Brazos River Basin Highlights Report 2018

11864 — Brazos River at FM4 — 04OCT17 BRAZOS RIVER BASIN HIGHLIGHTS REPORT 2018

INTRODUCTION ...... 3

OVERVIEW OF WATER QUALITY MONITORING ...... 3 Descriptions of Water Quality Parameters and Terminology ...... 5 Monitoring in the Brazos River Basin ...... 9 Brazos Basin Major Watersheds ...... 11 Watershed of the Salt Fork and Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River ...... 14 Watershed of the Clear Fork of the Brazos River ...... 16 Upper Watershed of the Brazos River ...... 18 Aquilla Creek Watershed ...... 20 Bosque River Watershed ...... 22 Leon River Watershed ...... 25 Lampasas River Watershed ...... 28 Little River Watershed ...... 30 Central Watershed of the Brazos River Basin...... 33 Navasota River Watershed ...... 36 Yegua Creek Watershed ...... 39 Lower Watershed of the Brazos River Basin ...... 41 Upper Oyster Creek Watershed ...... 43

THIS YEARS HIGHLIGHTS ...... 43 Central Texas Freshwater Mussels Research Program ...... 43 Freshwater Mussel Presence/Absence Surveys in the Brazos and Navasota Rivers ...... 44 Development of Operating Guidelines to Manage Impact on Fisheries from Reservoir Level Fluctuations ...... 46 Brazos Basin Instream Flow Monitoring Program to Inform on Environmental Flow Standards ...... 47 Little River, San Gabriel River, and Big Elm Creek Watershed Inventory ...... 51 Watershed Protection Plan for the Leon River ...... 52 Watershed Protection Plan for the Lampasas River ...... 52 Watershed Protection Plan for Nolan Creek and South Nolan Creek ...... 53 Watershed Protection Plan for the Navasota River Below Lake Limestone ...... 55

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OTHER INFORMATION ...... 56 Brazos River Basin Clean Rivers Program Steering Committee ...... 56 Brazos Basin CRP Website ...... 56

The Brazos River Authority, as a member of the Texas Clean Rivers Program, works to answer questions about the quality of our local streams, rivers and lakes in the Brazos River Basin Highlights Report 2018. This report is a programmatic update that contains information and updates on on-going activities and projects that address water quality concerns in the lakes and streams of the Brazos River basin. It also summarizes the results of the 2014 Integrated Report (IR).

The Authority wishes to thank both the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s Clean Rivers Program staff and the Surface Water Quality Monitoring Team for their hard work and significant contributions to the water quality in the Brazos River basin. Thanks also go out to the hundreds of individuals and organizations that are not named who have attended public meetings and other outreach events sponsored by the Authority and the Clean Rivers Program. Their input is the foundation of the watershed management process. INTRODUCTION The principal aim of the Texas Clean Rivers Program (CRP) is to ensure safe, clean water supplies for the future of Texans’ drinking water needs, industry, agriculture, healthy ecosystems, recreation and for all other uses of this valuable state resource. The CRP is managed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and funded entirely by fees assessed to wastewater discharge and water rights permit holders.

The goal of the CRP is to maintain and improve the quality of water resources within each river basin in Texas through an ongoing partnership involving the TCEQ, other agencies, river authorities, regional entities, local governments, industry and citizens. The program's watershed management approach aims to identify and evaluate water quality issues, establish priorities for corrective action, work to implement those actions, and adapt to changing priorities. The Brazos River Authority (BRA) carries out the water quality management efforts in the basin under contract with TCEQ.

Described in this report are updates to water quality studies and projects being conducted in the Brazos River Basin in response to water quality issues. The report also includes a summary of water quality monitoring results, an overview of scheduled routine monitoring for FY 2018, and summarization of the 2014 Integrated Report (IR).

The digital version of this report is imbedded with hyperlinks so that you can easily access more detailed information on projects in the Brazos River Basin. So wherever you see a word that looks like this, just click and you will be directed to a website that will give you further information on the topic of interest. You can also click the Table of Contents to navigate to your desired section. After having been directed to another page in the document or to an internet page, you may press Alt+ to return to where you were previously in the document.

OVERVIEW OF WATER QUALITY MONITORING The TCEQ assesses the condition of the state’s waterbodies on a periodic basis under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 305(b). The results of the assessment are contained within the Texas Water Quality Inventory and 303(d) List and are comprised of a complete listing of all water quality concerns in the state. This report is referred to as the Integrated Report. As required by the CWA, the IR is updated every two years and includes the review of the past seven years of data (with a lag-time of two years) collected by many organizations statewide, including the BRA. The IR remains a draft document until approval by EPA. Specific assessment methodologies are described in the 2014 Guidance for Assessing and Reporting Surface Water Quality in Texas. The 2014 IR, on which the following information is based, provides an assessment of water quality results using data acquired from December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2012. Please click here for more information and to review the 2014 Texas Integrated Report for Clean

Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d). On November 19, 2015, the 2014 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d) was approved by the USEPA.

The 2014 IR provides an overview of surface water quality throughout the state, including issues relating to public health, fitness for use by aquatic species and other wildlife, and specific pollutants and their possible sources. These water quality issues are identified by comparing concentrations in the water to numerical criteria that represent the state’s water quality standards or screening levels to determine if the waterbody supports its designated uses, such as suitability for aquatic life, for contact recreation, or for public water supply. Waterbodies that do not meet established water quality standards are placed on the 303(d) List and are referred to as “impaired,” “not supporting,” or “NS”, all of which indicate that a waterbody does not meet established water quality standards. Once placed on the list the waterbody is targeted for special study and/or corrective action.

The TCEQ also identifies segments where the data indicates that the waterbody is close to violating water quality standards as having a “concern for near non-attainment of standards” or “CN.” These CN segments are then targeted for increased monitoring to better understand the conditions in the stream.

Water quality standard numerical criteria are used by TCEQ as the maximum or minimum instream concentration that may result from permitted discharges and/or nonpoint sources and still meet designated uses. To resolve the issues of regional and geological diversity of the state, standards are developed for classified segments. Classified segments are defined segments of waterways that are unique from other segments. Each classified segment has been designated a four-digit code. The Brazos River Basin is designated by the number 12. Each classified segment is distinguished by the next two numbers, for example, Segment ID 1201 is the portion of the Brazos River that flows into the gulf and is referred to as the Brazos River Tidal segment. Appropriate water uses such as contact recreation, public water supply, and aquatic life are then applied to the segments. Site-specific water quality criteria have been developed for water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, bacteria, chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids for classified segments. Site-specific chlorophyll a has been developed for several reservoirs. Many streams that are not classified segments are still assessed by TCEQ and are considered unclassified waterbodies. This could be a small tributary of a classified segment, and they are coded with the four-digit Segment ID they flow into, followed by a letter, such as 1201A. These unclassified waterbodies do not have specific water quality standards developed for them. For assessment purposes, unclassified streams are assessed using the numeric criteria developed for the classified segment into which the stream flows unless site-specific criteria for certain parameters have been developed, which is the case for dissolved oxygen and bacteria in several unclassified waterbodies throughout the basin. Use support is reported at both the segment and assessment unit (AU). An AU is defined as the smallest geographic area of use support reported in the assessment. Support of criteria and uses are examined for each AU. To address water quality regulatory activity such as permitting, standards development, and remediation, use support information applies to the AU level. The 303(d) list

is reported at the level of the AU for each waterbody. Each AU within a waterbody segment is given a number following an underscore after the segment designation, such as 1201_01. A segment may consist of one or more AU.

Numeric quality standards have not been developed for nutrients and chlorophyll a (although chlorophyll a criteria has been developed for certain reservoirs). Instead, the water quality standards for nutrients and chlorophyll a are expressed as narrative criteria. In the absence of segment-specific numeric water quality criteria, the state has developed screening levels for these parameters in order to identify areas where elevated concentrations may cause water quality concerns. These screening levels are applied to waterbodies statewide, and are based on the 85th percentile of nutrient values in the statewide water quality database. Waterbodies that exhibit frequent (>25% of the time) elevated concentrations of nutrients or chlorophyll a are referred to as having a “concern for screening level violations” or “CS” and are often targeted for continued and increased monitoring to better understand the effects of the elevated concentrations.

Descriptions of Water Quality Parameters and Terminology

Following are typical terms that are used when discussing water quality with descriptions of several water quality parameters and how they relate to achieving water quality standards. There are two groups of parameters:

Field parameters are those water quality constituents that can be obtained on-site and generally include: PARAMETER POTENTIAL IMPACTS WHEN POTENTIAL CAUSES OF STATE STANDARDS ARE NOT MET STATE STANDARDS NOT BEING MET Temperature Water temperature affects the oxygen content of the Colder water can be caused by reservoir releases. water, with warmer water unable to hold as much Warmer water can be caused by removing trees oxygen. When water temperature is too cold, cold- from the riparian zone, soil erosion, or use of water blooded organisms may either die or become weaker to cool manufacturing equipment. and more susceptible to other stresses, such as disease or parasites. Specific Conductance Specific conductance is a measure of the waterbody’s Elevated concentrations of dissolved salts can ability to conduct electricity and indicates the impact the water as a drinking water source and as approximate levels of dissolved salts, such as chloride, suitable aquatic habitat. sulfate and sodium in the stream.

PARAMETER POTENTIAL IMPACTS WHEN POTENTIAL CAUSES OF STATE STANDARDS ARE NOT MET STATE STANDARDS NOT BEING MET pH Most aquatic life is adapted to live within a narrow pH Algal blooms produce diel swings in dissolved range. Different organisms can live at and adjust to oxygen causing super-saturation during the day differing pH ranges, but all fish die if pH is below four while respiration can cause night-time oxygen levels (the acidity of orange juice) or above 12 (the pH of to crash. Chemical byproducts of this ammonia). photosynthesis/respiration process cause swings also in pH, with lower levels (acidic conditions) during the day and higher levels (alkaline conditions) at night. Industrial and wastewater discharge, runoff from quarry operations and accidental spills can also be a cause. Dissolved Oxygen Organisms that live in the water need oxygen to live. DO levels may be low due to no primary (DO) In stream segments where DO is low, organisms may productivity, stagnant, pooled or low-flow not have sufficient oxygen to survive. conditions. Modifications to the riparian zone, human activity that causes water temperatures to increase, increases in organic matter, bacteria and over abundant algae may also cause DO levels to decrease. Algal blooms produce diel swings in dissolved oxygen causing super-saturation during the day while respiration can cause night-time oxygen levels to crash. Stream Flow Flow is an important parameter affecting water At low flows, the stream has a lower assimilative quality. Low flow conditions common in the warm capacity for waste inputs from point and nonpoint summer months create critical conditions for aquatic sources. DO concentrations can also decrease as organisms. flow decreases. Transparency and Secchi Transparency is a measure of the depth to which light Low transparency or secchi disc depth is an estimate Disk Depth is transmitted through the water column and thus the of turbidity. depth at which aquatic plants can grow.

Conventional Parameters are typical water quality constituents that require laboratory analysis and generally include: PARAMETER POTENTIAL IMPACTS WHEN POTENTIAL CAUSES OF STATE STANDARDS ARE NOT MET STATE STANDARDS NOT BEING MET Turbidity Turbidity is a measure of the water clarity or light Increases in turbidity are caused by suspended and transmitting properties. colloidal matter such as clay, silt, finely divided organic and inorganic matter, plankton and other microscopic organisms. Hardness Hardness is a composite measure of certain ions in Higher hardness concentrations in the receiving the water, primarily calcium and magnesium. The stream can result in reduced toxicity of heavy hardness of the water is critical due to its effect on metals. the toxicity of certain metals Chloride Chloride is an essential element for maintaining Natural weathering and leaching of sedimentary normal physiological functions in all organisms. rocks, soils and salt deposits can release chloride Elevated chloride concentrations can disrupt osmotic into the environment. Other sources can be pressure, water balance and acid/base balances in attributed to oil exploration and storage, sewage aquatic organisms which can adversely affect survival, and industrial discharges, run off from dumps and growth and/or reproduction. landfills and saltwater intrusion. Sulfate Effects of high sulfate levels in the environment have Due to abundance of elemental and organic sulfur not been fully documented. However, sulfate and sulfide mineral, soluble sulfate occurs in almost contamination may contribute to the decline of native all natural water. Other sources are the burning of plants by altering chemical conditions in the sulfur containing fossil fuels, steel mills and sediment. fertilizers. Total Dissolved High total dissolved solids may affect the aesthetic Mineral springs, carbonate deposits, salt deposits Solids quality of the water, interfere with washing clothes and sea water intrusion are sources for natural and corrode plumbing fixtures. High total dissolved occurring high concentration TDS levels. Other solids in the environment can also affect the sources can be attributed to oil exploration, drinking permeability of ions in aquatic organisms. water treatment chemicals, storm water and agricultural runoff and point/nonpoint wastewater discharges. Total Suspended Suspended solids increase turbidity which reduces Excessive TSS is the result of accelerated erosion Solids (TSS) light penetration and decreases the production of and is often associated with high flows where river oxygen by plants. They can also clog fish gills. banks are cut or sediment is resuspended. It can

PARAMETER POTENTIAL IMPACTS WHEN POTENTIAL CAUSES OF STATE STANDARDS ARE NOT MET STATE STANDARDS NOT BEING MET Total Suspended Eventually, the suspended solids settle to the bottom also be the result of sheet erosion, where over land Solids (TSS) (cont.) of the stream or lake, creating sediment. Excessive flow of water causes a thin layer of soil to be carried sediment in the water column can also reduce growth of by the water to the stream. Disturbing vegetation algae and can transport other contaminants such as without a proper barrier to slow down overland nutrients and bacteria. Habitat for aquatic organisms flow (such as construction sites or row cropping)

can also be reduced. increases TSS. Bacteria Although certain species of bacteria may not Present naturally in the digestive system of all warm • Escherichia coli (E. coli) themselves be harmful to human beings, their blooded animals, these bacteria are in all surface • Enterococcus presence is an indicator of recent fecal matter waters. Poorly maintained or ineffective septic contamination and that other pathogens dangerous systems, overflow of domestic sewage or nonpoint to human beings may be present. sources and runoff from animal feedlots can elevate bacteria levels. Ammonia Nitrogen Elevated levels of ammonia in the environment can Ammonia is excreted by animals and is produced adversely affect fish and invertebrate reproductive during the decomposition of plants and animals. capacity and reduce the growth of young. Ammonia is an ingredient in many fertilizers and is also present in sewage, storm water runoff, certain industrial wastewaters and runoff from animal feedlots. Nutrients Nutrients increase plant and algae growth. When Nutrients are found in effluent released from • Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen plants and algae die, the bacteria that decompose wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), fertilizers • Nitrate Nitrogen them use oxygen. This reduces the dissolved oxygen and agricultural runoff carrying animal waste from • Nitrite Nitrogen in the water. High levels of nitrates and nitrites can farms and ranches. Soil erosion and runoff from produce nitrite toxicity, or “brown blood disease,” in farms, lawns and gardens can add nutrients to the • Total Phosphorus fish. This disease reduces the ability of blood to water. • Ortho-phosphate transport oxygen throughout the body. phosphorus

Chlorophyll a High levels of nutrients in relatively stable waters can Algal blooms can result in elevated chlorophyll a cause algae blooms, decrease water clarity and cause concentrations indicating an increase in nutrients swings in dissolved oxygen and pH due to

PARAMETER POTENTIAL IMPACTS WHEN POTENTIAL CAUSES OF STATE STANDARDS ARE NOT MET STATE STANDARDS NOT BEING MET Chlorophyll a (cont.) photosynthesis. This is most commonly measured that increase growth and reproduction in algal using chlorophyll a concentrations. species.

Biological and Habitat Assessment The three components evaluated during a biological assessment include: measurement of physical habitat parameters, collection of fish community and the benthic macroinvertebrate community data. Each component, depending on the nature of a particular waterbody and its biota, is classified as having limited, intermediate, high, or exceptional aquatic life. Assessments are conducted to provide baseline data on environmental conditions or to determine if the designated aquatic life use for the stream is being attained. Data collected as part of a biological assessment are used for the IR.

24-hr Dissolved Oxygen studies perform measurements of DO in frequent intervals in a 24-hr period. This type of monitoring is conducted to measure the diurnal variation of DO and its impacts on the biological community. This monitoring is frequently paired with biological and habitat assessments.

Metals in water or sediment, such as mercury or lead, typically exist in low concentrations but can be toxic to aquatic life or human health when certain levels are exceeded.

Organics in water or sediment, such as pesticides or fuels, can be toxic to aquatic life or human health when certain levels are exceeded.

Monitoring in the Brazos River Basin The Brazos River Basin can be divided into 14 major watersheds that fall within the 42,000 square miles and portions of 70 counties that make up the basin. The 14 major watersheds include:

• the Caprock watershed; • the Lampasas River watershed; • the Salt and Double Mountain Forks of the Brazos watershed; • the Little River watershed; • the Clear Fork of the Brazos watershed; • the Central Brazos River watershed; • the Upper Brazos River watershed; • the Navasota River watershed; • the Aquilla Creek watershed; • the Yegua Creek watershed; • the Bosque River watershed; • the Lower Brazos River watershed; and • the Leon River watershed; • the Oyster Creek watershed

The Caprock watershed is a non-contributing watershed to the Brazos River Basin due to lack of rainfall and high evaporative rates in northwest Texas. Precipitation in this area is either absorbed by area soils or is contained in the hundreds of playa lakes in this part of the state. Playa lakes are shallow, round depressions that fill after storms then rapidly dry due to evaporation. These temporary lakes provide water for wildlife and flood control for municipalities. However, due to their ephemeral natures, these lakes are not monitored or assessed as part of the CRP.

One of the key roles of the CRP is fostering coordination and cooperation in monitoring efforts. Coordinated monitoring meetings are held once a year to bring all the monitoring agencies together to discuss streamlining and coordinating efforts, and to eliminate duplication of monitoring efforts in the watersheds of the Brazos River Basin.

Brazos River Basin

Watershed of the Major Watersheds Salt and Double Mountain Forks of the Brazos River

Caprock Upper Watershed of the Brazos River

Bosque River Watershed

Aquilla Creek Watershed

Watershed of the Clear Fork Central Watershed of the Brazos River of the Brazos River

Navasota River Leon River Watershed Watershed

Lampasas River Watershed

Little River Watershed Upper Oyster Creek Yegua Creek Watershed Watershed Lower Watershed of the Brazos River Brazos River Authority Table 2. FY 2018 Summary of Known Sampling for the Brazos River Basin (September 2017 through August 2018) Sampling Field Conventional Bacteria 24-hr DO Biological and Metals in Organics Metals in Entity Habitat Water in Water Sediment 30 monthly 3 semi- 3 semi- BRA 68 quarterly annually annually 7 semi-annually 80 quarterly 1 semi- 1 semi- 5 quarterly 2 semi- 1 annually 13 semi-annually annually annually 7 semi- annually 6 semi- TCEQ annually annually 1 semi-annually 18 yearly 8 monthly 18 yearly 8 semi-monthly TIAER 10 monthly 9 quarterly 6 bi-monthly 6 bi- USGS monthly

(Information compiled from the Clean Rivers Program Coordinated Monitoring website (http://cms.lcra.org/)

The remainder of this report contains summary water quality assessment results for each of the segments that were evaluated in the Brazos Basin Clean Rivers Program assessment area for the 2014 IR. It is important to remember that the information presented represents a snapshot in time and that water quality conditions are dynamic and can change over time. Furthermore, segments unmentioned or identified as having no impairments or concerns are not necessarily without problem. Rather, there may have been limited or no data available and all uses may not have been assessed.

Each major watershed is mapped separately and depicts watershed boundaries, segments with names and AUs, county boundaries, cities, major roads, monitoring locations, discharge locations, water quality impairments and selected water quality concerns. There are also tables summarizing segments in each watershed that are listed in the 2014 IR as possessing impairments or concerns and what parameter was evaluated that contributed to the listing. For each table: NS - indicates a segment is non-supporting for a designated use, or impaired, CS - indicates a segment has a concern for water quality based on screening levels, CN - indicates a segment has concern for near-nonattainment of applicable water quality standards. Entries in BOLD were newly listed in the 2014 IR and strike-throughs indicate listing removal from the 2014 IR.

Watershed of the Clear Fork of the Brazos River FY18 Water Quality Monitoring and 2014 IR Status

Bacteria Impairment

Chlorophyll a and/or Nutrient Concern HASKELL Rule TCEQ Routine Monitoring Station (! Haskell THROCKMORTON Wastewater Outfall # 12006 1232C_01 ¤£277 Sagerton 1235_01 Watershed Boundary STONEWALL YOUNG 283 Lake ¬« Stamford er iv Woodson ek R re k s 18766 t C e o in e z Pa r ra 1232_01 1232C_02 C B a k 1232_02 i r 1232C_03 n r o o F Fort Griffin 11985 Stamford lif r a a Crystal C 11709 e Hamlin l Falls 92 C 1232_02 ¬« 283 ¤£ Hubbard Creek 1233_01 Rotan 1232A_02 1232A_01 ek Reservoir re 67 Lueders Foyle C 1233_02 12002 ¬« 12001 11990 SCURRY Anson 180 Breckenridge Roby ¤£ G 6 SHACKELFORD o 1232_04 ¬« Albany n 108 JONES z ¤£ FISHER C 11992 1233_03 a le l k e e ar 1232_03 g k Fo s re rk Brazos Riv n e er ro re C 11697 P C C d 83 t k r o ¤£ l rd e e wo Lake Fort a a re e n 1232B_01 S b C 13640 k o 11999 b B tt Phantom Hill u le o tt ig 17941 H k a C k Hawley e B S k 351 e Lake Daniel e ¬« r a e re n C d e C 12010 d k r y STEPHENS r r ee a Moran te r C twater C it C bb k 1233A_01 ee y u e r B e w rr H e S be D r e

l k u 1236_01 Impact ea C Trent M d p 112 m e Lake ¬« Sweetwater 20 a 1233B_01 e Tye n Cisco ¨¦§ D 1234_01 MITCHELL Merkel Abilene C

Lake Sweetwater 84 r

¤£ e

Roscoe 12021 1232B_02 e 1237_01 k Clyde Baird 12005 11521 36 Putnam Cisco 70 k ¬« 20 ¬« e ¨¦§ e k EASTLAND r e CALLAHAN C e TAYLOR r 1236A_01 NOLAN m C l r 283 E a ¤£ Buffalo Gap d e ¬«153 C ¤£83 Tuscola

Brazos River 0 10 20 Authority Miles K Watershed of the Salt Fork and Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River

Table 3: Waterbodies of the Salt Fork and Double Mountain Fork Watersheds IR status

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern 1241A_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS North Fork Double Mountain Fork Brazos Bacteria – NS MEETS River 1241A_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Buffalo Springs Lake 1241C_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Lake Alan Henry 1241B_01 Mercury in Edible tissue – NS White River Lake 1240_01 TDS, Cl – NS Double Mountain Fork Brazos River 1241_01 Bacteria – NS Croton Creek 1238A_01 Bacteria – CN Bacteria – CN Miller’s Creek Reservoir 1208A_01 DO – CS 1208_02 Brazos River Above Possum Kingdom 1208_04 Bacteria – NS Lake 1208_05 1208_05 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS

Watershed of the Salt and Double Mountain Forks of the Brazos River FY18 Water Quality Monitoring and 2014 IR Status

LUBBOCK DICKENS 1241A_02 CROSBY BAYLOR KNOX Buffalo Dickens KING Lubbock Springs 82 Benjamin ¤£ River Seymour Lake 1240A_01 zos Crot ra Ranson Canyon on C B 11871 11534 ree N £82 11527 White k or ¤ 1208_06 D th Westover ARCHER 11529 River 1240_01 u C 114 c 21531 1208_05 ¬« r Lake k o Goree Megargel Spur C to Munday 12027 r 1238A_01 n B e C Knox City Millers Creek 207 e r k ra ¬« k ee e Reservoir zo 1239_01 k re s R 1241C_01 N W C iv O'Brien e o S 1238_01 e r r a h k 1208_04 t lt F 12022 a 1208A_01 h ork it L Braz e Weinert 11525 F os k B YOUNG o R R 21560 S e og r iv iv alt For e gy 11870 k e e B k Rochester r 222 Cr r r 208 razos R r C eek 251 D 1238_03 ¬« ive ers ¬« ¬« 1241A_01 o Jayton Mill lm Creek LYNN ub 6 E le M ¬« 277 oun ¤£ Newcastle Post tain 1238_02 Rule Fork KENT 11523 380 ¤£ 12023 Aspermont Throckmorton 1208_03 STONEWALL 283 D HASKELL ¤£ £84 1241B_01 o GARZA ¤ ub 1241_01 le 70 M ¬« THROCKMORTON o 18414 u Lake n ta Alan 1241_02 in 1208_02 1241D_01 Henry Fork 12029 R o ug JONES h STEPHENS 208 C ¬«92 BORDEN ¬« re e k Rotan

SCURRY

FISHER

Bacteria Impairment

Total Dissolved Solids/Chloride Impairment

Mercury in Edible Tissue

Chlorophyll a and/or Nutrient Concern (! TCEQ Routine Monitoring Station *# Wastewate Outfall Brazos Watershed Boundary River 0 10 20 Authority Miles K Watershed of the Clear Fork of the Brazos River

Table 4: Waterbodies of the Clear Fork Watershed IR status

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1232_02 pH - CN Clear Fork Brazos River 1232_03 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS DO – CS 1232_04 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS California Creek 1232A_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Fish/Macrobenthics – CN Bacteria – NS MEETS 1232B_01 Deadman Creek Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1232B_02 Bacteria – CN Paint Creek 1232C_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Hubbard Creek Reservoir 1233_02 DO – CS Big Sandy Creek 1233A_01 Bacteria – CN

ARCHER

«¬79 Olney Upper Watershed of the Brazos River «¬114 FY18 Water Quality Monitoring and 2014 IR Status

YOUNG 251 1231_01 «¬ JACK

Bryson Lake Graham JACK 16 «¬ 1208_01 1208_01 Graham YOUNG B ra 1207_01 z 1207_02 os R 281 iv ¤£ Inset er 1206_03 Map 1 (! Graford 1207_03 See Inset Possum Kingdom Lake os River Lake 1206E_01 az PALO PINTO 1207_04 Map1 r 337 Mineral Wells B «¬ 1207_05 1207_06 1207_11 Mineral PARKER (! Wells Cool 1207_07 1207_10 k 1207_09 e 1206B_01 (!

e

Palo Pinto r STEPHENS PALO PINTO 1207_12(!1206_03 C 1207_08 Millsap k (! 180 1206_02 c Caddo ¤£ o

R

1230_01 P Brazos a 1206_01 lo Pint 16 o Creek «¬ ek Lake re C Palo Pinto g n k reek o e reek C L e Pinto C 1206D_01 o r o Gordon o 1205_01 C l p 1206A_01 a a r P k Strawn c reek e Mingus i Lipan n C k 1230A_01 K so c 1206A_02 Robin u 20 R Joshua EASTLAND ¨¦§ 1205G_01 Ranger Godley ERATH 1206A_01 See Inset Lake Granbury Keene Pa Tolar JOHNSON lux Map 2 1229_03 y R iver Lake Cleburne HOOD r Pat Cleburne e v 377 Squaw Creek i 1228_01 1227A_01 R k ¤£ Reservoir e s e o r N z C o Rio VM ista 1229_02 a 1227B_01

r l u

p a B s

n

m t a a R

67 Glen Rose n C 1204A_01 i 1227_02 ¤£ v g 1229_01 e s Ri C SOMERVELL zo ve r Brazos ra r r B e

e 1227_01

k River 0 10 20 1204_01 Blum 1203_06 Authority Miles Walnut 1203_05 K Springs «¬220 1203_04 22 PARKER «¬ HILL Morgan 1205H_01 1205E_02 teele Cree k S k e 1205_01 re e C ek r 144 e ¬ C « Whitney k e ree r C 1205_SA1 B n e o k ns c 1203A_01 1203_02 Robi 1205_SA2 u R Lake 1205G_01 1205_02 1205E_01 1205C_01 1203_03 Whitney

k e Inset k 1205F_01 e BOSQUE

e r Cre s C d trou 1205_SA3 1205A_02 t Map 2 1203_01 S u

n

l

1205A_01 a 1257_01

HOOD W 1205_03 1205_04 Lake Granbury 1205_SA4 1205_05 Bacteria Impairment ek JOHNSON ee 1205_SA5 Cr China ry Total Dissolved Solids and Sulfate Impairment tra 1205D_01 Springs on C Chlorophyll a and/or Nutrient Concern MCLENNAN r e BRA Routine Monitoring Station iv (! 1204_02 R s Squaw Creek o z Reservoir ra 1229A_01 B TCEQ Routine Monitoring Station 1229_02 (!

¡[ BRA Instream Flow Study Station k e e GlenS ORoMsEeRVELL r C Wastewater Outfall ERATH 1204_01 p # 1229_01 m a Watershed Boundary C Upper Watershed of the Brazos River

Table 5: Waterbodies of the Upper Watershed IR status

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern Brazos River Above Possum Kingdom Bacteria – NS 1208_01 Lake Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1206_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Brazos River Below Possum Kingdom Lake 1206_01 Habitat – CS 1206_02 Macrobenthics – CN 1205_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1205_03 Lake Granbury DO – CS 1205_05 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Walnut Creek 1205C Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Brazos River Below Granbury 1204_02 Habitat – CS Camp Creek 1204A_01 Bacteria – NS Squaw Creek Reservoir 1229A_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1227_01 TDS, SO4 – NS Nolan River 1227_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Buffalo Creek 1227A_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Lake Pat Cleburne 1228_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1203_01 DO – CN Whitney Lake 1203_03 1203_05 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1203_06 Brazos River Below Lake Whitney 1257_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS

Aquilla Creek Watershed FY18

Water Quality Monitoring Covington

and 2014 IR Status Itasca ¨¦§35W «¬81 171 «¬ H a c k b e r r 1254B_01 y Carl's

C Corner r e e A k 35E q u HILL ¨¦§ i l l a 77 C ¤£ r e 1254A_02 e k

Hillsboro «¬171 «¬22 1254A_01 1254_02 1254_SA2 1254_SA3 Aquilla Reservoir 1254_03 12128 12129 1254_SA1 17321 1254_01 12127 Abbott

Aquilla

¨¦§35

21124 West Chlorophyll a and/or Nutrient Concern 1256A_01

B ra (! BRA - Routine Monitoring Station zo s R ive (! TCEQ - Routine Monitoring Station r A q MCLENNAN u il ¡[ BRA - Instream Flow Station la C re Gholson e *# Legend Wastewater Outfall k 11593 Watershed Boundary

Brazos River 0 5 10 Authority Miles K Aquilla Creek Watershed

Table 6: Waterbodies of the Aquilla Creek Watershed IR status

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern 1254_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1254_02 Aquilla Reservoir Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1254_03 Sediment – CS DO – CS Hackberry Creek 1254A_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS

Bosque River Watershed FY18 Water Quality Monitoring and 2014 IR Status See Inset Map ¤£377

Stephenville 1226E_01 SOMERVELL ek 1226H_01 re C k 1226F_01 11963 n A e l a a i r e m r C d 1226K_01 Dissolved Oxygen Impairment G n 1255_01 C r I r ee e k s e 67 n m i ¤£ Bacteria Impairment C S ERATH r e L e i 220 k 17240 tt ¬« Chlorophyll a and/or Nutrient Concern 1226B_01 le 20323 D 17607 E u as 20322 ff 1226A_01 t B a o Dublin u s BRA Routine Monitoring Station W q (! C D u Walnut Springs 1226M_01 u e r a e f R e f l 11962 a k Little Green Creek k iv u e 1226Q_01 e Morgan TCEQ Routine Monitoring Station 13486 C r r reek (! 1226L_01 Creek Spring Creek B Spring ra 11960 18003 South Fork Little Green Creek Reservoir nch Hico TIAER Routine Monitoring Station 1226G_01 11961 144 (! eek Iredell ¬« Cr ore 6 ilm 1226P_01 ¬« Wastewater Outfall 1226I_01 G k # e 1226_04 re BOSQUE Meridian C N o Watershed Boundary Honey r t h 1226_03 B 1226J_01 o HAMILTON s q COMANCHE u e

281 1226C_01 R ¤£ iv e 14908 r Scarborough 0 1 2 Meridian Creek Creek Miles 11956 Reservoir 1255K_01 Cranfills Gap Clifton 1255F_01 ¬«22 1226_02 N 1226D_01 o Neils Creek W k r 1255I_01 e th o e 11826 o Cr 17222 F d S h o car oroug r h b k 18802 o U 1226_01 l MCLENNAN l D o p 1225A_02 1255C_01 r South Fork w p y e China Spring

B r B Valley Mills Upper N r r 11951 1256_03 North Bosque a o a 1225_01 1225_02 n n M r id t c d c le h h B Reservoir h os Ho B que 1246_01 g C o R re 1255H_01 1255B_01 s iver ek 17204 q 281 11626 ue £ 1255G_01 ¤ ¬«317 CORYELL 17212 1225_01 11942

kCrawford Lake Goo e se e Waco 1225_03 12038 B r 18802 ra C nc 1246D_01 k k 1255J_01 n e r 11948 h o e 1255E_01 T r e Bosque R C 17612 iv North iver South Fork Upper 17226 p k R s ee e a Cr u W s 84 q rri ¤£ s 20308 1255D_01 1246E_01 a o H B Goose Branch 195 1246C_01 h «¬ t 1255A_01 1255_02 McGregor u Reservoir Stephenville 1246A_01 o 35 / S ¨¦§ le idd 1246C_02 M 1246_02 Brazos River 0 10 20 Authority Miles K Bosque River Watershed

Table 7: Waterbodies of the Bosque River Watershed IR status

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern Bacteria – NS 1255_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Upper North Bosque River Bacteria – NS 1255_02 DO – NS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Goose Branch 1255A_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS North Fork Upper North Bosque River 1255B_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Scarborough Creek 1255C_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS South Fork North Bosque River 1255D_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Unnamed Tributary of Goose Branch 1255E_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Unnamed Tributary of Scarborough 1255F_01 Bacteria – NS Creek Woodhollow Branch 1255G_01 Bacteria – NS South Fork Upper North Bosque River 1255H_01 DO – CS Reservoir Bacteria – NS Dry Branch 1255I_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Goose Branch Reservoir 1255J_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Scarborough Creek Reservoir 1255K_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1226_01 North Bosque River Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1226_03

DO – CN 1226_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1226_04 Macrobenthics – CN Duffau Creek 1226A_01 Bacteria – NS DO – NS Green Creek 1226B_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Indian Creek 1226E_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Sims Creek 1226F_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Alarm Creek 1226H_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Little Duffau Creek 1226K_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Little Green Creek 1226M_01 Bacteria – NS

1226N_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Indian Creek Reservoir DO – CS Sims Creek Reservoir 1226O_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Waco Lake 1225_03 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Middle Bosque/South Bosque River 1246_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Tonk Creek 1246D_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Wasp Creek 1246E_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS

Wastewater treatment plant effluent, agricultural runoff and the confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) located in the watershed are potential contributors to the elevated nutrients. However, through implementation of the TMDL plan, reductions in nutrients have been achieved (Improving Water Quality in the North Bosque River, TCEQ 2012).

Leon River Watershed FY18 Water Quality Monitoring and 2014 IR Status

STEPHENS

1224B_01

Lake Eastland Leon Cisco Bacteria Impairment 11939

eon Riv 11941 L Dissolved Oxygen Impairment L e e 1223A_01 rk r L o k o 1224_02 1224_01 e n e F o R e n r Chlorophyll a and/or Nutrient Concern th i k EASTLAND v C ou Carbon R e e S e e r g r 1224C_01 1223_01 s B n 1222F_01 Wastewater Outfall C e o # 206 6 r e r ¬« v l t y ERATH ¬« o r Gorman o s i w r r e ver m k S Ri r e ab ana b re BRA Routine Monitoring Station A k C 1223B_01 (! c 11938 a w 1222C_02 H o C 1222C_01 15065 TCEQ Routine Monitoring Station £183 R (! ¤ ush-Cop Dublin peras Rising Star Cr eek Watershed Boundary 1222B_01 ¬«36 See Inset 1221A_02 Coryell 1220_03 Inset 3 BROWN COMANCHE O R w l Creek e Map 1 s # 18798 1222E_01 le y 1221A_01 C 17377 r 1220_02 e Belton (! e (!11923 k Lake Bell Gustine 11808 1221_05 11817 Leon 11922 iver Ri (! n R 18781 ve Morgan's Leo r uth # So 1221B_01 20905 20835 Point ree # C k 17547 1220_01 # Resort n HAMILTON a (! 1220A_03 c 11921 e 0 2 4 Miles 1221C_01 P Hamilton # (! ouse Cree MILLS 16 wh k # ¬« o C 1221E_01 (!¡[ P 11930 1221_04 lum 1221G_01 C ree 11929 MCLENNAN 281 k C De Leon 1223A_01 ¤£ or ERATH ye 13647 # 18405 ll (! S C Inset 1 15765 Evant re a 6 (! 1259_03 ek b «¬ 84 L # 1222C_01 L ## a ¤£ South e 1223_01 e R n 1222D_01 Gatesville u o sh- a o Mountain Oglesby n Co n k k p R e R i R L p v e e 11804 e e r eo i e e n r r v 1259_02 a C r s R s e 1220A_02

e s C iv r l C l e t r r r B e e COMANCHE v u

e o e w n CORYELL l k i l o Moody r o 11936 a 11925 S 1222_01 1222B_01 w O 1259_01 16 W w «¬ (! 11805 l C C Proctor o r e reek 1222_03 w ek C L 1220A_01 h r Lake a ou te Proctor m se Creek a 11937 p tw 1222E_01 LAMPASAS a e 11935 17379 s e (! a w ! s See Inset S ( (! 1221F_01 R # i 1222_02 v Map 3 e (! r 36 11934 Copperas Temple «¬ ek L re e Cove 35 C o n 1221_06 n See Inset ¨¦§ a 1222A_01 67 c £ R n ¤ u iv Kempner Map 2 D 17542 dian Cre e Belton Comanche In ek r # BELL 1218_01 (! 36 0 1 2 «¬ 1221D_01 (! 1221D_02 1219_01 Miles 11818

(! Coryell Inset 2 11922 1218B_01 1218_03 Bell Creek 190 n No ¤£ a lan o l Cre 1218_02 20835 N Killeen e k/So th uth So u Ck N Nolanville L n ola it a n Creek Brazos tle l No Harker 1218_01 K River 1218A_01 195 Heights 11907 «¬ 0 1 2 0 10 20 Authority 1218C_01 Miles Miles Leon River Watershed

Table 8: Waterbodies of the Leon River Watershed IR status

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern Bacteria – NS Nolan Creek/South Nolan Creek 1218_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Unnamed Tributary to Little Nolan Creek 1218A_01 Bacteria – CN Little Nolan Creek 1218C_01 Bacteria – NS Leon River Below Belton Lake 1219_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Cowhouse Creek 1220A_03 Bacteria – NS MEETS 1221_01 Bacteria – NS MEETS 1221_04

1221_05 1221_03 Bacteria – NS 1221_06 1221_01 Leon River Below Proctor Lake 1221_04 DO – CS 1221_05 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1221_07 1221_02 1221_03 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1221_06 Bacteria – NS 1221A_01 DO – NS Resley Creek Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS 1221A_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS MEETS South Leon River 1221B_01 Habitat – CS Pecan Creek 1221C_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS

Bacteria – NS 1221D_01 DO – CS Indian Creek Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS 1221D_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Walnut Creek 1221F_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1222_01 Proctor Lake 1222_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1222_03 Bacteria – NS Duncan Creek 1222A_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS DO – CN Bacteria – NS Rush-Copperas Creek 1222B_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Sabana River 1222C_01 Bacteria – NS Sowells Creek 1222D_01 Bacteria – CN Sweetwater Creek 1222E_01 Bacteria – NS Bacteria – CN Hackberry Creek 1222F_01 DO – CN Bacteria – NS Leon River Below Leon Reservoir 1223_01 DO – NS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Armstrong Creek 1223A_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Cow Creek 1223B_01 Bacteria – CN

Lampasas River Watershed

HAMILTON FY18 Water Quality Monitoring and 2014 IR Status

1217_05 L a m p a s a Dissolved Oxygen Impairment MILLS 15762 s R 84 B e iv ¤£ nne e Chlorophyll a and/or Nutrient Concern tt C r reek (! BRA Routine Monitoring Station

TCEQ Routine Monitoring Station 15770 (! 1217_04 (! TIAER Routine Monitoring Station

1217C_01 Simms Creek # Wastewater Outfall Watershed Boundary

L a m Lometa p a 1217_03 s a s LAMPASAS R iv CORYELL e r ¤£190 ¤£281

16404 1217_02 C ek le re 11897 a 15781 r C r u C 21689 h p r T 21690 Sul Kempner e rim Lampasas 15250 e R m k e ie Lake Stillhouse es r C e re Hollow 18782 1217G_01 C 1216A_01 e 1217F_02 r 18754 k 11894 1217B_01 ee 1217F_01 k 20051 La 1217B_02 ek 21016 mpa re sas 195 18753 C Riv ¬ 11895 13547 e e « it k r 1215_01 u e 18759 q 183 e s ¤£ r 1216_01 e C 11724 M y 1217_01 k Salado North Rocky Creek c 1243_01 R o 11896 1216_02 1217D_01 1217A_01 12051 ¤£281 BELL 1243_02 reek So y C uth Rock k 35 e ¨¦§ e BURNET r 1217E_01 C o d a l «¬138 Florence a S Jarrell

Brazos WILLIAMSON River 0 10 20 Authority Miles K Lampasas River Watershed

Table 9: Waterbodies of the Lampasas River Watershed IR status

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern Bacteria – NS MEETS Trimmier Creek 1216A_01 Macrobenthics – CN Sulphur Creek 1217B_02 DO – CS North Rocky Creek 1217D_01 DO – NS Clear Creek 1217G_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1243_01 Salado Creek Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1243_02 Little River Watershed MCLENNAN

FY18 Water Quality Monitoring Moody and 2014 IR Status

Troy FALLS Bacteria Impairment 1213B_02

L Dissolved Oxygen Impairment i tt le E l Total Dissolved Solids/Chloride/Sulfate Impairment m

C r 1213A_02 Chlorophyll a and/or Nutrient Concern Temple e e k ¬«320 (! BRA Routine Monitoring Station B ig 1213C_01 E TCEQ Routine Monitoring Station lm (! BELL C re Little River ek Wastewater Outfall 1213B_01 # 13546 1213A_01 Watershed Boundary Rogers 77 ¤£ 16385 1213_04 1213_01 Holland Cameron Buckholts L No ittle 190 rth R ¤£ 11888 Fo ive 1251_02 rk S 138 r an ¬« B Jarrell Ga e briel River r MILAM 281 r ¤£ y BURNET W 1213_02 C i llis 183 re Cree Bartlett 1213_02 ¤£ ek 1248A_01 k 1251_01 ¬«195 13544 WILLIAMSON 35 95 1214_01 Bertram Seg 1247A ¬«1247_02 Lake ¨¦§ Granger S 29 Granger 1247_01 out «¬ h Fork 20305 r 17651 Milano San G 1249_02 1249_01 13648 ive abri 12120 Lake San Gabriel R el R iv M Georgetown 12097 12095 1250_03 er id 13496 Weir 12054 dle 12113 1248C_01 Fork San 12111 1248_01 1247_03 Liberty Hill Gab 1214_02 1248D_01 riel 12102 12096 12108 79 12116 13497 San Gabriel/North Thorndale ¤£ 21739 Georgetown 12099 San Gabriel River 1250_02 Mankins Branch 1244_01 Brus 20309 12115 Thrall k hy C Huddleston Branch e South re Taylor e Bru ek 1248B_01 r Leander sh a 1250_01 Mu C y b stan 1244C_01 C o g C h y r v 1244_03 ree s 1244A_01 e e Hutto k u e 1244_04 B r k 1244D_01 12060 1244_02 Round Cedar Park 12068 12059 South Rock Brushy Creek McNeil

Lake Creek 1244B_01

TRAVIS BASTROP Brazos River 0 10 20 Authority K Miles Little River Watershed

Table 10: Waterbodies of the Little River Watershed IR status

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern Bacteria – NS MEETS 1213_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1213_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Little River 1213_03 Bacteria – NS 1213_04 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Big Elm Creek 1213A_01 Bacteria – NS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Little Elm Creek 1213B_01 DO – CN Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Unnamed Tributary of Little Elm Creek 1213C_01 Habitat – CS Bacteria – NS MEETS Cl- – NS 1214_01 SO4 – NS San Gabriel River Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Cl- – NS 1214_02 SO4 – NS Bacteria - CN Bacteria – CN 1244_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Brushy Creek Bacteria – NS 1244_03 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1244_04 Bacteria – NS 1247_01 Granger Lake 1247_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1247_03

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern Bacteria – NS Willis Creek 1247A_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a - CS Cl- – NS San Gabriel/North Fork San Gabriel 1248_01 TDS – NS River Nutrients and/or Chl a - CS Bacteria – CN Huddleston Branch 1248B_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Mankins Branch 1248C_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Habitat – CS South Fork San Gabriel River 1250_03 DO – CS

Abbott Central Watershed of the Brazos River 1242N_02 FY18 Water Quality Monitoring and

West k e e r 2014 IR Status C

a Leroy n a c a u h 1242N_01 1242M_01 e Elm Mott T Axtell 1242I_01 1256_01 Lacy-Lakeview ¤£84 1242C_01 LIMESTONE 1242E_01 k 1242C_02 Tradinghouse Creek e Bellmead e r Reservoir C h 1242D_02 l c 1256_02 il n 14226 t ra Mart S B Bryan Waco 18457 d 18457 17378 oo MCLENNAN 1242P_02 nw Hallsburg tto 1242B_02 Beverly Hills 16882 Co Woodway 11609 11591 17598 17597 B RieB sel 12037 ig 1242G_01 i 16396 Hewitt g C T 1242B_01 C re h S o 1242_06 Robinson 6 r e e k m «¬ a B e n ra 1242_05 15767 zo pso 1242D_01 k d s R n y 1242A_01 r i C 35 ve r e r e ¨¦§ v e Golinda i k R 1242_02 s Lorena o Satin Marlin z a «¬7 City 16781 r Co Lake B Kosse w Bayou e 1242_01 Moody Eddy l Marlin t t i

Chilton L Bruceville-Eddy 11723 1242P_01 14 k «¬ e 16407 re 1242J_01 D e r C 1242E_03 e Lott Bremond k 1242O_01 e Belfalls 1242J_01 FALLS e 12032 r C 320 «¬ t 1242F_01 1242_04 1242E_02 u ln a W Rosebud

k ROBERTSON 77 Pond C ree ¤£ k 1242K_01 ree 16406 Calvert d C 1242F_02 Mu B k r e a e 1242L_01 z r o C s River k 1242_03 a O k e Dissolved Oxygen Impairment n Hearne i e r 1242M_01 P C 1242E_01 g Bacteria Impairment in r k e p e MILAM S r 1242I_01 C Chlorophyll a and/or Nutrient Concern s ll e b p m BRA Routine Monitoring Station a (! 1242_02 C ¤£190 See Inset (! TCEQ Routine Monitoring Station Milano Map BRAZOS C e d a Wastewater Outfall r *# C r eek Watershed Boundary «¬21 BURLESON O ld «¬6 Rive Snook r 1242_01

Brazos

River 0 10 20 Miles Authority K «¬105 GRIMES Central Watershed of the Brazos River Basin

Table 11: Waterbodies of the Central Watershed IR status

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern Brazos River/Lake Brazos 1256_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1256_03 DO – CS Brazos River Above Navasota 1242_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS River 1242_04 1242_05 Marlin City Lake System 1242A_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1242A_02 Cottonwood Branch 1242B_01 Bacteria – NS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1242B_02 Bacteria – NS Still Creek 1242C_01 Bacteria – NS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1242C_02 Bacteria – NS Thompson Creek 1242D_01 Bacteria – NS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Fish – CN 1242D_02 Bacteria – NS DO – NS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Macrobenthic – CS Pond Creek 1242F_01 Bacteria – NS Tradinghouse Reservoir 1242H_01 Harmful Algal Bloom /Golden Algae – CN

Campbells Creek 1242I_01 Bacteria – NS DO – CS

Deer Creek 1242J_01 Bacteria – NS Macrobenthic – CN Mud Creek 1242K_01 Bacteria – NS Pin Oak Creek 1242L_01 Bacteria – NS Spring Creek 1242M_01 Bacteria – NS DO – CS Tehuacana Creek 1242N_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Macrobenthic – CN Fish Kill Report – CN Walnut Creek 1242O_01 Bacteria – NS Big Creek 1242P_01 Bacteria – NS Bullhide Creek 1242Q_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS

NAVARRO HILL Navasota River Watershed Coolidge Na Mount Calm vas FY18 Water Quality Monitoring and ota R 1210_02 ive 1210A_01 r 1210_01 Lake Mexia 2014 IR Status Mexia ¤£84 FREESTONE 16391 17586 1253A_01 Ch k Teague ris e tm k Springfield e

MCLENNAN as Cree Lake r C 1253_03 16247 n N

a a m

v l a

1253_02 s o o H ta Groesbeck R 1252_04 iv e 1253_01 12126 r LIMESTONE 1252_05 13970 Thornton 12125 1252_02 1252_03 Lake Jewett 1209K_02 12124 14 Limestone «¬ 1252_01 S 12123 FALLS teele 79 Cr ¤£ Kosse e e LEON k 1209_05 Bacteria Impairment «¬7 Twin Oaks Marquez Dissolved Oxygen Impairment Reservoir 1209K_01 Chlorophyll a and/or Nutrient Concern

D BRA Routine Monitoring Station uc (! k C 11877 re e 1209H_02 k (! TCEQ Routine Monitoring Station 1209_05 # Wastewater Outfall 1209H_01 Watershed Boundary Camp Creek 1209O_01 Lake Franklin ROBERTSON N Normangee a v Normangee a s Lake C o e t d a MADISON k a 1209_04 R r e C i e 1209J_01 v r r e e r C e d k r a p North Zulch 1209G_01 e h S

Seg 1209J ¤£190 BRAZOS

N BRAZOS 1209E_01 a

v

a s

Wixon Valley o t 1209C_01 W a

ic R C ks 21 Bryan o i «¬ a n C v r e 1209I_03 t r e e e r r k 6 s Gibbons Creek «¬ C 90 r Reservoir «¬ e Fin Feather e B6 1209L_01 k See Inset 1209_03 1209N_01 Lake «¬ Map ek C 1209B_01 re 30 ar 30 1209N_04 ton C «¬ te «¬ 1209N_03 Bur rs 1209D_01 C r 1209N_02 1209A_01 1209L_01 ee k 11875 s Country Club 11785 n 1209I_02 Country Club College Station o k 18800 Branch b e Lake k b e 47 Cr e e 1209C_01 i r n C 0 1 2 «¬ e G Wolf p 1209I_01 Miles 1209F_01 Wellborn GRIMES 1209_02 BURLESON Anderson 6 1209_01 Millican «¬ Brazos 11873 River 0 10 20 Navasota «¬105 Authority Miles K Navasota River Watershed

Table 12: Waterbodies of the Navasota River Watershed IR status

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern Navasota River Below Lake Limestone 1209_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS DO – CS 1209_02 DO – CS 1209_03 Bacteria – NS 1209_05

Country Club Lake 1209A_01 Sediment – NS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Fin Feather Lake 1209B_01 Sediment – NS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Carters Creek 1209C_01 Bacteria – NS TMDL Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Country Club Branch 1209D_01 Bacteria – NS TMDL

Wickson Creek 1209E_01 Bacteria – NS Cedar Creek 1209G_01 Bacteria – NS MEETS Duck Creek 1209H_01 Bacteria – NS 1209H_02 DO – NS Gibbons Creek 1209I_01 Bacteria – NS DO – CN 1209I_02 Bacteria – CN Shepherd Creek 1209J_01 Bacteria – NS Steele Creek 1209K_02 Bacteria – NS Burton Creek 1209L_01 Bacteria – NS TMDL Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS

Normangee Lake 1209O_01 Sediment – CS

Lake Mexia 1210_01 DO – CS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1210_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Navasota River Above Lake Mexia 1210A_01 Bacteria – NS Lake Limestone 1252_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1252_02 1252_03 1252_05 Navasota River Below Mexia 1253_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS DO – CS 1253_02 DO – CS Springfield Lake 1253A_01 DO – CN Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS

Yegua Creek Watershed FY18 Water Quality Monitoring and MILAM 2014 IR Status

Rockdale Bacteria Impairment

¤£79 Dissolved Oxygen Impairment

pH Impairment Alcoa Lake 1212B_02 1211A_01 Chlorophyll a and/or Nutrient Concern

BRA Routine Monitoring Station East Y (! eg u a C r Caldwell TCEQ Routine Monitoring Station e (! e k 36 BURLESON «¬ WILLIAMSON # Wastewater Outfall ¤£77 1212B_01 Watershed Boundary 1211A_02 Davids on Cr eek

Lexington 1212I_01 1212J_01 LEE 1212K_01 11594 1212A_02 reek a C Dime Box 1212_02 gu 11880 Ye 1212L_01 Somerville 1211_01 k 1212_03 M e 16879 i re 11881 d d C le Ye gua 21 20532 Lake «¬ Somerville 1212A_01 1212_01 1212_04

1212C_01 1212H_01

1212E_01 1212G_01 BASTROP 1212D_01 1212F_01 WASHINGTON Burton Giddings

Brazos River FAYETTE 0 5 10 Authority Miles K Yegua Creek Watershed

Table 13: Waterbodies of the Yegua Creek Watershed IR status

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern Yegua Creek 1211_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Davidson Creek 1211A_02 DO – NS 1212_01 High pH – NS Somerville Lake 1212_03 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1212_04 Bacteria – NS Middle Yegua Creek 1212A_02 DO – CS Habitat – CS East Yegua Creek 1212B_01 Bacteria – NS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Nail Creek 1212C_01 DO – CS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Burns Creek 1212F_01 DO – CS Brushy Creek 1212K_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Yegua Creek 1212L_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS

Lower Watershed of the

GRIMES k Brazos River e e r

C

n

6 o FY18 «¬ s a e B 105 Water Quality Monitoring and ¬ r « ive WASHINGTON Ne R w Y s 1202A_01 ea o r z 2014 IR Status C 1202E_01 a

Brenham ree k r 1202_05 B Burton 290 k ¤£ e e Little Sandy Creek 1202Q_02 r 1202D_01 C 1202P_01 s Hog Branch d 290 n 1202C_01 11850 ¤£ o Hempstead P E k Prairie View Bacteria Impairment a e

s e t F o r 36 C rk Chlorophyll a and/or Nutrient Concern «¬ r Pine Island

M a

e i l ll C 1202Q_01 C BRA Routine Monitoring Station r e (! W ek AUSTIN es t Fork 1202_04 r WALLER M e v i i TCEQ Routine Monitoring Station 159 ll Bellville R (! «¬ Cr B Industry ee s e k M o s ill z s C a i e r ¡[ BRA Instream Flow Study Station r s e B 1202I_02

ek 11576

1202K_01 C

r e # Wastewater Outfall

1202_03 e 1202I_01 k Pattison Watershed Boundary

21816 k e

e San Felipe Brookshire r 10 C Sealy ¨¦§ e 1202G_01 r i A h s ll e k

n o

' o

s r B 21753 C Fulshear re Simonton e k 1202H_01 11848 11577 Wallis Orchard «¬36 Richmond 1202_02 Rosenberg See Inset Map FORT BEND Beasley Pleak 59 ¤£ B ig C 1202B_01

r

e Fairchilds e k Pecan Grove 1202J_02 16353 Needville «¬99 1202J_01 1245F_01 1245D_01 16355 Bullhead Bayou 90A ¤£ Alcorn 1245C_01 ek Bayou re C ow 11846 Browns Bayou C 1245_01 1245B_01 1245I_01 B raz 59 1202_02 os ¤£ R S U 1202_01 iv te R e e p r BRAZORIA r p a p e

C

b e v

B i

b r r

1202B_01 a s e O R Bailey's n e B

y k k West Columbia s

s Prairie a o

z

y t

e a

o r

r FORT BEND B u Thompsons 0 1 2 Miles Brazoria Brazos R ive 1201_01 Tidal r 11843

Freeport Brazos River Authority 0 10 20 Gulf of Miles K Mexico Lower Watershed of the Brazos River Basin

Table 14: Waterbodies of the Lower Watershed IR status

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern Brazos River Tidal 1201_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1202_02 Brazos River Below Navasota River Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1202_05 Bacteria – NS Allen’s Creek 1202H_01 DO – CS Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS 1202J_01 Habitat – CS Big Creek Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS DO – CS 1202J_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Mill Creek 1202K_01 Habitat – CS Bullhead Bayou 1245C_01 Bacteria – NS Unnamed Tributary of Bullhead Bayou 1245D_01 Bacteria – NS Bacteria – NS Alcorn Bayou 1245F_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – NS Steep Bank Creek 1245I_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS DO – CS

Upper Oyster Creek Watershed FY18 Water Quality Monitoring and 2014 IR Status

1245E_01

F l

e

Fulshear w

e l le HARRIS n 1245A_02 C r 1245_03 e e

k

y

99 l Upp «¬ l e u r

G yster C O 1245A_01 d re e e

R 1245H_01 Bu k llh ea d B a 90A y ¤£ o 12087 12083 Stafford u Alkire Lake 1245C_01 Sugar Land

59 U S p t ¤£ p a e f Brooks r f O o FORT BEND r Lake y d s te R 1202F_01 r u C n re 1245_02 e 1245G_01 k 1245J_01 1245_01 12074 1258_01

Chlorophyll a and/or Nutrient Concern M i dd le 6 O «¬ y TCEQ - Routine Monitoring Station s (! te r C r e e # Wastewater Outfall k

Watershed Boundary

Brazos River 0 5 10 Miles Authority BRAZORIA K Upper Oyster Creek Watershed

Table 15: Waterbodies of the Upper Oyster Creek Watershed IR status

Water Body Segment Parameter(s) Impairment and/or Concern 1245_01 DO – CS Upper Oyster Creek 1245_02 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS 1245_03 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Bacteria – CN Red Gully 1245A_01 Nutrients and/or Chl a – CS Flewellen Creek 1245E_01 Bacteria – CN Stafford Run 1245J_01 Bacteria – CN

THIS YEARS HIGHLIGHTS

Central Texas Freshwater Mussels Research Program In 2009, the Texas Legislature appointed the Texas Comptroller’s Office to oversee the Interagency Task Force on Economic Growth and Endangered Species. The goal of the task forces is to assist landowners, industries, and local communities in working with endangered species issues and finding cost-effective solutions. Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is considering whether to place five Central Texas freshwater mussel species on the federal endangered species list: Texas fatmucket (Lampsiilis bracteata), Golden orb (Quadrula aurea), False spike (Fusconaia mitchelli), Texas pimpleback (Quadrula petrina) and Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon). Two of these species, the False Spike and the Texas Fawnsfoot, are known to occur in the Brazos River basin. To ensure the best science about the mussels is available to FWS staff, the Comptroller’s Office is funding a research proposal to study the five mussel species in Central Texas. This research will address data gaps in the species’ range, life history cycle and tolerances, while also performing environmental flow analyses related to species survivability and conducting captive propagation studies.

Research is in progress in the Brazos, Colorado, and upper Guadalupe River basins, with tolerance studies anticipated to be complete in 2018 and captive propagation studies anticipated to be completed in 2020. The BRA is actively participating in, and assisting, the Comptroller’s Office in their efforts by providing data and basin knowledge to support their research efforts, and participating on both the Fresh Water Mussels Working Group and the Technical Advisory Panel. A third species known to occur in the basin, the Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis), will be considered in 2020 for endangered species protection. This mussel will be considered along with the Golden Orb (Quadrula aurea), which is a species known to occur in the Guadalupe and Lower Colorado River basins. For more information on the Comptroller’s endangered species efforts, see: https://comptroller.texas.gov/programs/species- economy/.

Freshwater Mussel Presence/Absence Surveys in the Brazos and Navasota Rivers Knowing detailed distribution information and ecological status of existing populations is critical information needed to make determinations about species status. Unfortunately, this information is largely unknown for the five Central Texas mussel species currently under consideration for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. In the Brazos basin, there has been spot surveys to support development activities and some academic research but intensive basin- wide surveys of freshwater mussels are lacking. Areas where the species under consideration have been recently documented are detailed in the map below.

The Comptroller’s research efforts, noted above, will conduct surveys in the Brazos River above Possum Kingdom Reservoir and in the Little River watershed. To complement the Comptroller’s survey efforts and further broaden the knowledge base about mussel distribution, the BRA has contracted to have presence/absence surveys conducted in the Navasota River and the Brazos River between Waco and Possum Kingdom.

Surveys in the Navasota River were completed in 2016 and located 18 species of freshwater mussels throughout the entire length, with species abundance and richness being greatest in the lower reaches of the river. Texas Fawnsfoot and Smooth Pimpleback were two of the species identified in the river. Surveys of the Brazos River between Waco and Possum Kingdom, conducted in 2017, revealed Texas Fawnsfoot populations in Segment 1206, between Possum Kingdom Reservoir and Lake Granbury. The final report on this project is due in August 2018.

Development of Operating Guidelines to Manage Impact on Fisheries from Reservoir Level Fluctuations There has long been concern about the impact of prolonged drought on reservoir fisheries and identifying the level and duration of drought induced drawdown that significantly impacts recreational access and the sustainability of a reservoir’s fishery. The recent prolonged drought that began in October 2010 and persisted until late summer 2013, provided BRA and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), an opportunity to observe available habitat at varying water levels in many Brazos Basin reservoirs. Reservoirs studied include: Possum Kingdom Lake, Lake Granbury, Lake Proctor, Lake Aquilla, Lake Whitney, Lake Belton, Stillhouse Hollow Lake, Lake Georgetown, Lake Granger, Lake Limestone and Lake Somerville. From these studies, BRA and TPWD Inland Fisheries staff identified the water elevation below which recreational access is impeded and habitat availability and quality to support the fishery are reduced. These threshold elevations were then translated into an operational guideline in the BRA’s Water Management Plan to provide direction regarding reservoir usage during times of future drought and to provide TPWD fisheries biologists’ direction in how BRA plans to manage reservoirs during times of drought. BRA and TPWD have committed to work collaboratively to minimize or mitigate impacts to habitat or fisheries caused by prolonged drought. This project was selected as the American Fisheries Society’s 2014 Outstanding Project in Sport Fishery Development and Management. Details on the methods and analyses used to develop the reservoir-specific thresholds are published in the Journal of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Currently most reservoirs in the basin are >90% full .

Reservoir Fisheries Habitat Improvement Project While the lakes studied did comply with the guidelines developed in the above project during the recent prolonged drought, the lake levels and fisheries habitat in several of the reservoirs were impacted by low water levels for an extended period of time. Beginning in 2016, the BRA and TPWD Inland Fisheries Staff have entered into a partnership to perform habitat improvement projects on Possum

Kingdom Lake, Lake Granbury, Lake Proctor, Lake Aquilla, Lake Whitney, Lake Belton, Stillhouse Hollow Lake, Lake Georgetown, Lake Granger, Lake Limestone and Lake Somerville. The goal is to improve fishery habitat, and thus resiliency, and to proactively mitigate the negative effects that future droughts may have on reservoir fisheries. Due to differences in fisheries, native habitat, and lake usage, a different plan will be developed and implemented for each lake. In 2016-2017, improvements were made on Lake Proctor, Possum Kingdom Lake, and Lake Granbury. In 2017, improvements were made on Lake Aquilla, Lake Georgetown, and Lake Granger. The types of structures deployed on the lakes varied greatly, but overall, three new water willow colonies were established and 160 artificial habitat structures have been deployed into Lake Aquilla. On Lake Georgetown, with the help of the Sun City Hunting and Fishing Club, 120 artificial habitat structures were deployed and restored/created 30 habitat sites on the reservoir. Finally, at Lake Granger, with the assistance of a prospective Eagle Scout and a local troop of the Boy Scouts of America, 10 habitat sites were restored using 160 artificial structures. Nineteen brush pile areas were created on Lake Proctor, while 28 artificial habitat structures and 70 crappie condos were deployed on Lake Granbury. The program is anticipated to run through 2020 with lakes chosen for improvement collaboratively by BRA and TPWD Inland Fisheries staff.

Brazos Basin Instream Flow Monitoring Program to Inform on Environmental Flow Standards Senate Bill 2, enacted in 2001 by the 77th Texas Legislature, established the Texas Instream Flow Program (TIFP). The purpose of the TIFP is to perform scientific studies to determine flow conditions necessary to support a sound ecological environment in the rivers and streams of Texas. With passage of Senate Bill 3 (SB3) in 2007, the Texas Legislature restated the importance of maintaining the

health and vitality of the State’s surface-water resources and further created a stakeholder process that would result in science and policy based environmental flow regime recommendations to protect instream flows and freshwater inflows on a basin-by-basin basis. Instream flow studies function to provide scientific information that can be utilized during the adaptive management process within SB3 to inform environmental flow recommendations. These studies consist of multi-disciplinary assessments of biology, hydrology, water quality, geomorphology, and connectivity (where possible). Flow conditions are framed in the form of flow regimes comprising several components: subsistence, base flows, high flow pulses, and overbanking flows. As part of the TIFP process, the agency partners identified the middle and lower Brazos River as a priority sub-basin study area.

In 2012, the BRA initiated a program to perform extensive environmental studies at select locations in the Brazos River basin to gather data related to the TCEQ’s adopted Senate Bill 3 (SB3) environmental flow baseline. The goal of these studies is to develop a baseline data set documenting habitat and species present in the river and riparian zones across the range of adopted subsistence and base flows for each selected location. When the next review of the environmental flow standards is commenced, all data will be provided to the Brazos Basin and Bay Expert Science Team (BBEST) and Basin and Bay Area Stakeholder Committee (BBASC) for their consideration when determining whether revisions to the environmental flow standards are warranted.

Many of the control points, or study sites for the TIFP were chosen at established USGS gage locations because flow can easily be determined at these sites. Because many of the studies require access to private property and because some USGS gage locations may not have much variety in habitat, the BRA may not be able to complete all studies at the exact location of the USGS gage. On the sites where studies have begun, the BRA has made every effort to site the studies as close to the proposed gage locations as prudent and as close to each other as prudent.

Components of the studies to be performed at each site include: • Discharge, velocity and depth point measurements • Temperature, pH, Conductivity, and Dissolved Oxygen Concentration • Fixed photography, instream cover, habitat types, and channel surveys • Macroinvertebrates, mussels (if present), and fish assemblage • Riparian tree surveys • Channel cross-section surveys • Sediment sampling at the cross-sections

These studies are highly dependent on the occurrence of specific flow levels, so an accurate timeline for completion of all studies is difficult to predict. Table 1 displays, the number of each type of sampling event that BRA has completed to date.

Table 1. Number and type of sampling event completed by BRA to date.

Habitat Habitat - Site - Fish Fish Species Surveys Mussels Riparian Riparian Channel Mapping Samples Sediment Sediment Seedlings Invertebrates Micro Meso WaterQuality Riparian Trees Instream Habitat Habitat Instream Brazos River near Palo Pinto 63 8 9 8 11 11 5 5 5 5 3 Brazos River near Glen Rose 63 5 4 5 5 7 5 5 5 5 3

Aquilla Creek near Aquilla 22 9 8 8 9 9 5 5 5 5 4 Leon River near Gatesville 56 Little River near Little River 10 Little River near Cameron 62 Navasota River near Franklin 21 4 4 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 Brazos River near Richmond 62 6 5 5 4 2 3 3 3 3 2 Brazos River near Rosharon 30 4 2 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3

Impacts of Hurricane Harvey reduced the number of events that could be completed at the Brazos River near Richmond and Brazos River near Rosharon sites. Access to the Brazos River near Rosharon site, which washed out after the fall 2015 sampling, has been repaired and will resume in spring 2018. Biological sampling at the Brazos River near Glen Rose site has not been conducted since 2016. Issues with reservoir dam gate maintenance eliminated the ability to maintain steady flow conditions required to achieve a stable aquatic condition. Despite environmental and mechanical setbacks, the Authority completed six biological and six riparian events in 2017.

Biological Baseline data collection has been completed at two sites, the Brazos River near Palo Pinto and Aquilla Creek near Aquilla. Data from the Brazos River near Palo Pinto site were collected over 13 sampling events between February 2012 and October 2017. Flows ranged from subsistence (17 cfs) to above high base (236 cfs). In eight events where Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) values were calculated, six achieved an exceptional aquatic life use (ALU) and two achieved a high aquatic life use. A high ALU is assigned to the Brazos near Palo Pinto based on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the water body. There are five aquatic life use (ALU) categories: exceptional, high, intermediate, limited, or minimal (no significant) aquatic life use. Invertebrate ALU categories for this site ranged from limited to high in nine samples. The two most recent invertebrate samples have not been processed yet. Twelve sampling evets on Aquilla Creek occurred between May 2012 and July 2017. Flow targets ranged from subsistence (0.25 cfs) to high base (30.9 cfs). IBI values were calculated for nine events, eight events achieved ALU values of exceptional and one event achieved a high ALU. Invertebrate ALU values for eight sampling events ranged from limited to high with one event yet to be processed. The Authority will continue to collect flow-targeted data on sites that require it as well as devise a long-term monitoring plan where baseline biological data collection has been completed.

Riparian Twenty-four riparian assessments at six sites between April 2013 and September 2017 have been completed. Data is currently being processed for analysis. Efforts to collect riparian data at required flow targets to get a solid baseline data set will continue. This information will be used to guide and evaluate a long-term monitoring strategy for these riparian sites. In spring 2018, reconnaissance and establishment of three new sites: Leon River near Gatesville, Little River near Little River, and Little River near Cameron will begin.

Little River, San Gabriel River, and Big Elm Creek Watershed Inventory The Little River watershed is included in the 2017 IR as impaired due to elevated levels of E. coli. Data availability within the Little River watershed was limited, including information regarding sources of E. coli within the watershed and other factors that may influence pollution sources. Because of these issues, a watershed inventory was developed with data and information pertaining to water quality impairments and issues in the watershed.

In April 2017 the Texas Water Resources Institute completed a report to address water quality issues in the Little River (1213), Big Elm Creek (1213B) and the San Gabriel River (1214) watersheds. A geographic information system (GIS) inventory of the watershed was

developed and integrated numerous existing information resources into a single location. The data from this inventory will be used in future characterizations of the water body and in watershed-based plans in the future.

Watershed Protection Plan for the Leon River The Leon River, Segment 1221, was placed on the State’s 303(d) List in 1997 for having bacteria levels. Placement of the Leon River on the List caused the TCEQ to initiate the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) on the portion of the river downstream of Lake Proctor and upstream of Hamilton in 2002. Upon completion of the TMDL modeling report, local stakeholders requested the BRA to facilitate the development of a WPP for the Leon River to assist the TCEQ in the selection of appropriate implementation strategies for the watershed. The BRA received funding for the project through the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB) and began hosting stakeholder meetings in 2007. Stakeholders worked diligently toward the development of a WPP document and a draft WPP was completed and released for public comment in December 2011. The Plan was submitted to the EPA in 2012. The Leon River Watershed Protection Plan was approved by the EPA in early 2015 and is now in the implementation phase. Several watershed implementation efforts have been implemented. You can also visit http://leonriver.tamu.edu/ for further information on the Leon Watershed and the WPP.

Watershed Protection Plan for the Lampasas River The Lampasas River, Segment 1217, was identified for watershed protection plan development due to concerns about elevated levels of bacteria, as reported in the 2002 IR. In 2009, the Lampasas River Watershed Partnership, area residents and other stakeholders worked to develop a WPP to address water quality concerns within the watershed. The Partnership has evaluated water quality issues and made recommendations for voluntary pollutant load reductions and management measures. A draft Lampasas River Watershed Protection Plan was submitted to EPA in the Spring of 2013, approved by the EPA in May 2013 and by the Steering Committee in September 2013. The project is in the implementation phase. For more information visit the web site at Lampasas River Watershed Protection Plan.

Watershed Protection Plan for Nolan Creek/South Nolan Creek The full length of Nolan Creek/South Nolan Creek (Segment 1218), as defined by the TCEQ, stretches nearly 30 river miles from its headwaters in northern portion of Killeen to its confluence with the Leon River in Bell County below Belton. Segment 1218 was first included on the 303(d) list as impaired for elevated bacteria concentrations in 1996. While the 2014 Texas Integrated Report included only assessment units (AUs) 1218_02 along South Nolan Creek and 1218C representing Little Nolan Creek, under the draft 2016 Texas Integrated Report, AU 1218_01 along Nolan Creek is also listed as impaired for recreational use. Concerns for Segment 1219 include elevated nitrate and total phosphorus concentrations for AUs 1218_01 and 1218_02 as well as concerns for bacteria concentrating along AU 1218A, an unnamed tributary to Little Nolan Creek. Recreational use of South Nolan/Nolan Creek varies from its headwaters northwest of Killeen to its confluence with the Leon River southeast of Belton. Low flows often limit recreational use in the more upstream portions near Killeen and Harker Heights to noncontact activities, such walking or biking along trails near the creek, including the Community Center and Long Branch Parks in Killeen, and the Booker Green Space and Summit Soccer Complex in Harker Heights. As flows increase, secondary contact recreation activities increase, such as fishing and wading, which have been

observed below the US 190 in Nolanville. More downstream with higher flows, kayaking and canoeing are common activities, as well as fishing, swimming and wading. Parks in the lower portion of the watershed along Nolan Creek include the Lions, Harris Community, Yettie Polk, and Confederate Parks all within Belton. The waters of South Nolan/Nolan Creek are an important feature in this region and planning efforts to protect and improve water quality have been on-going for a number of years. The Nolan Creek Partnership has been integral in providing local input for development of a Watershed Protection Plan (WPP), which is nearing completion. The Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research is facilitating development of this WPP through Clean Water Act 319(h) project funding via the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The goal is for an Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) accepted WPP by fall 2018, which then provides a guide for implementing an educational program and improvement practices to improve water quality. Funding for implementation activities are available through the 319(h) program and other funding sources once the WPP is accepted by EPA. Stakeholder participation is key to developing and implementing a successful watershed protection plan. Public meetings are held regularly, and information on partnership meetings, reports, and the WPP elements can be found at http://www.nolancreekwpp.com/.

Map Source: TCEQ WPP Project Fact Sheet (https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/waterquality/nps/projects/60281_FS_NolanCreekWPP.pdf )

Watershed Protection Plan for the Navasota River Below Lake Limestone The Navasota River watershed is located in East-Central Texas in the Brazos River basin. Lake Limestone impounds the River causing a hydrological divide in the watershed. The majority of the watershed is rural and urbanization is largely confined to the Bryan/College Station area in Brazos County. Land use/land cover in the watershed is dominated by hay/pasture land and hardwood forests.

The Navasota River and several tributaries were first listed as impaired on the 2002 Texas Integrated Report (Texas 303(d) List) for elevated E. coli concentrations. Low dissolved oxygen (DO) in Duck Creek also resulted in a water quality impairment and concerns for elevated nutrients and chlorophyll-a, and depressed DO exist in several locations.

To address this need, watershed stakeholders organized to develop the Navasota River Below Lake Limestone Watershed Protection Plan. Recommended management measures focus on reducing E. coli loading to waterbodies by retaining it on the landscape or removing the source in the case of feral hogs. Management recommendations focus on sources that are feasibly managed including feral hogs, livestock, on-site sewage facilities (OSSFs), pets, and wastewater. All management recommended is voluntary and when implemented, will reduce E. coli loading to the Navasota River and its tributaries.

The Navasota River Below Lake Limestone WPP was completed in early 2017 and accepted by EPA as a plan that meets the EPA Nine Elements for Watershed Based Plans. The WPP is currently being implemented and additional funding is being sought to further implementation efforts.

Navasota River watershed stakeholders also decided to pursue development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) and a TMDL Implementation Plan in addition to the WPP. The current drafts of the TMDL and its Implementation Plan include the same management measures in the WPP. The advantage of the TMDL is that once approved by EPA, the impairments are moved to category 4a on the CWA 303(d) List. The TMDL is currently undergoing TCEQ review and the Implementation Plan is out for stakeholder comment. The Navasota River and several tributaries were first listed as impaired on the 2002 IR for elevated E. coli concentrations. Low dissolved oxygen (DO) in Duck Creek also resulted in a water quality impairment. Additionally, concerns for elevated nutrients and chlorophyll-a, and depressed DO also exist in several locations. These impairments and concerns signify the need to improve water quality and protect the resource for future uses and users. For more information visit the web site at http://navasota.tamu.edu/.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OTHER INFORMATION

Brazos River Basin Clean Rivers Program Steering Committee The size and diversity of issues across the Brazos River basin continues to present a challenge for the large group of stakeholders in our basin. The Brazos River Clean Rivers Program (CRP) Steering Committee participants represent diverse interests that are represented by government agencies, municipalities, industry, agriculture, organized local stakeholder groups, individuals, and environmental groups.

The BRA holds an annual meeting that provides the Steering Committee with an opportunity to hear results of water quality monitoring and CRP special studies and gives them a forum where they may voice opinions, make recommendations and interact with other stakeholder participants and BRA staff. Steering Committee members also participate by providing input into planning water quality monitoring activities, prioritizing problems within the basin for prospective CRP special studies, identifying problem areas, developing actions to address potential problem areas in the basin and commenting on the current year’s draft Basin Highlights or Summary Report.

How to get involved with the Brazos Basin CRP? BRA promotes communication and participation from the general public. If you are interested in serving on the Brazos River Basin CRP Steering Committee, send an email to [email protected]. Please indicate what topics you are interested in and provide an email address so that you can receive electronic notices of meetings and reports. In addition, the information you provide will help us to develop more effective meetings and provide direction to the program. We highly encourage participation in our meetings and input on water quality issues in the basin.

Brazos Basin CRP Website The BRA maintains both a river authority website with a dedicated CRP webpage as a mechanism to keep the public informed. These websites provide information on topics of interest in the basin and also provide links to a range of information, including:

Water Supply Clickable buttons provide information on Drought, Conservation, Planning, Contracting, System Operations, and a Reservoir Accounting Summary.

Water Quality Clickable buttons provide information on Water and Wastewater Treatment, the Texas Clean Rivers Program, and Watershed Protection Plans.

Clear Rivers Program Clicking on the Texas Clean Rivers Program button will take you to the BRA hosted CRP webpage. There is a clickable map with water quality data generated by the BRA available in a searchable format that can be easily downloaded to an Excel file. This site is updated weekly. This is also where all of the required CRP information and documents can be found. Including:

CRP Public Outreach – Information on becoming a Steering Committee member CRP Calendar of Events – Steering Committee Meeting are announced Program Documents – Required program documents • Current Work Plan • Quality Assurance Project Plan • Coordinated Monitoring Schedule • TCEQ CRP Data Tool

Reports, Presentations and Meeting Minutes – Basin Highlights Reports and past Steering Committee Meeting agendas and presentations Links to other CRP Resources – Links to other CRP partners and the TCEQ CRP Data – Direct link to the searchable database of BRA collected CRP data Watershed Action Planning – Link to the TCEQ hosted Watershed Action Planning webpage The most current Basin Summary Report

Reservoirs Clickable buttons provide information on Possum Kingdom Lake, Lake Granbury, Lake Limestone, Allen’s Creek Reservoir (proposed), Federal Reservoirs, and Lake Safety.

Water Levels Clickable buttons provide information on River and Reservoir Levels, Water Supply and Reservoir Data and River Safety.

News Information is provided on current BRA news, the BRA newsletters and the BRA News Room.

Education Information is provided on all things water (Water School), a Speakers Bureau, the Major Rivers Program, and a Resource Library.

Brazos River Basin Highlights Report 2018

Brazos River Authority 4600 Cobbs Drive Waco, TX 76710 Phone (254) 761-3100 www. brazos.org

Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality under the authorization of the Texas Clean Rivers Act.