DOCSLIB.ORG

Status of Upstream Watershed Development Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status of Upstream Watershed Development Texas WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD PREVENTION FLOOD PREVENTION WATERSHEDS Dallam Sherman Watershed Drainage Area Watershed Drainage Area Watershed Drainage Area Hansford Ochiltree Lipscomb Number Public Law 566 (Acres) Number Trinity River (Acres) Number Middle Colorado River (Acres) 1 Calaveras Creek (Pilot) 61,440 101 Big Sandy Creek 317,000 201 Blanket Creek 125,440 HartleyCANADIAN RIVER BASIN Hemphill Moore 2 Cow Bayou (Pilot) 71,250 102 Cedar Creek 656,600 202 Brady Creek 541,500 Hutchinson STATUS OF Roberts 3 Green Creek (Pilot) 67,200 103 Chambers Creek 686,720 203 Brown-Mullin 100,480 4 Alamo Arroyo Watershed 83,603 104 Clear Creek 236,200 204 Brownwood Laterals 195,200 69 301 5 Agua Dulce Creek 228,720 105 Clear Fork Trinity River 266,880 205 Clear Creek 87,536 UPSTREAM WATERSHED Oldham Potter 6 Aquilla-Hackberry Creek 188,160 106 Denton Creek 444,160 206 Deep Creek 45,800 Carson Gray Wheeler 7 Attoyac Bayou 213,440 107 East Fork Above Lavon 220,810 207 Home Creek 177,280 55 8 Auds Creek 31,670 108 East Laterals of the Trinity 86,000 208 Jim Ned Creek 477,440 DEVELOPMENT 9 Bennett Creek 105,600 109 Elm Fork 253,810 209 Lower San Saba River 561,920 Deaf Smith Randall Armstrong 10 Bexar-Medina-Atascosa WID #1 34,330 110 Grays Creek 53,584 210 Mukewater Creek 87,500 Donley Collingsworth 11 Big Creek (Brazos County) 26,240 111 Hickory Creek 145,600 211 Mustang Creek 97,280 12 Big Creek (Delta County) 22,140 112 Isle Du Bois Creek 206,490 212 Northeast Laterals 80,400 43 13 Big Creek (Tri-County) 227,800 113 Lake Creek 51,000 213 Northwest Laterals 226,560 71 Castro 14 Caddo Creek 134,400 114 Little Elm and Laterals 184,810 214 Southeast Laterals 283,240 Swisher Parmer Briscoe Hall 15 Camp Rice Arroyo 31,405 115 Lower East Fork Laterals 44,100 215 Southwest Laterals 110,984 41 Childress 16 Caney Creek 46,784 116 Mountain Creek 194,900 216 Turkey Creek 59,200 51 17 Castleman Creek 29,850 117 North Creek 64,136 217 Upper Pecan Bayou 445,760 Hardeman Bailey Lamb 18 Chiltipin - San Fernando Creek 215,740 118 North Trinity Laterals 71,500 Hale Floyd Motley Cottle 19 Chocolate Little Chocolate 43,168 119 Pilot Grove Creek 169,930 Wilbarger and Lynn Bayous 120 Red Oak Creek 140,540 Washita River RED RIVERFo aBrd ASIN Wichita 20 Choctaw Creek 168,000 121 Richland Creek 586,696 Dickens Cochran Clay 21 Comal River 83,200 122 Rosser Trinidad Laterals 137,500 301 Upper Washita River 301,400 Hockley 35 Lubbock Crosby 46 65 King Montague Red River 22 Cornudas North and Culp Draws 177,600 123 Rowlett Creek 150,000 28 Knox Cooke Baylor Archer 20 Lamar 44 23 Cummins Creek 204,896 124 Rush Creek 95,000 109 8 24 1G1r2ayson 16 104 Fannin 24 Deport Creek 6,160 125 Salt Creek and Laterals 118,784 131 Bowie 12 Yoakum 6 Delta SULPHUR 25 Diablo Arroyo 40,992 126 Sister Grove Creek 82,560 Terry 101 2 Lynn Garza 1 119 Kent 117 Wise 114 107 RIVER BASIN 26 Donahoe Creek 98,285 127 Tehuacana Creek 286,000 Stonewall Haskell 106 Collin Throckmorton Young 111 Titus Jack Hopkins Franklin 27 Dry Devils River and Lowrey Draw 149,120 128 Ten Mile Creek 81,040 BRAZOS RIVER BASIN Hunt Morris 125 Denton 14 Cass 30 28 Duck Creek 133,120 129 Upper East Fork Laterals 95,590 123 85 CYPRESS Camp 29 East Bay Bayou 36,000 130 Village - Walker Creek 77,000 Gaines Dawson 9 CREEK Borden 2 Rockwall Rains Scurry 1 30 East Keechi Creek 63,770 131 West Fork above Bridgeport 625,730 Fisher Jones Dallas Marion Shackelford Stephens Palo Pinto Parker Tarrant Wood BASIN Upshur 31 Ecleto Creek 170,880 67 105 Kaufman 56 5 32 Elm Creek (1250) 232,819 118 1 116 128 1 Harrison Hood 90 102 33 Elm Creek (Cen-Tex) 207,360 70 120 Andrews Martin Taylor Van Zandt Gregg Howard 34 Escondido Creek (Pilot & PL-566) 74,880 Mitchell Erath 59 130 SABINE Nolan 122 22 COLORADO RIVER BASIN Eastland 63 Smith Callahan Ellis RIVER 35 Farmers Creek 65,536 37 89 82 Johnson 103 110 216 Somervell El Paso BASIN 36 Hamilton Creek 52,995 217 124 Panola Henderson Rusk Loving 32 3 37 Hitson C&L and Washburn Draws 200,000 6 108 Hudspeth Winkler Ector 42 208 72 Hill Midland Comanche Navarro Glasscock Shelby 38 Hog Creek 58,460 Coke 61 121 4 Sterling 87 39 Hondo Creek 29,408 Bosque 48 Cherokee 7 15 25 Fr1e2es7tone 113 53 Culberson Runnels 204 201 40 Johnsons Draw 101,760 207 Brown 64 78 Ward Co2le1m3an 210 Hamilton Anderson 205 Mills 38 41 Kent Creek 27,008 Crane 92 NECHES 212 203 Nacogdoches 52 Upton 42 Kickapoo Creek 40,732 Reeves Tom Green 9 RIVER Reagan McLennan 79 6 0 17 Irion 211 215 214 13 43 Lakeview 151,680 Concho 2 TRINITY BASIN San Augustine Coryell 2 44 Langford Creek 25,030 Limestone Sabine L e oRn IVER Houston 45 Leona River 110,080 McCulloch Lampasas Falls Angelina 202 BASIN 58 San Saba Trinity 46 Logan Slough Creek 7,334 Schleicher 77 33 Jeff Davis RIO GRANDE RIVER BASIN 209 Bell 47 Los Olmos Creek 174,351 Pecos Robertson 80 40 Menard Madison 48 Lower Aquilla-Hackberry Creek 74,500 Crockett Burnet 27 26 Polk Newton 49 Lower Brushy Creek 138,240 Tyler Mason Milam Jasper Llano 36 Walker 50 Lower Plum Creek 152,900 Williamson 57 49 Brazos San Jacinto 51 Lower Running Water Draw 140,985 Sutton Kimble 83 Grimes Terrell Burleson 52 Macho Arroyo 11,917 11 Blanco 75 Gillespie Travis 53 Madden Arroyo 21,248 Lee Hardin Presidio SANM JontAgomCeryINTO 54 Martinez Creek 56,000 91 Washington RIVER BASIN Liberty 55 McClellan Creek 222,422 Bastrop Orange Edwards Kerr Hays 56 Mill Creek 81,280 Brewster GUADALUPE RIVER 23 Val Verde 66 Waller Kendall 88 Real 57 Mimms Draw 4,525 BASIN Fayette Austin Comal Jefferson 84 Ca5ld0well Harris 58 Nolan Creek 73,600 93 Bandera 21 Chambers 29 59 Nolan River 64,400 73 60 North Cuero 12,608 Guadalupe Colorado 54 61 Northeast Tribs of the Leon River 202,880 86 Gonzales Kinney Uvalde Bexar Medina LavAacaVACA 8F1ort Bend NECHES - TRINITY 62 Olmitos and Garcias Creeks 99,840 45 1 Galveston 10 RIVER COASTAL BASIN 63 Paluxy River 249,920 Wharton Wilson BASIN 64 Pecan Creek 19,200 Brazoria 31 DeWitt 60 TRINITY - SAN JACINTO 65 Pine Creek 119,040 Legend COASTAL BASIN Zavala Jackson 66 Plum Creek 97,000 Frio Atascosa NUECES RIVER BASIN Ka3rn4es 67 Pollard Creek 7,260 Maverick SAN JACINTO - BRAZOS 39 Victoria 68 Ramirez Creek 6,605 Matagorda COASTAL BASIN 69 Red Deer Creek 211,840 Approved for Operation 76 Goliad 19 70 Ruckers Creek 15,360 Dimmit BRAZOS - COLORADO COASTAL BASIN 71 Running Water Draw 227,782 LaSalle SBeeAN ANTONIO - Calhoun Installation Complete McMullen Live Oak 72 Rush Creek 188,160 NUEReCfugEio S COLORADO - LAVACA COASTAL BASIN 73 Salado Creek 139,808 Installation in Progress COASTAL BASIN 74 San Diego - Rosita Creeks 222,450 San Patricio Aransas LAVACA - GUADALUPE COASTAL BASIN 75 Sanderson Canyon 138,240 Jim Wells 74 76 Sulphur Creek 101,748 Webb 5 Miles Nueces SAN ANTONIO RIVER BASIN 77 Sulphur Creek (Live Oak) 82,120 Duval 18 78 Tehuacana Creek 196,480 79 Three-Mile and Sulfur Draw 95,360 100 50 0 100 80 Town Branch 2,176 Kleberg NUECES - RIO GRANDE 81 Turkey Creek 18,880 82 Upper Bosque River 235,520 COASTAL BASIN Jim Hogg 83 Upper Brushy Creek 191,360 Zapata Brooks 84 Upper Cibolo Creek 50,560 Kenedy 85 Upper Lake Fork Creek 145,472 86 Upper Las Moras Creek 18,272 47 87 Upper North Bosque River 229,760 6S8tarr 88 Upper San Marcos River 60,780 Water Resources, Temple, Texas 62 Willacy 89 Valley Creek 150,464 Hidalgo 90 West Fork of Buffalo Creek 7,680 January 2007 91 Williams Creek 19,386 Cameron 92 Willow Creek 29,382 93 York Creek 93,824.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Handbook of Texas Cretaceous Fossils
    University of Texas Bulletin No. 2838: October 8, 1928 HANDBOOK OF TEXAS CRETACEOUS FOSSILS B y W. S. ADKINS Bureau of Economic Geology J. A. Udden, Director E. H. Sellards, Associate Director PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY FOUR TIMES A MONTH, AND ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER AT THE POSTOFFICE AT AUSTIN, TEXAS. UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24. 1912 The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally diffused through a community, are essential to the preservation of a free govern­ m en t. Sam Houston Cultivated mind is the guardian genius of democracy. It is the only dictator that freemen acknowl­ edge and the only security that free­ men desire. Mirabeau В. Lamar CONTENTS P age Introduction __________________________________________________ 5 Summary of Formation Nomenclature_______________________ 6 Zone Markers and Correlation_______________________________ 8 Types of Texas Cretaceous Fossils___________________________ 36 Bibliography ________________________________________________ 39 L ist and Description of Species_________________________________ 46 P lants ______________________________________________________ 46 Thallophytes ______________________________________________ 46 Fungi __________________________________________________ 46 Algae __________________________________________________ 47 Pteridophytes ____________________________________________ 47 Filices __________________________________________________ 47 Spermatophytes __________________________________________ 47 Gymnospermae _________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 307: Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (4/9/2008)
    Revisions to §307 - Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (updated November 12, 2009) EPA has not approved the revised definition of “surface water in the state” in the TX WQS, which includes an area out 10.36 miles into the Gulf of Mexico. Under the CWA, Texas does not have jurisdiction to regulate water standards more than three miles from the coast. Therefore, EPA’s approval of the items in the enclosure recognizes the state’s authority under the CWA out to three miles in the Gulf of Mexico, but does not extend past that point. Beyond three miles, EPA retains authority for CWA purposes EPA’s approval also does not include the application the TX WQS for the portions of the Red River and Lake Texoma that are located within the state of Oklahoma. Finally, EPA is not approving the TX WQS for those waters or portions of waters located in Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. The following sections have been approved by EPA and are therefore effective for CWA purposes: • §307.1. General Policy Statement • §307.2. Description of Standards • §307.3. Definitions and Abbreviations (see item under “no action” section below) • §307.4. General Criteria • §307.5. Antidegradation • §307.6. Toxic Materials. (see item under “no action” section below) • §307.7. Site-specific Uses and Criteria (see item under “no action” section below) • §307.8. Application of Standards • §307.9. Determination of Standards Attainment • Appendix C - Segment Descriptions • Appendix D - Site-specific Receiving Water Assessments The following sections have been partially approved by EPA: • Appendix A.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Sabine Lake Galveston Bay East Matagorda Bay Matagorda Bay Corpus Christi Bay Aransas Bay San Antonio Bay Laguna Madre Planning
    River Basins Brazos River Basin Brazos-Colorado Coastal Basin TPWD Canadian River Basin Dallam Sherman Hansford Ochiltree Wolf Creek Colorado River Basin Lipscomb Gene Howe WMA-W.A. (Pat) Murphy Colorado-Lavaca Coastal Basin R i t Strategic Planning a B r ve Gene Howe WMA l i Hartley a Hutchinson R n n Cypress Creek Basin Moore ia Roberts Hemphill c ad a an C C r e Guadalupe River Basin e k Lavaca River Basin Oldham r Potter Gray ive Regions Carson ed R the R ork of Wheeler Lavaca-Guadalupe Coastal Basin North F ! Amarillo Neches River Basin Salt Fork of the Red River Deaf Smith Armstrong 10Randall Donley Collingsworth Palo Duro Canyon Neches-Trinity Coastal Basin Playa Lakes WMA-Taylor Unit Pr airie D og To Nueces River Basin wn Fo rk of t he Red River Parmer Playa Lakes WMA-Dimmit Unit Swisher Nueces-Rio Grande Coastal Basin Castro Briscoe Hall Childress Caprock Canyons Caprock Canyons Trailway N orth P Red River Basin ease River Hardeman Lamb Rio Grande River Basin Matador WMA Pease River Bailey Copper Breaks Hale Floyd Motley Cottle Wilbarger W To Wichita hi ng ver Sabine River Basin te ue R Foard hita Ri er R ive Wic Riv i r Wic Clay ta ve er hita hi Pat Mayse WMA r a Riv Rive ic Eisenhower ichit r e W h W tl Caddo National Grassland-Bois D'arc 6a Nort Lit San Antonio River Basin Lake Arrowhead Lamar Red River Montague South Wichita River Cooke Grayson Cochran Fannin Hockley Lubbock Lubbock Dickens King Baylor Archer T ! Knox rin Bonham North Sulphur San Antonio-Nueces Coastal Basin Crosby r it River ive y R Bowie R B W iv os r es
    [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]
  • Oyster Restoration Project in Galveston Bay and Sabine Lake 2014
    Project aims to restore Galveston Bay oyster reefs by CHRISTOPHER SMITH GONZALEZ see http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20140527-project-aims-to-restore-galveston-bay-oyster- reefs.ece The Galveston County Daily News Published: 27 May 2014 06:00 PM GALVESTON — Floating just a couple of meters above an oyster reef in Galveston Bay, two scientists working to improve the reef sifted through rock and shell pulled up from the bottom. “I don’t see any spat,” said Bryan Legare, a natural resource specialist with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, as he looked for the small, immature oysters. “It might be a little early for spat since it’s been such a cold winter,” said colleague Bill Rodney, an oyster restoration biologist, as they looked over the pile of cultch — the hard material including rock, crushed limestone and shell that oysters attach to. The young oysters, or spat, will develop as the weather warms, but the pressing question is whether the right conditions will exist for them to grow to mature oysters, which then become part of a multimillion business and which fill an important ecological niche. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is in the midst of the largest oyster reef restoration project it’s ever undertaken. It’s an effort to provide oysters with a hard surface they can grow on. The silt deposited in the bay by Hurricane Ike in 2008 and the ongoing drought have damaged oyster reefs in Galveston Bay. Not much can be done about the lack of rain, but the department is trying to do something to deal with the silt by depositing almost 80,000 tons of river rock, ranging from the size of a marble to a small brick, over Middle Reef, Pepper Grove Reef and Hannah’s Reef in East Bay and the large Sabine Reef in Sabine Lake.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Status and Historical Trends of Seagrass in the CCBNEP Study
    Current Status and Historical Trends of Seagrass in the Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program Study Area Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program CCBNEP-20 • October 1997 This project has been funded in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement #CE-9963-01-2 to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. The contents of this document do not necessarily represent the views of the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, nor do the contents of this document necessarily constitute the views or policy of the Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program Management Conference or its members. The information presented is intended to provide background information, including the professional opinion of the authors, for the Management Conference deliberations while drafting official policy in the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). The mention of trade names or commercial products does not in any way constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use. Current Status and Historical Trends of Seagrasses in the Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program Study Area Warren Pulich, Jr., Ph.D. Catherine Blair Coastal Studies Program Texas Parks & Wildlife Department 3000 IH 35 South Austin, Texas 78704 and William A. White The University of Texas at Austin Bureau of Economic Geology University Station Box X Austin, Texas 78713 Publication CCBNEP - 20 October 1997 Policy Committee Commissioner John Baker Mr. Jerry Clifford Policy Committee Chair Policy Committee Vice-Chair Texas Natural Resource Conservation Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6 Commission The Honorable Vilma Luna Commissioner Ray Clymer State Representative Texas Parks and Wildlife Department The Honorable Carlos Truan Commissioner Garry Mauro Texas Senator Texas General Land Office The Honorable Josephine Miller Commissioner Noe Fernandez County Judge, San Patricio County Texas Water Development Board The Honorable Loyd Neal Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Houston-Galveston, Texas Managing Coastal Subsidence
    HOUSTON-GALVESTON, TEXAS Managing coastal subsidence TEXAS he greater Houston area, possibly more than any other Lake Livingston A N D S metropolitan area in the United States, has been adversely U P L L affected by land subsidence. Extensive subsidence, caused T A S T A mainly by ground-water pumping but also by oil and gas extraction, O C T r has increased the frequency of flooding, caused extensive damage to Subsidence study area i n i t y industrial and transportation infrastructure, motivated major in- R i v vestments in levees, reservoirs, and surface-water distribution facili- e S r D N ties, and caused substantial loss of wetland habitat. Lake Houston A L W O Although regional land subsidence is often subtle and difficult to L detect, there are localities in and near Houston where the effects are Houston quite evident. In this low-lying coastal environment, as much as 10 L Galveston feet of subsidence has shifted the position of the coastline and A Bay T changed the distribution of wetlands and aquatic vegetation. In fact, S A Texas City the San Jacinto Battleground State Historical Park, site of the battle O Galveston that won Texas independence, is now partly submerged. This park, C Gulf of Mexico about 20 miles east of downtown Houston on the shores of Galveston Bay, commemorates the April 21, 1836, victory of Texans 0 20 Miles led by Sam Houston over Mexican forces led by Santa Ana. About 0 20 Kilometers 100 acres of the park are now under water due to subsidence, and A road (below right) that provided access to the San Jacinto Monument was closed due to flood- ing caused by subsidence.
    [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]
  • MEXICO Las Moras Seco Creek K Er LAVACA MEDINA US HWY 77 Springs Uvalde LEGEND Medina River
    Cedar Creek Reservoir NAVARRO HENDERSON HILL BOSQUE BROWN ERATH 281 RUNNELS COLEMAN Y ANDERSON S HW COMANCHE U MIDLAND GLASSCOCK STERLING COKE Colorado River 3 7 7 HAMILTON LIMESTONE 2 Y 16 Y W FREESTONE US HW W THE HIDDEN HEART OF TEXAS H H S S U Y 87 U Waco Lake Waco McLENNAN San Angelo San Angelo Lake Concho River MILLS O.H. Ivie Reservoir UPTON Colorado River Horseshoe Park at San Felipe Springs. Popular swimming hole providing relief from hot Texas summers. REAGAN CONCHO U S HW Photo courtesy of Gregg Eckhardt. Y 183 Twin Buttes McCULLOCH CORYELL L IRION Reservoir 190 am US HWY LAMPASAS US HWY 87 pasas R FALLS US HWY 377 Belton U S HW TOM GREEN Lake B Y 67 Brady iver razos R iver LEON Temple ROBERTSON Lampasas Stillhouse BELL SAN SABA Hollow Lake Salado MILAM MADISON San Saba River Nava BURNET US HWY 183 US HWY 190 Salado sota River Lake TX HWY 71 TX HWY 29 MASON Buchanan N. San G Springs abriel Couple enjoying the historic mill at Barton Springs in 1902. R Mason Burnet iver Photo courtesy of Center for American History, University of Texas. SCHLEICHER MENARD Y 29 TX HW WILLIAMSON BRAZOS US HWY 83 377 Llano S. S an PECOS Gabriel R US HWY iver Georgetown US HWY 163 Llano River Longhorn Cavern Y 79 Sonora LLANO Inner Space Caverns US HW Eckert James River Bat Cave US HWY 95 Lake Lyndon Lake Caverns B. Johnson Junction Travis CROCKETT of Sonora BURLESON 281 GILLESPIE BLANCO Y KIMBLE W TRAVIS SUTTON H GRIMES TERRELL S U US HWY 290 US HWY 16 US HWY P Austin edernales R Fredericksburg Barton Springs 21 LEE Somerville Lake AUSTIN Pecos
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Resource Management of the Devils River Watershed Final Report
    Water-Resource Management of the Devils River Watershed Final Report August 11, 2017 Nathaniel Toll, S. Beth Fratesi, Ronald T. Green, F. Paul Bertetti, and Rebecca Nunu Earth Science Section Space Science Division Southwest Research Institute® ABSTRACT The Devils River watershed in south-central Texas has been recognized as one of the remaining pristine rivers in the state. Adding to its importance, the Devils River is a key tributary to the Rio Grande, providing essential freshwater flows to south Texas and the Rio Grande Valley. The Devils River watershed basin is being threatened by proposed large-scale groundwater export projects. This study was undertaken to evaluate what impact groundwater pumping in the upper Devils River watershed would have on downstream discharge in the Devils River. The watershed is located in a semi-arid environment with modest distributed recharge, oftentimes less than 1-2 cm/year [0.4-0.8 in/year]. The Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer of the Devils River watershed is characterized as a karstic carbonate aquifer with preferential flow paths that align with major river channels. Water chemistry, water budget, hydraulics, and geophysical imaging data were used to corroborate this conceptualization. A coupled surface-water/groundwater model was assembled to replicate the hydraulics of the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer to provide a defensible tool to assess the impact of pumping on river flow. The surface-water model was assembled to determine recharge to the groundwater model. The conduit/diffuse groundwater model replicates both fast conduit flow and slow diffuse flow in the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer. The model provides, for the first time, a numerical groundwater flow model that replicates the hydraulic dominance of preferential flow paths in the karstic Edwards-Trinity Aquifer of the Devils River watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife & Watershed Planning
    Wildlife & Watershed Planning Kevin Wagner, PhD WPPs & TMDLs Addressing Non-Domesticated Species (Wildlife) Wildlife Measures in 10 of 11 EPA Accepted WPPs Attoyac Bayou Buck Creek Cypress Creek Geronimo & Alligator Creeks Lake Granbury Lampasas River Leon River Plum Creek Upper Cibolo Creek Upper San Antonio River Wildlife Measures Included in TMDL Implementation Plans Copano Bay Dickinson Bayou Gilleland Creek Guadalupe River above Canyon Texas BST Studies To Date 5-Way Split (averages based on findings in 10 watersheds) Non-Avian Avian Wildlife Wildlife 32% 18% Pets Unidentified 5% 11% All Livestock Human 24% 10% Mean Background Levels in Runoff Fecal Coliform E. coli Site (#/100 mL) (cfu/100 mL) Reference Ungrazed pasture 10,000 Robbins et al. 1972 Ungrazed pasture 6,600 Doran et al. 1981 Control plots 6,800 Guzman et al. 2010 Pasture destocked >2 mos. 1,000-10,000 Collins et al. 2005 Ungrazed pasture 6,200-11,000 Wagner et al. 2012 Pasture destocked >2 wks. 2,200-6,000 Wagner et al. 2012 Impacts of Migratory Wildlife E. coli concentrations at ungrazed site BB1 (2009-2010) Date BB1 BB2 BB3 300,000 3/13/09 140 3/25/09 1,200 250,000 3/26/09 1,000 7,200 /100 mL) 3/27/09 2,000 200,000 cfu 4/17/09 1,155 980 450 4/18/09 4,400 2,225 2,100 150,000 4/28/09 7,600 12,200 24,000 100,000 10/4/09 57,000 5,114 3,065 Concentration ( 10/9/09 36,000 24,043 15,000 coli 50,000 10/13/09 42,851 23,826 5,591 E.
    [Show full text]