth Darwin Schrader Tim Reineke C. Skeete Foster J.P. Bach Mark Ramirez Ruby Gutierrez Richard Conner Chad Chadbourne /effie Roberts F. Charles Baird Scott Durham Ray Alderman Steven T. Bednarz Gary Grogan Dorris Sonnenberg William A. Dugas, Jr. Bob Jennings Ralph Hoelscher Lee Miller David Rawlings Hope Huffman Tim]. Dyba/a Reed johnson Jack Brewer Hugh L. Stone Bi/1 Barber Fred Campbell Tim R. Turner Cliff Caldwell Billy Johnston George Barnham Sisco Jr. Jeff Copeland Matthew G. Bisson Larry Glass Gary Foster Craig Demere Lonnie Horwood Winn McClure Reed Stewart Frank Price Mackey McEntire Nort.b Concbo River W at,ersbell --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8RUSl-l CONTROL PLANNING. ASS!;SSMGNT &. J=GAS/8/L/TY STUDY INTRODUCTION 1.0 During the last 35 years, stream flow on the North Concho River has decreased to less than 22% of that of the previous 35 years, even though average annual rainfall has increased slightly in the same period. Records and historical accounts indicate that the North Concho River and its main tributaries generally experienced continuous perennial flows from 1925 to 1959 . Official USGS stream measuring stations immediately north of San Angelo recorded a total of 1,351,593 acre feet of water stream flow during that period for an average of 38,617 acre feet of water per year. Annual average rainfall at the measuring station was 19.48 inches for that same period. From 1960 through 1996 a total of 309,255 acre feet of water stream flow was recorded (or an average of 8,358 acre feet per year). Average annual rainfall from 1960 through 1996 was 20.31 inches. The North Concho River and its tributaries have ceased to have perennial continuous flow. The river and its tributaries have evolved into small areas of water impoundments replenished solely by major storm events and minor sporadic stream flow. There may be several factors contributing to the decrease in stream flow during this comparison period. Infestation of noxious brush, which has robbed and is continuing to degrade the underground aquifers, may account for a major portion of the decreased flow on the North Concho River watershed. This study has been executed to document the role of brush control in watershed restoration. The watershed of the North Concho River and its main tributaries consists of approximatley 950,000 acres, much of which has become infested with brush. It is believed that brush has robbed the underground aquifers of their once prolific outcrop springs. This has resulted in a drastic reduction in average annual stream flow in the river and subsequently into the only reservoir on the watershed--O.C. Fisher. As a consequence of the diminished North Concho River stream flow, landowners in the watershed have experienced water shortages, major degradation of underground aquifers (causing irrigation practices to be limited), deteriorated 2 water quality, annihilated aquatic habitats and steadily decreased public water supplies for a reservoir intended to sustain a major metropolitan center of Texas. In an effort to determine the exact damage noxious brush caused on the North Concho River watershed, as well as to evaluate methods and procedures for eradication or removal of certain areas of heavily infested brush, several entities have united into a compact. These entities have been assisted by additional state and federal agencies to undertake this comprehensive study. This assessment will provide the Texas Water Development Board and the people of Texas with means, procedures, and recommendations of how to recapture and utilize water, now being stolen, for increased public benefit on an entire watershed. 3 XECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.0 The rapid depletion of water resources in Texas due to urban growth, agriculture, industrial and other increased uses requires and demands that state government take immediate and decisive steps toward developing, saving, enhancement and utilization of existing known water sources that are now being robbed from the people of Texas by non- productive and noxious brush. Nowhere is that thievery more apparent than in an already water poor West Texas ..... and specifically the North Concho River watershed, which encompasses more than 950,000 acres. There are more than 130 million mesquite trees and 100 million juniper trees which have tentacle roots serving as straws sucking water from the North Concho River watershed. The potential transpiration by mesquite and juniper on this watershed is to rob almost 2 million acre feet of water annually from productive use. By way of contrast, mesquite and juniper on the North Concho watershed use 100 times more water than the City of San Angelo uses annually. Therefore, the objective of this study is to recapture some of this water which is being needlessly wasted. The North Concho River Watershed Brush Control Study is the result of a year-long cooperative study of the watershed, detailing its history, hydrology, geology, land use, past and present characteristics. It makes dynamic and conclusive recommendations which call for immediate action from state government, political subdivisions and landowners to initiate an action program which will result in removal of mesquite and juniper and restore underground aquifers and natural stream flow for public benefit. The study was accomplished through a partnership composed of the Upper Colorado River Authority, Texas A&M Research & Extension Center and The Texas State Soil & Water Conservation Board through a grant obtained through the Texas Water Development Board. In addition, other participants include the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Blackland Research Center, and Soil & Water Conservation Districts from Tom Green, Coke, Sterling and Glasscock County. The following pages of this executive summary outline the study and program, its effects, costs, implementation and administration. The text and graphics show the detail, methodology and procedures utilized in finalizing recommendations and conclusions. However, the paramount conclusion flowing through the report is that with successful brush control on the watershed, stream flow in the North Concho river can increase five times over the current amount, underground aquifers can be recharged and water for the people of Texas made available at a cost to the state a fraction of the cost of what a West Texas city or individual pays for water. 4 •----------------------------------------Estimated-Effects-otBrush-£-ontrol-cn-Water-Yfeld- Prior to simulation of stream flow in the North Concho River, a Geographic Information System (GIS) was developed to characterize the area and provide inputs for the simulation model. Data layers in the GIS included soils, topography, climate and vegetation type. The present amount of land in different vegetation types was determined using satellite imagery that was ground truthed for accuracy. The vegetation types and amounts of acreage of primary interest to this study were heavy cedar- 110,508 acres; heavy mesquite- 155,896 acres; moderate mesquite- 92, 735 acres; and light brush- 73,346 acres. Thus a total of 432,485 acres or 45% of the watershed
Recommended publications
  • Listing of Local Beekeepers' Associations in Texas with TBA
    Listing of Local Beekeepers’ Associations in Texas with TBA Delegate and Regular Meeting Information Shown for Each Please forward any changes and/or additions to John J. Talbert, Executive Secretary, [email protected] Alamo Area Beekeepers Association Concho Valley Beekeepers Association Rick Fink - (210) 872-4569 Mel Williams - (325) 668-5080 [email protected] [email protected] www.alamobees.org Meetings: 3rd Tuesday of each month Jan-Nov Meetings: 3rd Tuesday on odd # months; at Texas A&M Research and Extension Center Helotes Ind. Baptist Church 7887 US Hwy 87 N, San Angelo @ 7:30 pm 15335 Bandera Rd., Helotes @ 7 pm Deep East Texas Beekeepers Association Austin Area Beekeepers Association Ellen Reeder - (337) 499-6826 Lance Wilson - (512) 619-3700 [email protected] [email protected] 1299 Farm Road 3017, San Augustine, TX 75972 8701 North Mopac Expressway #150, Austin TX 78759 www.meetup.com/Austin-Urban-Beekeeping/. Meetings: 1st Tuesday of each month Meeting: 3rd Monday of each month San Augustine Chamber of Commerce Building, 611 West Columbia Street, Old Quarry Library, 7051 Village Center Dr., Austin TX 78731 @ 7pm San Augustine, TX 75972 @ 6 pm Bell/Coryell Beekeepers Association Denton County Beekeepers Association Dennis Herbert - (254) 947-8633 Christina Beck - (940) 765-6845 [email protected] [email protected] Meetings: 3rd Thursday of each month (except Dec.) 2217 Denison, Denton, TX 76201 Trinity Worship Center, 1802 MLK Dr., Copperas Cove, TX 76522 at 7pm Meetings: 1st Wednesday
    [Show full text]
  • Concho River & Upper Colorado River Basins
    CONCHO RIVER & UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASINS Brush Control Feasibility Study Prepared By The: UPPER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY In Cooperation with TEXAS STATE SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION BOARD and TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY December 2000 Cover Photograph: Rocky Creek located in Irion County, Texas following restoration though a comprehensive brush control program. Photo courtesy of United States Natural Resources Conservation Services. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The preparation of this report is the result of action by many state, federal and local entities and of many individuals dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of water resources within the State of Texas. This report is one of several funded by the Legislature of Texas to be implemented by the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board during FYE2000. We commend the Texas Legislature for its’ extraordinary insight and boldness in moving ahead with planning that will be critical to water supply provision in future decades. In particular, the efforts of State Representative Robert Junell are especially recognized for his vision in coordinating the initial feasibility study conducted on the North Concho River and his support for studies of additional watershed basins in Texas. The following individuals are recognized as having made substantial contributions to this study and preparation of this report: Arlan Youngblood Ben Wilde Bill Tullos Billy Williams Bob Buckley Bob Jennings Bob Northcutt Brent Murphy C. Wade Clifton C.J. Robinson Carl Schlinke David Wilson Don Davis Eddy Spurgin Edwin Garner Gary Askins Tommy Morrison Woody Anderson Gary Grogan Howard Morrison J.P. Bach James Moore Jessie Whitlow Jimmy Sterling Joe Dean Weatherby Joe Funk John Anderson John Walker Johnny Oswald Keith Collom Kevin Spreen Kevin Wagner Lad Lithicum Lisa Barker Marjorie Mathis Max S.
    [Show full text]
  • Occasional Papers Museum of Texas Tech University Number 265 21 December 2006
    Occasional Papers Museum of Texas Tech University Number 265 21 December 2006 THE MAMMALS OF SAN ANGELO STATE PARK, TOM GREEN COUNTY, TEXAS JOEL G. BRANT, ROBERT C. DOWLER, AND CARLA E. EBELING ABSTRACT A survey of the mammalian fauna of San Angelo State Park, Tom Green County, Texas, began in April 1999 and includes data collected through November 2005. Thirty-one species of native mammals, representing 7 orders and 18 families, were verified at the state park. The mammalian fauna at the state park is composed primarily of western Edwards Plateau mam- mals, which include many Chihuahuan species, and mammals with widespread distributions. The most abundant species of small mammal at the state park were Neotoma micropus and Peromyscus maniculatus. The total trap success for this study (1.5%) was lower than expected and may reflect the drought conditions experienced in this area during the study period. Key words: Edwards Plateau, mammal survey, San Angelo State Park, Texas, Tom Green County, zoogeography INTRODUCTION San Angelo State Park (SASP) is located about tributaries, and the North Concho River with its asso- 10 km (6 mi.) west of San Angelo in Tom Green ciated tributaries and O. C. Fisher Reservoir (Fig. 1). County, Texas, and is situated around O. C. Fisher The North Concho River creates a dispersal corridor Reservoir and the North Concho River (Figs. 1 and for eastern species to move west into west-central 2). This area is an ecotonal zone at the junction of Texas. two major biotic regions in Texas, the Edwards Pla- teau (Balconian) to the south and the Rolling Plains to The soils of SASP are composed mostly of the north (Blair 1950).
    [Show full text]
  • San Angelo Project History
    San Angelo Project Jennifer E. Zuniga Bureau of Reclamation 1999 Table of Contents The San Angelo Project.........................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................3 Project Authorization.....................................................4 Construction History .....................................................7 Post Construction History ................................................12 Settlement of Project Lands ...............................................16 Project Benefits and Use of Project Water ...................................16 Conclusion............................................................17 About the Author .............................................................17 Bibliography ................................................................18 Archival and Manuscript Collections .......................................18 Government Documents .................................................18 Articles...............................................................18 Books ................................................................18 Index ......................................................................19 1 The San Angelo Project The San Angelo Project is a multipurpose project in the Concho River Basin of west- central Texas. In a region historically known for intermittent droughts and floods, the project provides protection against both weather extremes.
    [Show full text]
  • Child Protection Court of South Texas Court #1, 6Th Administrative Judicial
    Child Protection Court of South Texas Court #1, 6th Administrative Judicial Region Kendall County Courthouse 201 East San Antonio Street, Suite 224 Boerne, TX 78006 phone: 830.249.9343 fax: 830.249.9335 Cathy Morris, Associate Judge Sharra Cantu, Court Coordinator. [email protected] East Texas Cluster Court Court #2, 2nd Administrative Judicial Region 301 N. Thompson Suite 102 Conroe, Texas 77301 phone: 409.538.8176 fax: 936.538.8167 Jerry Winfree, Assigned Judge (Montgomery) John Delaney, Assigned Judge (Brazos) P.K. Reiter, Assigned Judge (Grimes, Leon, Madison) Cheryl Wallingford, Court Coordinator. [email protected] (Montgomery) Tracy Conroy, Court Coordinator. [email protected] (Brazos, Grimes, Leon, Madison) Child Protection Court of the Rio Grande Valley West Court #3, 5th Administrative Judicial Region P.O. Box 1356 (100 E. Cano, 2nd Fl.) Edinburg, Texas 78540 phone: 956.318.2672 fax: 956.381.1950 Carlos Villalon, Jr., Associate Judge Delilah Alvarez, Court Coordinator. [email protected] Information current as of 06/16. Page 1 Child Protection Court of Central Texas Court #4, 3rd Administrative Judicial Region 150 N. Seguin, Suite 317 New Braunfels, Texas 78130 phone: 830.221.1197 fax: 830.608.8210 Melissa McClenahan, Associate Judge Karen Cortez, Court Coordinator. [email protected] 4th & 5th Administrative Judicial Regions Cluster Court Court #5, 4th & 5th Administrative Judicial Regions Webb County Justice Center 1110 Victoria St., Suite 105 Laredo, Texas 78040 phone: 956.523.4231 fax: 956.523.5039 alt. fax: 956.523.8055 Selina Mireles, Associate Judge Gabriela Magnon Salinas, Court Coordinator. [email protected] Northeast Texas Child Protection Court No.
    [Show full text]
  • Listing of Local Beekeepers' Associations in Texas with TBA
    Listing of Local Beekeepers’ Associations in Texas with TBA Delegate and Regular Meeting Information Shown for Each Please forward any changes and/or additions to John J. Talbert, Executive Secretary, [email protected] Alamo Area Beekeepers Association Concho Valley Beekeepers Association Rick Fink - (210) 872-4569 Mel Williams - (325) 668-5080 [email protected] [email protected] www.alamobees.org Meetings: 3rd Tuesday of each month Jan-Nov Meetings: 3rd Tuesday on odd # months; at Texas A&M Research and Extension Center Helotes Ind. Baptist Church 7887 US Hwy 87 N, San Angelo @ 7:30 pm 15335 Bandera Rd., Helotes @ 7 pm Deep East Texas Beekeepers Association Austin Area Beekeepers Association Ellen Reeder - (337) 499-6826 Lance Wilson - (512) 619-3700 [email protected] [email protected] 1299 Farm Road 3017, San Augustine, TX 75972 8701 North Mopac Expressway #150, Austin TX 78759 www.meetup.com/Austin-Urban-Beekeeping/. Meetings: 1st Tuesday of each month Meeting: 3rd Monday of each month San Augustine Chamber of Commerce Building, 611 West Columbia Street, Old Quarry Library, 7051 Village Center Dr., Austin TX 78731 @ 7pm San Augustine, TX 75972 @ 6 pm Bell/Coryell Beekeepers Association Denton County Beekeepers Association Dennis Herbert - (254) 947-8633 Christina Beck - (940) 765-6845 [email protected] [email protected] 7986 Rita Bend Dr., Salado, TX 76571 2217 Denison, Denton, TX 76201 Meetings: 3rd Thursday of each month (except Dec.) Meetings: 1st Wednesday of each month at 6:30pm
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Trends in Streamflow from Semiarid Rangelands
    Global Change Biology (2008) 14, 1676–1689, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01578.x Long-term trends in streamflow from semiarid rangelands: uncovering drivers of change BRADFORD P. WILCOX*, YUN HUANG* andJOHN W. WALKERw *Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA, wTexas AgriLIFE Research, San Angelo, TX 76901, USA Abstract In the last 100 years or so, desertification, degradation, and woody plant encroachment have altered huge tracts of semiarid rangelands. It is expected that the changes thus brought about significantly affect water balance in these regions; and in fact, at the headwater-catchment and smaller scales, such effects are reasonably well documented. For larger scales, however, there is surprisingly little documentation of hydrological change. In this paper, we evaluate the extent to which streamflow from large rangeland watersheds in central Texas has changed concurrent with the dramatic shifts in vegeta- tion cover (transition from pristine prairie to degraded grassland to woodland/savanna) that have taken place during the last century. Our study focused on the three watersheds that supply the major tributaries of the Concho River – those of the North Concho (3279 km2), the Middle Concho (5398 km2), and the South Concho (1070 km2). Using data from the period of record (1926–2005), we found that annual streamflow for the North Concho decreased by about 70% between 1960 and 2005. Not only did we find no downtrend in precipitation that might explain this reduced flow, we found no corre- sponding change in annual streamflow for the other two watersheds (which have more karst parent material).
    [Show full text]
  • San Angeloangelo
    RealReal EstateEstate MarketMarket OverviewOverview SanSan AngeloAngelo Jennifer S. Cowley Assistant Research Scientist Texas A&M University July 2001 © 2001, Real Estate Center. All rights reserved. RealReal EstateEstate MarketMarket OverviewOverview SanSan AngeloAngelo Contents 2 Population 5 Employment 8 Job Market Major Industries 9 Business Climate 10 Transportation and Infrastructure Issues Public Facilities 11 Urban Growth Patterns Map 1. Growth Areas 12 Education 13 Housing 16 Multifamily 17 Manufactured Housing Seniors Housing 18 Retail Market 19 Map 2. Retail Building Permits Office Market 20 Map 3. Office and Industrial Building Permits 21 Industrial Market Conclusion RealReal EstateEstate MarketMarket OverviewOverview SanSan AngeloAngelo Jennifer S. Cowley Assistant Research Scientist US 87 US 67 San Angelo SH 306 US 277 Area Cities and Towns County Land Area of San Angelo MSA Carlsbad Tom Green 1,542 square miles San Angelo Tankersley Population Density (2000) Vancourt 67 people per square mile Wall Water Valley he San Angelo Metropolitan Sta- Angelo was founded in 1867 as Fort stays, San Angelo is a hub of economic tistical Area (MSA), located in Concho in an effort to protect citizens activity for 13 surrounding counties. T the Concho Valley of west cen- and provide a medical center during The area is well known for its history of tral Texas, lies between the Texas Hill tuberculosis outbreaks. Today, be- sheep and goat production, which Country to the southeast and the roll- cause of its strong health care, agricul- adds more than $47.5 million to the ing plains to the northwest. San tural, educational and military main- economy each year. 1 POPULATION Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio San Angelo MSA Population Year Population 1990 98,257 1991 97,923 1992 99,107 1993 99,661 1994 100,776 1995 101,077 1996 101,789 1997 102,285 1998 102,685 1999 102,300 2000 104,010 Source: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Whiteness and Civility: White Racial Attitudes in the Concho Valley, 1869-1930
    WHITENESS AND CIVILITY: WHITE RACIAL ATTITUDES IN THE CONCHO VALLEY, 1869-1930 A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies of Angelo State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS by MATTHEW SCOTT JOHNSTON August 2015 Major: History WHITENESS AND CIVILITY: WHITE RACIAL ATTITUDES IN THE CONCHO VALLEY, 1869-1930 by MATTHEW SCOTT JOHNSTON APPROVED: Dr. Jason Pierce, Ph. D. Dr. Kenneth Heinemann, Ph. D. Dr. Kanisorn Wongsrichanalai, Ph.D. Dr. Cheryl Stenmark, Ph.D August 2015 APPROVED: Dr. Susan E. Keith Dean of the College of Graduate Studies ABSTRACT Implicit in the ideology of White Supremacy is the idea of moral supremacy over non-white peoples. However, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century whites consistently crossed the blurry, racialized line that defined them by what they were not. In the west-central Texas region of the Concho Valley, breaching law and order and social mores condemned some whites to lose degrees of whiteness in the eyes of their peers. Some whites appeared hypocritical in their rebuke of racial terrorism. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century many white West Texans became guilty of the very lawless and violent attributes they generally applied to those of a different skin color, thus exposing the schizophrenic and ambiguous nature of the notion of white supremacy. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….....iii TABLE OF CONTENTS…......................................................................................................iv INTRODUCTION….................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER I. AFTER JUNTEENTH: RACE AND WHITE SUPREMACY IN POSTBELLUM TEXAS………………………………………………………………………………………..7 II. WHITE SUPREMACY IN THE CONCHO COUNTRY, 1867-1900…................18 III.
    [Show full text]
  • Texoma Workforce Development Board Member Manual
    TEXOMA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEMBER MANUAL Section 1 - Introduction What is a Workforce Board? Workforce Boards are a local unit of government created by the Texas Legislature in 1995. Boards are the locally controlled entity designated to administer employment and training programs throughout the state. There are 28 Boards in the state of Texas. Each Board must have 51% of its members appointed from the private sector. Other categories that must be represented are: secondary education, post-secondary education, adult education, literacy, organized labor, rehabilitation and community based organizations. What is a Workforce Development Area? There are 28 Workforce Development Areas (WDA) in the state of Texas. The Texoma Workforce Development Area includes Cooke, Fannin and Grayson Counties. On the map below, the Texoma Workforce Development Area is listed as #25. Local Workforce Development Boards 1. Panhandle 2. South Plains 3. North Texas 4. North Central 5. Tarrant County 6. Dallas 7. North East 8. East Texas 9. West Central 10. Upper Rio Grande 11. Permian Basin 12. Concho Valley 13. Heart of Texas 14. Capital Area 15. Rural Capital 16. Brazos Valley 17. Deep East Texas 18. South East Texas 19. Golden Crescent 20. Alamo 21. South Texas 22. Coastal Bend 23. Lower Rio Grande Valley 24. Cameron County 25. Texoma 26. Central Texas 27. Middle Rio Grande 28. Gulf Coast Who is a CEO? The CEOs are the Chief Elected Officials for each Board area. CEOs are defined in the legislation (HB 1863) that created Boards. For Texoma, the CEOs are the three county judges and the mayor of the largest city (Sherman).
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 512 490-0057 FAX 490-0974 December 3, 2004 Wayne A. Lea Chief, Regulatory Branch Fort Worth District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 17300 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300 Consultation No. 2-15-F-2004-0242 Dear Mr. Lea: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the proposed water operations by the Colorado River Municipal Water District (District) on the Colorado and Concho rivers, located in Coleman, Concho, Coke, Tom Green, and Runnels counties. These actions are authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Permit Number 197900225, Ivie (Stacy) Reservoir project, pursuant to compliance with the Clean Water Act. The District and the Corps have indicated, through letters dated September 10, 2004, and September 13, 2004, respectively, that an emergency condition affecting human health and safety exists with this action. We have considered the effects of the proposed action on the federally listed threatened Concho water snake (Nerodia harteri paucimaculata) in accordance with formal interagency consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The emergency consultation provisions are contained within 50 CFR section 402.05 of the Interagency Regulations. Your July 8, 2004, request for reinitiating formal consultation was received on July 12, 2004. You designated District as your non-federal representative. This biological opinion is based on information provided in agency reports, telephone conversations, field investigations, and other sources of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Louise Independent School District Cc. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts 408 2Nd Street Louise, Texas 77455
    Amendment One [8/05/2019] Louise Independent School District cc. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts 408 2nd Street Louise, Texas 77455 RE: Application #1387 Louise Solar, LLC Amendment One Dear Dr. Oliver, Please find attached amendment one for application #1387 Louise Solar, LLC. It is our request that Louise Independent School District considers these changes to the application. They include the following: • Section 9: Projected Timeline o 4. First Year of Limitation updated • Section 14: Wage and Employment Information o 7a.-7c. Wages Updated o 8. Wage Updated o 9. Wage Updated • Tab 5 o Edited to remove reference to Discounted Cash Flow model • Tab 11 o Additional maps provided displaying the project boundary and proposed reinvestment zone within Louise Independent School District • Tab 13 o Calculation A-C updated to reflect newly released wages • Tab 14 o All schedules updated We appreciated your consideration of this request. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Please note: Louise Solar, LLC has previously been known as Texana Solar, LLC. It was assigned IGNR number 18INR0058 on 12/20/2016 under the Texana name. Best, Mike Fry—Director, Energy Services [email protected] AUSTIN • DALLAS • DENVER 1900 DALROCK ROAD • ROWLETT, TX 75088 • T (469) 298-1594 • F (469) 298-1595 • keatax.com Amendment One [8/05/2019] Data Analysis and Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Transparency Form 50-296-A SECTION 9: Projected Timeline 1. Application approval by school board ................................................................ _____________________ 2. Commencement of construction .................................................................... _____________________ 3. Beginning of qualifying time period ................................................................. _____________________ 4. First year of limitation ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]