DOCSLIB.ORG

Brazos River Basin Highlights Report 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brazos River Basin Highlights Report 2009 Brazos River Basin Highlights Report 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................4 THIS YEARS HIGHLIGHTS ........................................................................................................ 4 Chloride................................................................................................................................... 4 New Projects........................................................................................................................... 5 Completion of the 2007 Basin Summary Report................................................................. 5 National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference ........................................ 5 Texas Water Quality Inventory and 303(d) List ................................................................... 6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OTHER INFORMATION............................................................ 7 Brazos River Basin Clean Rivers Program Steering Committee....................................... 7 Brazos Basin CRP Website ................................................................................................... 7 SPECIAL PROJECTS......................................................................................................................9 Watershed Protection Plan for Lake Granbury....................................................................... 9 Watershed Protection Plan for Lake Granger and the San Gabriel River............................ 9 Watershed Protection Plan for the Leon River ..................................................................... 10 Little Brazos River Tributaries Bacteria Assessment .......................................................... 10 Clean Texas Marina Program.................................................................................................. 10 Clean Water Sticker Program ................................................................................................. 11 EVALUATING WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................11 Descriptions of Water Quality Parameters............................................................................ 13 Monitoring in the Brazos River Basin.................................................................................... 15 Biological Assessments.......................................................................................................... 16 BASIN OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................17 WATERSHED OF THE SALT FORK AND DOUBLE MOUNTAIN FORK OF THE BRAZOS RIVER (MAP)............................................................................................................................. 18 Salt Fork of the Brazos River (Segment 1238) .................................................................. 18 White River (Segment 1239)................................................................................................ 18 White River Lake (Segment 1240)....................................................................................... 18 Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (Segment 1241)............................................ 19 WATERSHED OF THE CLEAR FORK OF THE BRAZOS RIVER (MAP) ................................ 19 Clear Fork of the Brazos River (Segment 1232)................................................................ 19 Hubbard Creek Reservoir (Segment 1233) ........................................................................ 20 Lake Cisco (Segment 1234)................................................................................................. 20 Lake Stamford (Segment 1235)........................................................................................... 20 Fort Phantom Hill Reservoir (Segment 1236).................................................................... 20 UPPER WATERSHED OF THE BRAZOS RIVER (MAP) ......................................................... 21 Lake Graham (Segment 1231)............................................................................................. 21 Brazos River above Possum Kingdom Reservoir (Segment 1208)................................. 21 Possum Kingdom Lake (Segment 1207)............................................................................ 21 Brazos River below Possum Kingdom Reservoir (Segment 1206)................................. 22 Lake Palo Pinto (Segment 1230)......................................................................................... 22 Lake Granbury (Segment 1205) .......................................................................................... 22 Brazos River below Lake Granbury (Segment 1204)........................................................ 23 Paluxy River (Segment 1229) .............................................................................................. 23 Lake Pat Cleburne (Segment 1228) .................................................................................... 23 Nolan River (Segment 1227)................................................................................................ 24 Lake Whitney (Segment 1203)............................................................................................. 24 Brazos River below Lake Whitney (Segment 1257) .......................................................... 24 AQUILLA CREEK WATERSHED (MAP) ................................................................................... 25 Aquilla Reservoir (Segment 1254) ...................................................................................... 25 Brazos River/Lake Brazos (Segment 1256) ....................................................................... 25 BOSQUE RIVER WATERSHED (MAP) .................................................................................... 25 Upper North Bosque River (Segment 1255) ...................................................................... 25 North Bosque River (Segment 1226).................................................................................. 26 Middle Bosque / South Bosque River (Segment 1246) .................................................... 27 Waco Lake (Segment 1225)................................................................................................. 27 LEON RIVER WATERSHED (MAP).......................................................................................... 28 Leon Reservoir (Segment 1224) ......................................................................................... 28 Leon River below Leon Reservoir (Segment 1223)........................................................... 28 Proctor Lake (Segment 1222).............................................................................................. 28 Leon River Below Proctor Lake (Segment 1221) .............................................................. 29 Belton Lake (Segment 1220) ............................................................................................... 29 Leon River Below Belton Lake (Segment 1219)................................................................ 30 Nolan Creek/South Nolan Creek (Segment 1218) ............................................................. 30 LAMPASAS RIVER WATERSHED (MAP) ................................................................................ 30 Lampasas River Above Stillhouse Hollow Lake (Segment 1217).................................... 30 Stillhouse Hollow Lake (Segment 1216) ............................................................................ 30 Lampasas River Below Stillhouse Hollow Lake (Segment 1215).................................... 31 Salado Creek (Segment 1243)............................................................................................. 31 LITTLE RIVER WATERSHED (MAP)........................................................................................ 31 North Fork San Gabriel River (Segment 1251) ................................................................. 32 Lake Georgetown (Segment 1249) ..................................................................................... 32 South Fork San Gabriel River (Segment 1250).................................................................. 32 San Gabriel/North Fork San Gabriel River (Segment 1248) ............................................ 32 Granger Lake (Segment 1247)............................................................................................. 33 Brushy Creek (Segment 1244) ............................................................................................ 34 San Gabriel River (Segment 1214)...................................................................................... 34 Little River (Segment 1213) ................................................................................................. 34 CENTRAL WATERSHED (MAP)............................................................................................... 34 Brazos River above Navasota (Segment 1242) ................................................................. 35 NAVASOTA RIVER WATERSHED (MAP) ................................................................................ 35 Lake Mexia (Segment 1210)................................................................................................. 36 Navasota River Below Lake Mexia (Segment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Consumer Plannlng Section Comprehensive Plannlng Branch
    Consumer Plannlng Section Comprehensive Plannlng Branch, Parks Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Texans Outdoors: An Analysis of 1985 Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities By Kathryn N. Nichols and Andrew P. Goldbloom Under the Direction of James A. Deloney November, 1989 Comprehensive Planning Branch, Parks Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744 (512) 389-4900 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Conducting a mail survey requires accuracy and timeliness in every single task. Each individualized survey had to be accounted for, both going out and coming back. Each mailing had to meet a strict deadline. The authors are indebted to all the people who worked on this project. The staff of the Comprehensive Planning Branch, Parks Division, deserve special thanks. This dedicated crew signed letters, mailed, remailed, coded, and entered the data of a twenty-page questionnaire that was sent to over twenty-five thousand Texans with over twelve thousand returned completed. Many other Parks Division staff outside the branch volunteered to assist with stuffing and labeling thousands of envelopes as deadlines drew near. We thank the staff of the Information Services Section for their cooperation in providing individualized letters and labels for survey mailings. We also appreciate the dedication of the staff in the mailroom for processing up­ wards of seventy-five thousand pieces of mail. Lastly, we thank the staff in the print shop for their courteous assistance in reproducing the various documents. Although the above are gratefully acknowledged, they are absolved from any responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have occurred. ii TEXANS OUTDOORS: AN ANALYSIS OF 1985 PARTICIPATION IN OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Management Program 2013-2018 Appendix A
    Appendix A 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) As required under Sections 303(d) and 304(a) of the federal Clean Water Act, this list identifies the water bodies in or bordering Texas for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards, and for which the associated pollutants are suitable for measurement by maximum daily load. In addition, the TCEQ also develops a schedule identifying Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that will be initiated in the next two years for priority impaired waters. Issuance of permits to discharge into 303(d)-listed water bodies is described in the TCEQ regulatory guidance document Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (January 2003, RG-194). Impairments are limited to the geographic area described by the Assessment Unit and identified with a six or seven-digit AU_ID. A TMDL for each impaired parameter will be developed to allocate pollutant loads from contributing sources that affect the parameter of concern in each Assessment Unit. The TMDL will be identified and counted using a six or seven-digit AU_ID. Water Quality permits that are issued before a TMDL is approved will not increase pollutant loading that would contribute to the impairment identified for the Assessment Unit. Explanation of Column Headings SegID and Name: The unique identifier (SegID), segment name, and location of the water body. The SegID may be one of two types of numbers. The first type is a classified segment number (4 digits, e.g., 0218), as defined in Appendix A of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS).
    [Show full text]
  • Field Summary Report Mapping Conventions for Texas PI and Draft
    .. ,Field summary Report-Mapping Conventions for Texas PI and Draft Project Date of field trip: 1/12-1/16/87 Personnel: Warren Hagenbuck USFWS Curtis Carley USFWS Frank Spague SCS Frank J. sargent Martel Lynn Ashby Hartel 1:100,000 Hap Names: Sherman NW (16 quads), SW; Dallas NW, SW Co~lateral Data: USGS topographical quads- 1:24,100, 1:250,000 SOil survey for all maps where available. Rainfall data for all maps where available. Photography The CrR photography being used is produced by NHAP at a scale of 1:58,000 with flight dates of.september to December 1981. The quality \. is good for both resolution and emulsion. Climate conditions at the time of photography appear to be typical. All photo signatures reviewed during field reconnaissance reflect emulsion and resolution qualities consistently throughout the project area. ".Ecoregion and Physiography '. The project area is located· primarily within the Prairie Parkland Province, oak-Bluestem Sec-l:ion. This region is characterized by 23" to 40" of precipitation annually-with yearly average temperatures between e 47-F-83 F. ~he topography of the maps' northern and eastern sections are comprised of irregular plains (gently rolling) wiu{ relief upwards of 100-300 feet. In the remaining western half of the work area the relief may vary from 300-500 feet with tableland features. Within this western section , in the very southwest corner of Dallas SW, is the Prairie Bushland Province, Juniper-Oak-MesquitJ Section. / The Prairie Bushland Province also has an ar~a of irregUlar plains, yet the relief is 300-500' in elevation.
    [Show full text]
  • Matching the Hatch for the TX Hill Country[2]
    MATCHING THE HATCH FOR THE TX HILL COUNTRY Tying and choosing proper fly patterns to increase your success on the water. Matt Bennett Fly Geek Custom Flies [email protected] Why should you listen to me? • Fishing the Austin area since 2008 • LWFF – 2012 through 2015 • Fly Geek Custom Flies – 2015 – now • Past Austin Fly Fishers President • Current TX Council Vice President Overview of the TX Hill Country Llano River near Kingsland Guadalupe River at Lazy L&L Brushy Creek near Round Rock Characteristics of Hill Country Rivers ¨ There’s a bunch! Guadalupe, Comal, San Marcos, Colorado, Llano, Blanco, Nueces, Frio, Sabinal, Concho, Lampasas and associated feeder creeks ¨ Majority are shallow and wadeable in stretches ¨ Extremely Clear Water (some clearer than others) ¨ Sandy, limestone and granite bottoms with lots of granite boulders/outcroppings ¨ Extreme flooding events YEARLY on average. Sept 11, 1952 – Lake Travis rises 57 feet in 14 hours. 23-26” of rain Guadalupe River, July 17,1987 Llano River / Lake LBJ – Nov. 4 2000 Why does flooding matter to fishing? ¨ Because of the almost-annual flooding / drought cycle of our rivers, they are constantly changing ¨ Holes get filled in and dug out, gravel gets moved around, banks get undercut ¨ We have to constantly relearn our fisheries to stay successful on the water ¨ Choosing the right flies with the proper triggers is an important part of your success on the water Overview of our forage Baitfish, crawfish, insects, and other terrestrials Why is forage important? ¨ #1 rule of all fishing – know your forage! ¨ Knowing the common forage where you fish increases your chances of success as it clues you in on what flies you should be fishing ¨ Forage base will vary between water bodies, time of year, species targeted, and more, as well as year-to-year.
    [Show full text]
  • Nutrient Delivery from the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico And
    the entire landscape must be considered if hydrologic and water quality models are doi:10.2489/jswc.69.1.26 used to predict the delivery of sediment and nutrients. Similarly, the contribution of other sources (including noncultivated lands, urban areas, forests, and the direct discharge Nutrient delivery from the Mississippi of waste water to streams and rivers) should be accounted for. In addition, processes River to the Gulf of Mexico and effects of occurring in streams, lakes, and reservoirs affect the fate of pollutants as they are trans- cropland conservation ported through the system and should also be included. M.J. White, C. Santhi, N. Kannan, J.G. Arnold, D. Harmel, L. Norfleet, P. Allen, M. DiLuzio, X. Comprehensive water quality simulation Wang, J. Atwood, E. Haney, and M. Vaughn Johnson at the scale of the Mississippi River Basin (MRB, 3,220,000 km2 [1,240,000 mi2]) is Abstract: Excessive nutrients transported from the Mississippi River Basin (MRB) have cre- a difficult task; thus, only a few modeling ated a hypoxic zone within the Gulf of Mexico, with numerous negative ecological effects. efforts at that scale have been conducted Copyright © 2014 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. Furthermore, federal expenditures on agricultural conservation practices have received to date. The contiguous United States was Journal of Soil and Water Conservation intense scrutiny in recent years. Partly driven by these factors, the USDA Conservation simulated by Srinivasan et al. (1998) in the Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) recently completed a comprehensive evaluation of nutri- Hydrologic Unit Model for the United ent sources and delivery to the Gulf.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Rock, Arkansas
    LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS The civil works portion of this District covers an area of the District is responsible for the portion of the Little approximately 36,414 square miles in northern, western, River and its tributaries that are in the state of Arkansas, and southwestern Arkansas and a portion of Missouri. above its mouth near Fulton, AR. In the White River This area is within the Arkansas River, Little River, and Basin, the District is responsible for those portions in White River basins. In the Arkansas River Basin, the southern Missouri and northern and eastern Arkansas in District is responsible for planning, design, construction, the White River drainage basin and its tributaries above operation, and maintenance of the navigation portion of Peach Orchard Bluff, AR. The Memphis District is re- the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System sponsible for navigation maintenance on the White River (MKARNS). The District is also responsible for the below Newport, AR, to the mouth of Wild Goose areas included in the Arkansas River drainage basin Bayou, in Arkansas County, AR. The White River from above Pine Bluff, AR, to below the mouth of the downstream from the mouth of Wild Goose Bayou is Poteau River, near Fort Smith, AR. In Little River Basin, part of the MKARNS. IMPROVEMENTS NAVIGATION Multiple-Purpose Projects Including Power 1. Arkansas River Basin, AR, OK, And KS ........... 3 2. Arthur V. Ormond Lock & Dam (No.9), AR ..... 3 28. Beaver Lake, AR ………………………………9 3. David D. Terry Lock And Dam (No. 6), AR ...... 4 29. Bull Shoals Lake, AR.................................. ….10 4.
    [Show full text]
  • TPWD Strategic Planning Regions
    River Basins TPWD Brazos River Basin Brazos-Colorado Coastal Basin W o lf Cr eek Canadian River Basin R ita B l anca C r e e k e e ancar Cl ita B R Strategic Planning Colorado River Basin Colorado-Lavaca Coastal Basin Canadian River Cypress Creek Basin Regions Guadalupe River Basin Nor t h F o r k of the R e d R i ver XAmarillo Lavaca River Basin 10 Salt Fork of the Red River Lavaca-Guadalupe Coastal Basin Neches River Basin P r air i e Dog To w n F o r k of the R e d R i ver Neches-Trinity Coastal Basin ® Nueces River Basin Nor t h P e as e R i ve r Nueces-Rio Grande Coastal Basin Pease River Red River Basin White River Tongue River 6a Wi chita R iver W i chita R i ver Rio Grande River Basin Nor t h Wi chita R iver Little Wichita River South Wichita Ri ver Lubbock Trinity River Sabine River Basin X Nor t h Sulphur R i v e r Brazos River West Fork of the Trinity River San Antonio River Basin Brazos River Sulphur R i v e r South Sulphur River San Antonio-Nueces Coastal Basin 9 Clear Fork Tr Plano San Jacinto River Basin X Cypre ss Creek Garland FortWorth Irving X Sabine River in San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal Basin ity Rive X Clea r F o r k of the B r az os R i v e r XTr n X iityX RiverMesqu ite Sulphur River Basin r XX Dallas Arlington Grand Prai rie Sabine River Trinity River Basin XAbilene Paluxy River Leon River Trinity-San Jacinto Coastal Basin Chambers Creek Brazos River Attoyac Bayou XEl Paso R i c h land Cr ee k Colorado River 8 Pecan Bayou 5a Navasota River Neches River Waco Angelina River Concho River X Colorado River 7 Lampasas
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Basin Highlights Report
    TEXAS CLEAN RIVERS PROGRAM 2019 Basin Highlights Report A Characterization of Impaired Water Bodies in the Upper Colorado River Basin Table of Contents Introduction Clean Rivers Program............................................................................................................................................2 Acronyms................................................................................................................................................................2 Rationale and format for the 2019 Basin Highlights Report..............................................................................3 List of impaired water bodies in the Colorado River basin................................................................................4 Restoring impaired water bodies...........................................................................................................................6 Watershed Characterizations by Segment Segment 1407A – Clear Creek.............................................................................................................................8 Segment 1411 – E.V. Spence Reservoir..............................................................................................................10 Segment 1412 – Colorado River below Lake J.B. Thomas..............................................................................12 Segment 1412B – Beals Creek.............................................................................................................................14 Segment
    [Show full text]
  • Economic and Environmental Implications of Phosphorus Control at North Bosque River Wastewater Treatment Plants Keith Keplinger, Alex Tanter, and James Houser
    Economic and Environmental Implications of Phosphorus Control at North Bosque River Wastewater Treatment Plants Keith Keplinger, Alex Tanter, and James Houser TR0312 July 2003 Economic and Environmental Implications of Phosphorus Controls Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank a number of individuals for making this research possible. Data on wastewater treatment plant parameters and sewer use and rates for the City of Stephenville were made available by Danny Johnson and Mark Kaiser, City of Stephenville, and Johnie Davis, OMI, Inc. Information on sewer use and rates for other communities located along the North Bosque River was supplied by various municipal personnel from those communities. Larry Beran, TIAER, initiated the project while Ron Jones, TIAER, was instrumental in securing a working relationship with the City of Stephenville. Edward Osei, TIAER, assisted with calculus solutions, while Larry Hauck, TIAER, provided overall direction and review of this report. The research upon which this report is based was financed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Development, cooperating agreement number CR 826807-01-1. For more information about this document or any other TIAER document, e-mail [email protected]. Authors Keith Keplinger, research economist, TIAER, [email protected] Alex Tanter, research associate, TIAER, [email protected] James Houser, research scientist, TIAER, [email protected] EI7.01.02 ii Economic and Environmental Implications of Phosphorus Controls Abstract Phosphorus (P) control at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in the United States has been practiced since at least the 1970s, when effluent limits were placed on WWTPs in the Great Lakes region and in Vermont in order to reverse eutrophication of the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(1) Appendix A
    Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(1) Appendix A - Site-specific Uses and Criteria for Classified Segments The following tables identify the water uses and supporting numerical criteria for each of the state's classified segments. The tables are ordered by basin with the segment number and segment name given for each classified segment. Marine segments are those that are specifically titled as "tidal" in the segment name, plus all bays, estuaries and the Gulf of Mexico. The following descriptions denote how each numerical criterion is used subject to the provisions in §307.7 of this title (relating to Site-Specific Uses and Criteria), §307.8 of this title (relating to Application of Standards), and §307.9 of this title (relating to Determination of Standards Attainment). Segments that include reaches that are dominated by springflow are footnoted in this appendix and have critical low-flows calculated according to §307.8(a)(2) of this title. These critical low-flows apply at or downstream of the spring(s) providing the flows. Critical low-flows upstream of these springs may be considerably smaller. Critical low-flows used in conjunction with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regulatory actions (such as discharge permits) may be adjusted based on the relative location of a discharge to a gauging station. -1 -2 The criteria for Cl (chloride), SO4 (sulfate), and TDS (total dissolved solids) are listed in this appendix as maximum annual averages for the segment. Dissolved oxygen criteria are listed as minimum 24-hour means at any site within the segment. Absolute minima and seasonal criteria are listed in §307.7 of this title unless otherwise specified in this appendix.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Streams of Texas
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRANKLIN K. LANE, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 448 GAZETTEER OF STREAMS OF TEXAS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF GLENN A. GRAY WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICE 1919 GAZETTEER OF STREAMS OF TEXAS. Prepared under the direction of GLENN A. GRAY. INTRODUCTION. The following pages contain a gazetteer of streams, lakes, and ponds as shown by the topographic maps of Texas which were pre­ pared by the United States Geological Survey and, in areas not covered by the topographic maps, by State of Texas county maps and the post-route map of Texas. For many streams a contour map of Texas, prepared in 1899 by Robert T. Hill, was consulted, as well as maps compiled by private surveys, engineering corporations, the State Board of Water Engineers, and the International Boundary Commission. An effort has been made to eliminate errors where practicable by personal reconnaissance. All the descriptions are based on the best available maps, and their accuracy therefore depends on that of the maps. Descriptions of streams in the central part of the State, adjacent to the Bio Grande above Brewster County, and in parts of Brewster, Terrell, Bowie, Casg, Btirleson, Brazos, Grimes, Washington, Harris, Bexar, Wichita, Wilbarger, Montague, Coke, and Graysoh counties were compiled by means of topographic maps and are of a good degree of accuracy. It should be understood, however, that all statements of elevation, length, and fall are roughly approximate. The Geological Survey topographic maps used are cited in the de­ scriptions of the streams and are listed below.
    [Show full text]
  • Progress Report Summary
    2011 PROGRESS REPORT SUMMARY TEXAS AGRILIFE EXTENSION SALTCEDAR BIOLOGICAL CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Allen Knutson and Mark Muegge Texas Agrilife Extension Service, Texas A&M University System Saltcedar Trees defoliated by Tunisian Leaf Beetles at Leon Lake, near Fort Stockton, TX. September 2011. C. Hart photo. 1 PROGRESS REPORT SUMMARY TEXAS AGRILIFE EXTENSION SALTCEDAR BIOLOGICAL CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Allen Knutson and Mark Muegge Texas Agrilife Extension Service, Texas A&M University System Summary. Beginning in 2006, the Saltcedar Biological Control Implementation Program has released saltcedar leaf beetles for the biological control of saltcedar at 23 sites in 15 counties in west Texas. In 2010, leaf beetle populations were established at 12 of these sites and defoliated as estimated 500 acres of saltcedar. These sites were in the Colorado River Basin (Martin, Mitchell, Borden, Coke, Coleman and Tom Green Counties), the Red River Basin (King County), the Brazos River Basin (Crosby, Motley, Garza and Kent Counties), and in the Pecos/Rio Grande River Basin (Pecos, Reeves, Crockett and Brewster Counties). In 2010, this project field collected 354,000 Crete beetles and 47,000 Tunisian beetles for re-distribution at new sites, bringing the 2009-2010 total collection to over 700,000 beetles. In 2011, populations of the Crete species were very low or absent at 75 % of the sites were the Crete beetles had been well established in 2010. This loss is believed due to 2-3 consecutive days of below freezing weather which swept into west Texas in early February, 2012. Some of the Crete populations may have emerged from overwintering and experienced high mortality as the sudden cold front followed several warm days.
    [Show full text]