DOCSLIB.ORG

Toxic Water Pollution in Texas Table 9

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Toxic Water Pollution in Texas Table 9 E NVIRONMENTAL Dishonorable W G TM ORKING ROUP Table 9 Discharge Toxic water pollution in Texas Companies reporting toxic discharges to water (1990-1994) City: Abilene, Texas Facility: U.S. Brass Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 2,900 2,900 Sulfuric acid Rainey Creek 2,800 2,800 Copper compounds Rainey Creek 100 100 City: Alvin, Texas Facility: Amoco Chemical Co. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 3,912 550 620 592 587 6,261 StyreneChocolate Bayou 2,400 5 5 2,410 Zinc compoundsChocolate Bayou 420 260 387 354 354 1,775 Copper compoundsChocolate Bayou 22 280 223 223 223 971 Xylene (mixed isomers)Chocolate Bayou 580 580 AcetonitrileChocolate Bayou 170 170 BenzeneChocolate Bayou 100 100 NaphthaleneChocolate Bayou 66 66 EthylbenzeneChocolate Bayou 30 30 1,1,1-TrichloroethaneChocolate Bayou 30 30 TolueneChocolate Bayou 30 30 Hydrochloric acidChocolate Bayou 5 5 5 5 5 25 Sulfuric acidChocolate Bayou 5 5 5 5 20 AnthraceneChocolate Bayou 14 14 1,3-ButadieneChocolate Bayou 5 5 DibenzofuranChocolate Bayou 5 5 EthyleneChocolate Bayou 5 5 MethanolChocolate Bayou 5 5 Methyl isobutyl ketoneChocolate Bayou 5 5 PropyleneChocolate Bayou 5 5 ChlorineChocolate Bayou 5 5 HydrazineChocolate Bayou 5 5 City: Alvin, Texas Facility: Monsanto Co. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 400 400 Ethylene glycol Chocolate Bayou 400 400 Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Release Inventory 1990-1994. Page 1 of 63 The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C. Phone: (202) 667–6982 • Fax: (202) 232–2592 • Email: [email protected] • Web: http://www.ewg.org E NVIRONMENTAL Dishonorable W G TM ORKING ROUP Table 9 Discharge Toxic water pollution in Texas Companies reporting toxic discharges to water (1990-1994) City: Arlington, Texas Facility: Specialty Coatings Corp. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 10 500 500 1,010 Toluene Joe Pool Reservior 250 250 500 Xylene (mixed isomers)Joe Pool Reservior 250 250 500 Xylene (mixed isomers)Joe Pool Lake 5 5 TolueneJoe Pool Lake 5 5 City: Arlington, Texas Facility: Gmc Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 500 500 1,000 Zinc compounds Cottonwood Creek 250 250 500 Zinc compounds Johnson Creek 250 250 500 City: Austin, Texas Facility: IBM Austin Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 3 5 275 26 309 Ammonia Un-named Tributary Of Walnut 207 207 Formaldehyde Un-named Tributary Of Walnut 37 37 Lead Unnamed Tributary To Walnut 22 22 Ammonia Shoal Creek 18 18 Lead Un-named Tributary Of Walnut 5 9 14 Copper compounds Un-named Tributary Of Walnut 4 4 Copper compounds Unnamed Tributary To Walnut 4 4 Lead Unnamed Tributary Of Walnut 3 3 City: Bay City, Texas Facility: Hoechst Celanese Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 2,471 1,556 1,944 2,088 826 8,885 Zinc compoundsColorado River 573 381 718 1,426 486 3,584 Nickel compoundsColorado River 1,253 206 359 662 207 2,687 Manganese compoundsColorado River 367 766 471 1,604 Ammonia Colorado River 166 174 133 473 n-Butyl alcohol Colorado River 179 179 Chromium compoundsColorado River 121 121 Copper compoundsColorado River 28 37 43 108 AmmoniaEldorado River 106 106 1,1,1-TrichloroethaneColorado River 20 20 QuinoneColorado River 3 3 Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Release Inventory 1990-1994. Page 2 of 63 The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C. Phone: (202) 667–6982 • Fax: (202) 232–2592 • Email: [email protected] • Web: http://www.ewg.org E NVIRONMENTAL Dishonorable W G TM ORKING ROUP Table 9 Discharge Toxic water pollution in Texas Companies reporting toxic discharges to water (1990-1994) City: Baytown, Texas Facility: Exxon Baytown Refy. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 482,683 431,430 293,220 251,704 37,616 1,496,653 AmmoniaHouston Ship Channel 460,000 390,000 239,274 231,918 28,036 1,349,228 Zinc compoundsHouston Ship Channel 8,700 11,000 11,660 939 916 33,215 Barium compoundsHouston Ship Channel 6,500 8,000 6,890 5,573 5,438 32,401 Ethylene glycol Houston Ship Channel 3,900 19,578 1,958 25,436 Chromium compoundsHouston Ship Channel 3,200 4,400 3,476 3,476 1,935 16,487 PhenolHouston Ship Channel 760 7,500 2,961 608 410 12,239 TolueneHouston Ship Channel 4 3,200 879 3,260 3 7,346 BenzeneHouston Ship Channel 7 1,100 836 1,104 5 3,052 Lead compoundsHouston Ship Channel 3,000 3,000 Copper compoundsHouston Ship Channel 400 490 670 670 654 2,884 Xylene (mixed isomers)Houston Ship Channel 1 590 823 650 9 2,073 CyclohexaneHouston Ship Channel 80 260 968 441 6 1,755 NaphthaleneHouston Ship Channel 2 190 939 330 1,461 EthylbenzeneHouston Ship Channel 1 260 907 248 1,416 Chlorine Houston Ship Channel 390 387 387 201 1,365 Methyl ethyl ketoneHouston Ship Channel 26 100 1,052 85 2 1,265 CumeneHouston Ship Channel 2 8 941 11 962 Carbon tetrachloride Houston Ship Channel 42 862 904 Methyl isobutyl ketone Houston Ship Channel 117 46 1 164 City: Baytown, Texas Facility: Miles Inc. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 86,060 95,415 95,315 93,010 17,635 387,435 AmmoniaCedar Bayou 81,237 86,000 84,000 82,000 10,660 343,897 4,4'-IsopropylidenediphenolCedar Bayou 1,073 1,200 3,700 3,700 3,700 13,373 AcetoneCedar Bayou 250 3,700 3,100 2,800 9,850 HydrazineCedar Bayou 250 750 750 750 250 2,750 AnilineCedar Bayou 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 ChloroformCedar Bayou 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 DichloromethaneCedar Bayou 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 o-ToluidineCedar Bayou 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 ChlorobenzeneCedar Bayou 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 NickelCedar Bayou 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 ChromiumCedar Bayou 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 Diaminotoluene (mixedCedar Bayou 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 1,2-DichlorobenzeneCedar Bayou 250 250 250 250 5 1,005 TolueneCedar Bayou 250 250 250 250 5 1,005 Methanol Cedar Bayou 250 250 250 250 1,000 4,4'-MethylenedianilineCedar Bayou 250 250 250 250 1,000 Phenol Cedar Bayou 250 250 250 250 1,000 Cyanide compounds Cedar Bayou 250 250 250 750 Dinitrotoluene (mixed isomers) Cedar Bayou 250 250 5 505 2,4-DinitrotolueneCedar Bayou 250 250 500 2,6-DinitrotolueneCedar Bayou 250 250 500 Zinc (fume or dust)Cedar Bayou 250 250 Formaldehyde Cedar Bayou 5 5 5 15 Carbon tetrachloride Cedar Bayou 5 5 5 15 Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Release Inventory 1990-1994. Page 3 of 63 The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C. Phone: (202) 667–6982 • Fax: (202) 232–2592 • Email: [email protected] • Web: http://www.ewg.org E NVIRONMENTAL Dishonorable W G TM ORKING ROUP Table 9 Discharge Toxic water pollution in Texas Companies reporting toxic discharges to water (1990-1994) City: Baytown, Texas Facility: Miles Inc. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 86,060 95,415 95,315 93,010 17,635 387,435 Chlorine Cedar Bayou 5 5 10 Ethylene oxide Cedar Bayou 5 5 Dibutyl phthalate Cedar Bayou 5 5 City: Baytown, Texas Facility: Exxon Chemical Americas Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 123,371 105,403 61,978 62,674 8,850 362,276 AmmoniaHouston Ship Channel 120,000 100,000 59,000 60,000 6,800 345,800 Zinc compoundsHouston Ship Channel 2,300 2,900 250 250 240 5,940 Barium compounds Houston Ship Channel 1,800 1,500 1,400 4,700 Chromium compoundsHouston Ship Channel 860 1,200 920 920 410 4,310 TolueneHouston Ship Channel 1 640 2 1 644 PhenolHouston Ship Channel 200 240 440 Copper compounds Houston Ship Channel 130 130 Xylene (mixed isomers)Houston Ship Channel 120 1 121 BenzeneHouston Ship Channel 2 63 3 1 69 Ethylbenzene Houston Ship Channel 51 51 NaphthaleneHouston Ship Channel 1 38 1 1 41 Methyl ethyl ketoneHouston Ship Channel 7 21 28 Cumene Houston Ship Channel 1 1 2 City: Baytown, Texas Facility: Amoco Chemicals Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 1,516 1,516 AmmoniaCedar Bayou 1,516 1,516 City: Baytown, Texas Facility: Advanced Aromatics Inc. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 785 280 285 40 40 1,430 NaphthaleneGoose Creek 250 250 250 5 5 760 sec-Butyl alcoholGoose Creek 250 5 255 MethanolGoose Creek 250 250 n-Butyl alcoholGoose Creek 5 5 5 5 5 25 Methyl ethyl ketoneGoose Creek 5 5 5 5 5 25 ButyraldehydeGoose Creek 5 5 5 5 5 25 Benzene Goose Creek 5 5 5 15 IsobutyraldehydeGoose Creek 5 5 5 15 Toluene Goose Creek 5 5 5 15 Propionaldehyde Goose Creek 5 5 5 15 AcetaldehydeGoose Creek 5 5 10 Source: Environmental Working Group.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 307: Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (4/9/2008)
    Revisions to §307 - Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (updated November 12, 2009) EPA has not approved the revised definition of “surface water in the state” in the TX WQS, which includes an area out 10.36 miles into the Gulf of Mexico. Under the CWA, Texas does not have jurisdiction to regulate water standards more than three miles from the coast. Therefore, EPA’s approval of the items in the enclosure recognizes the state’s authority under the CWA out to three miles in the Gulf of Mexico, but does not extend past that point. Beyond three miles, EPA retains authority for CWA purposes EPA’s approval also does not include the application the TX WQS for the portions of the Red River and Lake Texoma that are located within the state of Oklahoma. Finally, EPA is not approving the TX WQS for those waters or portions of waters located in Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. The following sections have been approved by EPA and are therefore effective for CWA purposes: • §307.1. General Policy Statement • §307.2. Description of Standards • §307.3. Definitions and Abbreviations (see item under “no action” section below) • §307.4. General Criteria • §307.5. Antidegradation • §307.6. Toxic Materials. (see item under “no action” section below) • §307.7. Site-specific Uses and Criteria (see item under “no action” section below) • §307.8. Application of Standards • §307.9. Determination of Standards Attainment • Appendix C - Segment Descriptions • Appendix D - Site-specific Receiving Water Assessments The following sections have been partially approved by EPA: • Appendix A.
    [Show full text]
  • Bookletchart™ Houston Ship Channel – Alexander Island to Carpenters Bayou NOAA Chart 11329
    BookletChart™ Houston Ship Channel – Alexander Island to Carpenters Bayou NOAA Chart 11329 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Included Area Published by the leads to Goose Creek. Private poles and markers may at times mark the preferred route. Goose Creek contains numerous oil wells, pipelines, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration pilings, and other hazards; local knowledge is advised. The creek is used National Ocean Service by oil well supply and commercial fishing vessels. Office of Coast Survey The highway bridge 2.8 miles above the entrance has a 48-foot fixed span with a clearance of 9 feet. Two highway and two railroad bridges www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov between the entrance and this bridge have fixed spans with a minimum 888-990-NOAA width of 32 feet and minimum clearance of 14 feet. Overhead power cables crossing the creek between the mouth and the highway bridge What are Nautical Charts? 2.8 miles above the entrance have a least clearance of 36 feet. Baytown, 4 miles above Morgans Point on the NE side of the channel, is Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show the site of the Exxon Company, U.S.A., refining facilities. water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much About 1.5 miles above the Baytown facilities, a privately maintained more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and channel leads in a SW direction from the main ship channel along the efficient navigation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Proposed Fastrill Reservoir in East Texas: a Study Using
    THE PROPOSED FASTRILL RESERVOIR IN EAST TEXAS: A STUDY USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS Michael Ray Wilson, B.S. Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS December 2009 APPROVED: Paul Hudak, Major Professor and Chair of the Department of Geography Samuel F. Atkinson, Minor Professor Pinliang Dong, Committee Member Michael Monticino, Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies Wilson, Michael Ray. The Proposed Fastrill Reservoir in East Texas: A Study Using Geographic Information Systems. Master of Science (Applied Geography), December 2009, 116 pp., 26 tables, 14 illustrations, references, 34 titles. Geographic information systems and remote sensing software were used to analyze data to determine the area and volume of the proposed Fastrill Reservoir, and to examine seven alternatives. The controversial reservoir site is in the same location as a nascent wildlife refuge. Six general land cover types impacted by the reservoir were also quantified using Landsat imagery. The study found that water consumption in Dallas is high, but if consumption rates are reduced to that of similar Texas cities, the reservoir is likely unnecessary. The reservoir and its alternatives were modeled in a GIS by selecting sites and intersecting horizontal water surfaces with terrain data to create a series of reservoir footprints and volumetric measurements. These were then compared with a classified satellite imagery to quantify land cover types. The reservoir impacted the most ecologically sensitive land cover type the most. Only one alternative site appeared slightly less environmentally damaging. Copyright 2009 by Michael Ray Wilson ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge my thesis committee members, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, and Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas, and San Antonio Bays Basin and Bay Area Stakeholders Committee
    Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, and Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas, and San Antonio Bays Basin and Bay Area Stakeholders Committee May 25, 2012 Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, & Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas, & San Antonio Bays Basin & Bay Area Stakeholders Committee (GSA BBASC) Work Plan for Adaptive Management Preliminary Scopes of Work May 25, 2012 May 10, 2012 The Honorable Troy Fraser, Co-Presiding Officer The Honorable Allan Ritter, Co-Presiding Officer Environmental Flows Advisory Group (EFAG) Mr. Zak Covar, Executive Director Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Dear Chairman Fraser, Chairman Ritter and Mr. Covar: Please accept this submittal of the Work Plan for Adaptive Management (Work Plan) from the Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, and Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas and San Antonio Bays Basin and Bay Area Stakeholders Committee (BBASC). The BBASC has offered a comprehensive list of study efforts and activities that will provide additional information for future environmental flow rulemaking as well as expand knowledge on the ecosystems of the rivers and bays within our basin. The BBASC Work Plan is prioritized in three tiers, with the Tier 1 recommendations listed in specific priority order. Study efforts and activities listed in Tier 2 are presented as a higher priority than those items listed in Tier 3; however, within the two tiers the efforts are not prioritized. The BBASC preferred to present prioritization in this manner to highlight the studies and activities it identified as most important in the immediate term without discouraging potential sponsoring or funding entities interested in advancing efforts within the other tiers.
    [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]
  • Application and Utility of a Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial System to Manage and Conserve Aquatic Resources in Four Texas Rivers
    Application and Utility of a Low-cost Unmanned Aerial System to Manage and Conserve Aquatic Resources in Four Texas Rivers Timothy W. Birdsong, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744 Megan Bean, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 5103 Junction Highway, Mountain Home, TX 78058 Timothy B. Grabowski, U.S. Geological Survey, Texas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Texas Tech University, Agricultural Sciences Building Room 218, MS 2120, Lubbock, TX 79409 Thomas B. Hardy, Texas State University – San Marcos, 951 Aquarena Springs Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Thomas Heard, Texas State University – San Marcos, 951 Aquarena Springs Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Derrick Holdstock, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 3036 FM 3256, Paducah, TX 79248 Kristy Kollaus, Texas State University – San Marcos, 951 Aquarena Springs Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Stephan Magnelia, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, P.O. Box 1685, San Marcos, TX 78745 Kristina Tolman, Texas State University – San Marcos, 951 Aquarena Springs Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Abstract: Low-cost unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have recently gained increasing attention in natural resources management due to their versatility and demonstrated utility in collection of high-resolution, temporally-specific geospatial data. This study applied low-cost UAS to support the geospatial data needs of aquatic resources management projects in four Texas rivers. Specifically, a UAS was used to (1) map invasive salt cedar (multiple species in the genus Tamarix) that have degraded instream habitat conditions in the Pease River, (2) map instream meso-habitats and structural habitat features (e.g., boulders, woody debris) in the South Llano River as a baseline prior to watershed-scale habitat improvements, (3) map enduring pools in the Blanco River during drought conditions to guide smallmouth bass removal efforts, and (4) quantify river use by anglers in the Guadalupe River.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleistocene Mammals from the South Sulphur River, Hunt County, Texas Leo Carson Davis Southern Arkansas University
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 45 Article 7 1991 Pleistocene Mammals from the South Sulphur River, Hunt County, Texas Leo Carson Davis Southern Arkansas University Kenneth M. Ball El Dorado High School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Paleontology Commons Recommended Citation Davis, Leo Carson and Ball, Kenneth M. (1991) "Pleistocene Mammals from the South Sulphur River, Hunt County, Texas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 45 , Article 7. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol45/iss1/7 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 45 [1991], Art. 7 PLEISTOCENE MAMMALSFROM THE SOUTH SULPHUR RIVER, HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS LEO CARSON DAVIS KENNETH M.BALL Department of Physical Sciences ElDorado High School Southern Arkansas University 501 Timberlane Magnolia, AR71753 ElDorado, AR 71730 ABSTRACT Preliminary collecting and excavating along the South Sulphur River has produced a diverse list of fossil mammals. The pampathere, Holmesina septentrionalis, and the large armadillo, Dasypus bellus, with their southern affinities from the extinct megafauna, were found in association with Microtus pennsyl- vanicus, which has a northern distribution at present.
    [Show full text]
  • Cedar Bayou Watershed Protection Plan
    Cedar Bayou Watershed Protection Plan Prepared for the Cedar Bayou Watershed Partnership by the Houston-Galveston Area Council 6/17/2016 The Development of a Watershed Protection Plan for Cedar Bayou project is partially funded by the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board through a Clean Water Act §319(h) grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Additional funding was provided by the Galveston Bay Estuary Program. Acknowledgements The Cedar Bayou Watershed Protection Plan is the culmination of the efforts of a diverse and committed group of stakeholders and local partners. This collaborative, community-based approach to protecting the public health, economy, and ecology of the Cedar Bayou area would not have been possible without their dedication and persistence. The Cedar Bayou Watershed Partnership wishes to sincerely thank the members of the project’s Steering Committee, past and present. These leaders from different backgrounds share a common commitment to their community. Steering Committee Members Mr. Andrew Allemand Mr. Jonathan Holley Commissioner Gary Nelson Ms. Charlene Bohanon Ms. Diane Jones Mr. Guido Persiani Mr. Royal D. Burnside Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Jones Mr. Joe Presnall Mr. Lewis Odell Casey Ms. Sharon Kamas Mr. Ladd Puskus Mr. Gil Chambers Ms. Wilyne Laughlin Mr. Glenn Sabadosa Ms. Danielle Cioce Mr. Jim Lard Commissioner Rusty Senac Mr. Bill Cobabe Ms. Alisa Max Mr. John Schrader Ms. Cindy Coker Councilman David McCartney Ms. Adele Warren Mr. Joshua Donaldson Ms. Jean McCloud Mr. David Fowler Mr. Lindy Murff Mr. Ryan Granata The support of an engaged group of local organizations is the backbone of this watershed effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Matching the Hatch for the TX Hill Country[2]
    MATCHING THE HATCH FOR THE TX HILL COUNTRY Tying and choosing proper fly patterns to increase your success on the water. Matt Bennett Fly Geek Custom Flies [email protected] Why should you listen to me? • Fishing the Austin area since 2008 • LWFF – 2012 through 2015 • Fly Geek Custom Flies – 2015 – now • Past Austin Fly Fishers President • Current TX Council Vice President Overview of the TX Hill Country Llano River near Kingsland Guadalupe River at Lazy L&L Brushy Creek near Round Rock Characteristics of Hill Country Rivers ¨ There’s a bunch! Guadalupe, Comal, San Marcos, Colorado, Llano, Blanco, Nueces, Frio, Sabinal, Concho, Lampasas and associated feeder creeks ¨ Majority are shallow and wadeable in stretches ¨ Extremely Clear Water (some clearer than others) ¨ Sandy, limestone and granite bottoms with lots of granite boulders/outcroppings ¨ Extreme flooding events YEARLY on average. Sept 11, 1952 – Lake Travis rises 57 feet in 14 hours. 23-26” of rain Guadalupe River, July 17,1987 Llano River / Lake LBJ – Nov. 4 2000 Why does flooding matter to fishing? ¨ Because of the almost-annual flooding / drought cycle of our rivers, they are constantly changing ¨ Holes get filled in and dug out, gravel gets moved around, banks get undercut ¨ We have to constantly relearn our fisheries to stay successful on the water ¨ Choosing the right flies with the proper triggers is an important part of your success on the water Overview of our forage Baitfish, crawfish, insects, and other terrestrials Why is forage important? ¨ #1 rule of all fishing – know your forage! ¨ Knowing the common forage where you fish increases your chances of success as it clues you in on what flies you should be fishing ¨ Forage base will vary between water bodies, time of year, species targeted, and more, as well as year-to-year.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Water Resources Institute
    Texas Water Resources Institute Summer 1989 Volume 15 No. 2 Optimizing Reservoir Management New Strategies Including Systems Operation and Reallocation May Boost Reservoir Yields By Ric Jensen Information Specialist, TWRI Many experts believe Texas can increase its surface water supplies without building new dams and reservoirs. The answer isn't magic. The solution is better management and coordination of existing reservoirs. New strategies/hat make every drop of water count include operating a group of reservoirs as a coordinated system; converting some reservoir storage space from hydropower production, flood control, and navigation to water supplies; and timing water levels in reservoirs to correspond to seasonal differences in streamflows and water demands. Scientists are learning more about the quality of water in lakes and how man's activities affect the chemical makeup of reservoirs. A number of important developments are already taking place. Both the City of Dallas and the Brazos River Authority manage their reservoir systems so that releases of water are tied to climate conditions water demands. The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) has recently submitted a management plan to the Texas Water Commission (TWC) that could allow LCRA to sell "interruptible water supplies" during wet years. Opportunities to reallocate storage space in Texas reservoirs have been summarized in recent report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Otherstudies have described how systems operation could increase water supplies in reservoirs in the Sabine, Trinity, and Trinity-San Jacinto River basins. 1 Optimizing reservoir management has been the focus of many university research projects. Scientists at Texas A&M University have been studying the Brazos River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Description of the Region
    Chapter 1 Description of the Region The East Texas Regional Water Planning Area (ETRWPA) is one of sixteen areas established by the 1997 Texas legislature Senate Bill 1 for the purpose of State water resource planning at a regional level on five- year planning cycles. The first regional water plan was adopted in 2001. Since that time, it was updated in 2006, 2011, and 2016. This plan, the 2021 Regional Water Plan (2021 Plan), is the result of the 5th cycle of regional water planning. Pursuant to the formation of the ETRWPA, the East Texas Regional Water Planning Group (ETRWPG or RWPG), was formed and charged with the responsibility to evaluate the region’s population projections, water demand projections, and existing water supplies for a 50-year planning horizon. The RWPG then identifies water shortages under drought of record conditions and recommends water management strategies. This planning is performed in accordance with regional and state water planning requirements of the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). This chapter provides details for the ETRWPA that are relevant to water resource planning, including: a physical description of the region, climatological details, population projections, economic activities, sources of water and water demand, and regional resources. A discussion of threats to the region’s resources and water supply, a general discussion of water conservation and drought preparation in the region, and a listing of ongoing state and federal programs in the ETRWPA that impact water planning efforts in the region are also provided. 1.1 General Introduction The ETRWPA consists of all or portions of 20 counties located in the Neches, Sabine, and Trinity River Basins, and the Neches- Trinity Coastal Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Basin Summary Report San Antonio-Nueces Coastal Basin Nueces River Basin Nueces-Rio Grande Coastal Basin
    2008 Basin Summary Report San Antonio-Nueces Coastal Basin Nueces River Basin Nueces-Rio Grande Coastal Basin August 2008 Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Clean Rivers Program Table of Contents List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Significant Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Public Involvement ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Public Outreach .............................................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 Water Quality Reviews .................................................................................................................................. 8 3.1 Water Quality Terminology
    [Show full text]