DOCSLIB.ORG

Currents SPRING 2014 | TEXAS the Clean Water Action Newsletter Protect Clean Water the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Currents SPRING 2014 | TEXAS the Clean Water Action Newsletter Protect Clean Water the U.S texas currents SPRING 2014 | TEXAS the clean water action newsletter protect clean water The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to restore critical Clean Water Act protections for smaller streams and wetlands in Texas and nationally. These important water resources connect with rivers and serve as drinking water sources for millions of Americans. EPA’s proposal would reverse Bush Administration policies that weakened water protections in every state. One Texas example illustrates the stakes. In 2006, the Chevron Pipe Line Company was sued for spilling 126,000 gallons of oil into a dry creek. When running, this creek connects to the Brazos River, which provides drinking water for Waco and other communities. Because the creek was dry at the time of the spill — as more than 70% of Texas’ drought-plagued streams often are — the stream was deemed “unprotected” and Chevron escaped punishment. The Clean Water Act used to protect tributaries like this one from pollution, but ever more polluter- friendly policies have eroded those protections. Fixing this problem is essential to meeting the nation’s clean water goals for fishable, swimmable, drinkable water. PROTECT EPA needs to hear from you today. Learn more and take action to CLEAN WATER #ProtectCleanWater, www.cleanwater.org/protect-clean-water A seasonally dry portion of the Salt Fork Brazos River. 600 W. 28th Street, Suite 202, Austin, TX 78705 | Phone 512.474.2046 | www.CleanWaterAction.org/tx are texans being punished for conserving water? This is the question many are asking as water utilities call for rate increases, even as their customers’ water usage drops. Low lake levels have led many communities to limit outdoor irrigation to once a week. In Austin, per capita levels of consumption dropped from 172 gallons a few years ago to below 140 today — a goal Austin did not expect to meet till 2020. But water utilities, like electric utilities, have fixed costs that must be covered even when smarter water or electricity use cuts into revenues. This is why recent news reports, spurred by water utility staff, are blaming water conservation for water rate hikes. The reality is that in Texas and many other HIGH AND DRY: Shown above is a recent photo states, water is in increasingly short supply due to drought, climate change and population of the Pedernales River just before it reaches growth. More people are placing demands on Lake Travis (a reservoir on Texas’ Colorado a diminishing supply, and this can only drive River). The structures are stranded docks and prices up. boat houses that would “normally” float. Water conservation, easily the most cost- effective way to meet future water needs, actually helps keep water rate hikes in check. Water conservation is far less costly than procuring new water by desalination, piping water from distant aquifers, or building new reservoirs. When it comes to water, solutions for a changing climate and growing population demand sound planning and strong water conservation programs to avoid unnecessary spending. Austin faces steep rate hikes in part because its mayor and water utility forged ahead with an unnecessary drinking water plant more than a decade before it will be needed, and also because they underestimated climate impacts. They wrongly concluded that water levels in the Colorado River would rebound and that consumers would continue to use water as lavishly as they had in the past. The city will soon cut the ribbon on a billion dollar treatment plant drawing water from a reservoir that is projected to be 70% empty by August 2014. Painful rate hikes are coming, but water conservation is not the reason. Those hikes are due to climate change and bad policy that failed to plan for it. Clean Water Fund is a member of EarthShare of Texas. One Environment. One simple way to care for it. Contact us for information on how you can support Clean Water Fund and Earth Share where you work. water-conserving landscapes catching on Texas’ worst drought since the 1950s is leaving almost every part of the state with just a fraction of average rainfall, as predicted by the latest climate science. Meanwhile, cities are expected to require more water than agriculture by 2060, due to population growth. Landscaping with native and adapted plants instead of thirsty turf grasses can stretch communities’ diminishing water resources. Clean Water Fund and Clean Water Action continue to offer “Water on the Home Front” water conservation presentations to homeowner associations (HOAs) and other community organizations. The meetings feature: • an overview of Texas’ water crisis, • expert advice on drought-tolerant landscapes, rainwater harvesting and smart, efficient irrigation systems, • presentations from municipal water conservation staff and HOA groups, and • information on HOA best practices where HOA guidelines have already embraced water conservation. Participants get to choose landscape styles best suited to their own communities. Thanks to Senate Bill 198, Texas HOAs are no longer allowed to ban drought-tolerant landscaping. With help from Clean Water Fund, dozens of HOAs in Central Texas and the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex have new landscaping guidelines that encourage water efficiency while still protecting aesthetic standards. Contact your local Clean Water Action office to learn about organizing a Water on the Home Front meeting where you live. Water Conservation Heroes Robert Beyer of Austin’s Avery Ranch HOA plays a lead role in the “Water on the Home Front” community meetings. He is a master gardener and was instrumental in persuading Avery Ranch to amend its guidelines to allow xeriscaping. Many HOAs now have guidelines modeled on those of Avery Ranch. Beyer also offers an online resource for homeowners and professionals across the region, www.centraltexasgardening.info George Holcombe of the Wells Branch MUD (Municipal Utility District) organized a “Water- Wise Weekend in Wells Branch” in March, partnering with Clean Water Fund and others. The festival featured speakers, information tables, children’s activities and giveaways, drawing more than 100 participants, with fifty takers for a “Water on the Home Front” meeting and tour of water-conserving yards. Above right: Robert Beyer of Austin’s Avery Ranch HOA. Below right: Clean Water Action’s Angela Bagnasco with George Holcombe at the “Water-Wise Weekend in Wells Branch” festival in March. building Most Texans get their electricity one of three ways: from municipal utilities, from electric cooperatives, or from investor owned utilities. The coops and municipals enjoy texas’ monopolies within their defined service areas, but in the rest of the state the other renewable utilities compete for customers. People in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, Houston, Round Rock and elsewhere are generally free to choose their own electricity provider. energy These consumers have the option of choosing cost-competitive renewable energy by selecting an electricity source that does not rely on polluting, water intensive coal, gas future or nuclear power generation. Anyone who lives in one of these areas where electricity choice is open to competition can be a part of the solution, helping to choose and build a clean energy future. The Texas Public Utility web site, www.powertochoose.com gives easy instructions for switching to a renewable energy provider: • STEP 1. On the site, enter your zipcode then press “view results” • STEP 2. In the lower left panel, change the sorting criteria and select “100% Renewable” • STEP 3. Under “Company Scores” pick 4 and 5 to see the companies with the fewest complaints. • STEP 4. Your results will be ranked by price, starting with the least expensive. • STEP 5. Under “Pricing Details,” read the fact sheet and terms of service for the different plans. • STEP 6. Once you decide on a plan, click Sign Up and follow instructions on the company’s website. Congratulations! You have helped move Texas toward a non-polluting, clean energy future! CURRENTS is published by Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund. texas Reproduction in whole or part is permitted with proper credit. © 2014 All rights reserved. currents 1444 Eye Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005 SPRING 2014 Phone 202.895.0420 | Fax 202.895.0438 | [email protected] Washington, DC 20005 DC Washington, 1444 Eye Street, NW, Suite 400 Suite NW, Street, Eye 1444 PERMIT No 51544 No PERMIT BOSTON MA BOSTON PAID U.S. POSTAGE U.S. NON PROFIT ORG PROFIT NON.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • University of Texas Bulletin No
    University of Texas Bulletin No. 2607: February IS, 1926 THE SAN ANGELO FORMATION THE GEOLOGY OF FOARD COUNTY J. W. BEEDE AND D. D. CHRISTNER BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY J. A. Udden, Director E. H. Sellards, Associate Director PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN Publications of the University of Texas Publications Committee : Frederic Duncalf C. T. McCormick D. G. Cooke E. K.McGinnis J. L.Henderson H. J. MULLER E. J. Mathews Hal G Weaver The University publishes bulletins four times a month, so numbered that the first two digits of the number show the year of issue, the last two the position in the yearly series. (For example, No. 2201 is the first bulletin of the year 1922.) These comprise the official publications of the University, publications on humanistic and scientific sub- jects, bulletins prepared by the Divisionof Extension, by the Bureau of Economic Geology, and other bulletins of general educational interest. With the exception of special num- bers, any bulletin willbe sent to a citizen of Texas free on request. Allcommunications about University publications should be addressed to University Publications, University of Texas, Austin. oiSi§ste> UNIVERSITY OP TEXAS PRESS. AUSTIN University of Texas Bulletin No. 2607: February 15, 1926 THE SAN ANGELO FORMATION THE GEOLOGY OF FOARD COUNTY J. W. BEEDE AND D. D. CHRISTNER BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY J. A. Udden, Director E. H. Sellards, Associate Director PUBLISHED BYTHE UNIVERSITYFOUR TIMES AMONTH,AND ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER AT THE POSTOFFICE AT AUSTIN,TEXAS, UNDER THEACT 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- ment.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Surface Water Stations in Texas
    1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY I AUSTIN, TEXAS INDEX OF SURFACE WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS Operated by the Water Resources Division of the Geological Survey in cooperation with State and Federal Agencies Gaging Station 08065000. Trinity River near Oakwood , October 1970 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey - Water Resources Division INDEX OF SURFACE WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS OCTOBER 1970 Copies of this report may be obtained from District Chief. Water Resources Division U.S. Geological Survey Federal Building Austin. Texas 78701 1970 CONTENTS Page Introduction ............................... ................•.......•...•..... Location of offices .........................................•..•.......... Description of stations................................................... 2 Definition of tenns........... • . 2 ILLUSTRATIONS Location of active gaging stations in Texas, October 1970 .•.•.•.••..•••••..•.. 1n pocket TABLES Table 1. Streamflow, quality, and reservoir-content stations •.•.•... ~........ 3 2. Low-fla.o~ partial-record stations.................................... 18 3. Crest-stage partial-record stations................................. 22 4. Miscellaneous sites................................................. 27 5. Tide-level stations........................ ........................ 28 ii INDEX OF SURFACE WATER STATIONS IN TEXAS OCTOBER 1970 The U.S. Geological Survey's investigations of the water resources of Texas are con­ ducted in cooperation with the Texas Water Development
    [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]
  • Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4 COLA
    Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4 COL Application Part 3 - Environmental Report CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................ 2.0-1 2.1 STATION LOCATION ................................................................................................. 2.1-1 2.1.1 REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 2.1-2 2.2 LAND........................................................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1 THE SITE AND VICINITY .................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1.1 The Site........................................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1.2 The Vicinity...................................................................................................... 2.2-2 2.2.2 TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AND OFF-SITE AREAS..................................... 2.2-5 2.2.3 THE REGION........................................................................................................ 2.2-6 2.2.4 REFERENCES:..................................................................................................... 2.2-7 2.3 WATER ...................................................................................................................... 2.3-1 2.3.1 HYDROLOGY ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C - Segment Descriptions
    Appendix C - Segment Descriptions (New material is underlined and deleted material is in brackets [ ].) The following descriptions define the geographic extent of the state's classified segments. Boundaries of bay and estuary segments have not been precisely defined. Segment boundaries are illustrated in the document entitled The State of Texas Water Quality Inventory, which is published by the Commission. SEGMENT DESCRIPTION 0101 Canadian River Below Lake Meredith - from the Oklahoma State Line in Hemphill County to Sanford Dam in Hutchinson County 0102 Lake Meredith - from Sanford Dam in Hutchinson County to a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Camp Creek in Potter County, up to the normal pool elevation of 2936.5 feet (impounds Canadian River) 0103 Canadian River Above Lake Meredith - from a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Camp Creek in Potter County to the New Mexico State Line in Oldham County 0104 Wolf Creek - from the Oklahoma State Line in Lipscomb County to a point 2.0 kilometers (1.2 miles) upstream of FM 3045 in Ochiltree County 0105 Rita Blanca Lake - from Rita Blanca Dam in Hartley County up to the normal pool elevation of 3860 feet (impounds Rita Blanca Creek) 0201 Lower Red River - from the Arkansas State Line in Bowie County to the Arkansas-Oklahoma State Line in Bowie County 0202 Red River Below Lake Texoma - from the Arkansas-Oklahoma State Line in Bowie County to Denison Dam in Grayson County 0203 Lake Texoma - from Denison Dam in Grayson County to a point immediately upstream of the confluence
    [Show full text]
  • Quality of Surface Waters of the United States 1958
    Quality of Surface Waters of the United States 1958 Parts 7 and 8. Lower Mississippi River Basin and Western Gulf of Mexico Basins Prepared under the direction of S. K. LOVE, Chief, Quality of Water Branch GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1573 Prepared in cooperation with the States of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, and with other agencies UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1953 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. PREFACE This report was prepared by the Geological Survey in cooper­ ation with the States of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mex­ ico, Oklahoma, and Texas, and with other agencies by personnel of the Water Resources Division under the direction of L. B. Leopold, chief hydraulic engineer, and S. K. Love, chief, Quality of Water Branch. The data were collected and computed under the supervision of the following engineers or district chemists: D. M. Culbertson............... Lincoln, Nebr. T. B. Dover ............. Oklahoma City, Okla. Burdge Irelan .................... Austin, Tex. M. E. Schroeder..............Fayetteville, Ark. J. M. Stow............... Albuquerque, N. Mex. Ill CONTENTS Page Introduction.................................... 1 Collection and examination of samples........... 3 Chemical quality.............................. 4 Temperature................................... 4 Sediment.....................................
    [Show full text]
  • RUAA Recommendation for Double Mountain Fork Brazos River
    Double Mountain Fork Brazos River (1241) Recreational Use-Attainability Analysis Summary and Recommendation A recreational use-attainability analysis (RUAA) was conducted on Double Mountain Fork Brazos River (1241) in the summer of 2016 to determine the appropriate recreational use and numeric criteria. Double Mountain Fork Brazos River is an classified perennial water body in Kent, Haskell, Stonewall counties, TX, approximately 149 miles in length. It is currently listed on the 2018 Texas Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies due to elevated bacteria levels. It was initially listed in 2010. The RUAA identified that the presumed use of primary contact recreation 1 (PCR 1) for Double Mountain Fork Brazos River is appropriate. PCR 1 is defined in §307.3 (a) of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards as activities that are presumed to involve a significant risk of ingestion of water (e.g. wading by children, swimming, water skiing, diving, tubing, surfing, handfishing, and the following whitewater activities: kayaking, canoeing, and rafting). During the field surveys, field staff did not observe any type of recreation occurring on the stream. Field staff interviewed 56 stakeholders and landowners. Forty-two instances of personal use PCR were documented in interviews (i.e. swimming, wading children, tubing). PCR was reported eighteen times as an observed use. Physical characteristics of the stream include an average thalweg of 0.30 meters (11.8 in), 5 pools greater than one meter deep, and normal flow. At the time of the surveys, Double Mountain Fork Brazos River had a very moist Palmer Drought Severity Index.
    [Show full text]
  • And Streamflow Gain and Loss (2010) of the Brazos River from the New Mexico–Texas State Line to Waco, Texas
    Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board Base Flow (1966–2009) and Streamflow Gain and Loss (2010) of the Brazos River from the New Mexico–Texas State Line to Waco, Texas Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5224 Version 1.1, June 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front cover: Looking downstream from Highway 16 and U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 08088610 Brazos River near Graford, Texas Back cover: Looking downstream from U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 08091500 Paluxy River at Glen Rose, Texas, April 27, 2010 Base Flow (1966–2009) and Streamflow Gain and Loss (2010) of the Brazos River from the New Mexico–Texas State Line to Waco, Texas By Stanley Baldys III and Frank E. Schalla Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5224 Version 1.1, June 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 First release: 2012 Revised: June 2016 (ver. 1.1) For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Quality of Surface Waters of the United States 1959
    Quality of Surface Waters of the United States 1959 Parts 7 and 8. Lower Mississippi River Basin and Western Gulf of Mexico Basins GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1644 Prepared in cooperation with the States of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, and with other agencies Quality of Surface Waters of the United States 1959 Parts 7 and 8. Lower Mississippi River Basin and Western Gulf of Mexico Basins Prepared under the direction of S. K. LOVE, Chief, Quality of Water Branch GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1644 Prepared in cooperation with the States of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, and with other agencies UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $1.75 PREFACE This report was prepared by the Geological Survey in cooper­ ation with the States of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mex­ ico, Oklahoma, and Texas, and with other agencies by personnel of the Water Resources Division under the direction of L. B. Leopold, chief hydrologist, and S. K. Love, chief, Quality of Water Branch. The data were collected and computed under the supervision of the following district chemists or engineers: D. M. Culbertson ........................ Lincoln, Nebr. T. B. Dover, succeeded by R. P. Orth . .Oklahoma City, Okla. Burdge Irelan .............................. Austin, Tex. M. E. Schroeder ...................... Fayetteville, Ark. J. M. Stow ...................... Albuquerque, N. Mex. Ill CONTENTS [.Symbols after station name designate type of data: a, chemical; ts water temperature; s3 sediment."] Page Introduction...................................
    [Show full text]
  • Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(3) Appendix C
    Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(3) Appendix C - Segment Descriptions The following descriptions define the geographic extent of the state's classified segments. Boundaries of bay and estuary segments have not been precisely defined. Segment boundaries are illustrated in the document entitled The Atlas of Texas Surface Waters (GI-316) as amended and published by the commission. SEGMENT DESCRIPTION 0101 Canadian River Below Lake Meredith - from the Oklahoma State Line in Hemphill County to Sanford Dam in Hutchinson County 0102 Lake Meredith - from Sanford Dam in Hutchinson County to a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Camp Creek in Potter County, up to the normal pool elevation of 2936.5 feet (impounds Canadian River) 0103 Canadian River Above Lake Meredith - from a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Camp Creek in Potter County to the New Mexico State Line in Oldham County 0104 Wolf Creek - from the Oklahoma State Line in Lipscomb County to a point 2.0 km (1.2 mi) upstream of FM 3045 in Ochiltree County 0105 Rita Blanca Lake - from Rita Blanca Dam in Hartley County up to the normal pool elevation of 3860 feet (impounds Rita Blanca Creek) 0201 Lower Red River - from the Arkansas State Line in Bowie County to the Arkansas- Oklahoma State Line in Bowie County 0202 Red River Below Lake Texoma - from the Arkansas-Oklahoma State Line in Bowie County to Denison Dam in Grayson County 0203 Lake Texoma - from Denison Dam in Grayson County to a point immediately upstream of the confluence of Sycamore Creek in Cooke County, up to
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (Updated July 2, 2013)
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. 2000 and 2010 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (updated July 2, 2013) EPA has completed review of all new and revised provisions of the 2010 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, except for the following items in Appendix A - Site-specific Uses and Criteria for Classified Segments: • revised temperature criteria (and associated footnotes) for segment 1811 – Comal River and segment 1814 – San Marcos River; new temperature criterion for segment 0410 – Black Cypress Bayou • new or revised minerals criteria (and associated footnotes) for the following segments: 0307, 0410, 0507, 0803, 0812, 0821, 1206, 1227, 1238, 1240, 1241, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1421, 1426, 1433, 2106, and 2116. The complete summary of EPA’s previous actions on the 2000 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards is shown below and has not been altered since November 2009. The pages following the 2009 summary have been reduced from the complete version of the 2000 standards to only include pages with criteria (and associated footnotes) that are effective for Clean Water Act purposes because EPA disapproved the corresponding provision in the 2010 standards or those items are currently under EPA review (page 1 included only for reference). For a complete copy of the 2000 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, please see the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s website at: http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/standards 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring of Hydrologic Effects of Salt Cedar Control in the Upper Brazos River Basin, Texas”)
    Monitoring Hydrology of Upper Brazos River Saltcedar Control August 31, 2019 Final Report Monitoring of Hydrologic Effects of Salt Cedar Control in the Upper Brazos River Basin, Texas August 31, 2019 Brad D. Wolaver1, Azadeh Gholoubi1, Todd G. Caldwell2, Tara Bongiovanni1, Jon Paul Pierre1 1Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78758, USA; Corresponding author: [email protected]. 2Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78758, USA; Currently: U.S. Geological Service, Nevada Water Science Center, 2730 N Deer Run Rd, Carson City, Nevada 89701 Submitted to: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX TPWD Contract No. 505176 1 QAe8584 Monitoring Hydrology of Upper Brazos River Saltcedar Control August 31, 2019 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 5 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 8 3 Material and methods ............................................................................................................ 10 3.1 Site description ............................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Field installation ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]