DRAFT 2002 Texas 303(D) List (October 1, 2002)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Concho River & Upper Colorado River Basins
CONCHO RIVER & UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASINS Brush Control Feasibility Study Prepared By The: UPPER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY In Cooperation with TEXAS STATE SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION BOARD and TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY December 2000 Cover Photograph: Rocky Creek located in Irion County, Texas following restoration though a comprehensive brush control program. Photo courtesy of United States Natural Resources Conservation Services. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The preparation of this report is the result of action by many state, federal and local entities and of many individuals dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of water resources within the State of Texas. This report is one of several funded by the Legislature of Texas to be implemented by the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board during FYE2000. We commend the Texas Legislature for its’ extraordinary insight and boldness in moving ahead with planning that will be critical to water supply provision in future decades. In particular, the efforts of State Representative Robert Junell are especially recognized for his vision in coordinating the initial feasibility study conducted on the North Concho River and his support for studies of additional watershed basins in Texas. The following individuals are recognized as having made substantial contributions to this study and preparation of this report: Arlan Youngblood Ben Wilde Bill Tullos Billy Williams Bob Buckley Bob Jennings Bob Northcutt Brent Murphy C. Wade Clifton C.J. Robinson Carl Schlinke David Wilson Don Davis Eddy Spurgin Edwin Garner Gary Askins Tommy Morrison Woody Anderson Gary Grogan Howard Morrison J.P. Bach James Moore Jessie Whitlow Jimmy Sterling Joe Dean Weatherby Joe Funk John Anderson John Walker Johnny Oswald Keith Collom Kevin Spreen Kevin Wagner Lad Lithicum Lisa Barker Marjorie Mathis Max S. -
Texas Rookery Islands Project
5 Chapter 5: Texas Rookery Islands Project 5.1 Restoration and Protection of Texas Rookery Islands: Project Description ................................... 1 5.1.1 Project Summary................................................................................................................. 1 5.1.2 Background and Project Description .................................................................................. 3 5.1.3 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................ 13 5.1.4 Performance Criteria and Monitoring .............................................................................. 14 5.1.5 Offsets ............................................................................................................................... 14 5.1.6 Estimated Cost .................................................................................................................. 15 5.2 Texas Rookery Islands Project: Environmental Assessment ......................................................... 16 5.2.1 Introduction and Background, Purpose and Need ........................................................... 16 5.2.2 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 17 5.2.3 Project Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 18 5.2.4 Galveston Bay Rookery Islands ........................................................................................ -
Improving Water Quality in Dickinson Bayou One TMDL for Dissolved Oxygen
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Total Maximum Daily Load Program Improving Water Quality in Dickinson Bayou One TMDL for Dissolved Oxygen Water Quality in Dickinson Bayou Impaired Segment Stream Segment The state of Texas requires that water quality in Project Watershed Houston Seabrook Dickinson Bayou Tidal (Segment 1103) be suitable for Galveston swimming, wading, fishing, and a healthy aquatic HARRIS Bay ecosystem. However, water quality testing found that Webster Kemah dissolved oxygen levels in the water are occasionally low. Oxygen, which dissolves in water, is essential for the survival of aquatic life. While the amount of Friendswood Dickinson dissolved oxygen in water fluctuates naturally, various League City human activities can cause unusually or chronically low 1104 1103 dissolved oxygen levels which may harm fish and other Dickinson Bayou aquatic organisms. Alvin Texas City Santa Fe GALVESTON In response to these conditions, a total maximum daily La Marque load (TMDL) project has been initiated to evaluate the effects of low dissolved oxygen on aquatic life and to BRAZORIA determine the actions necessary to maintain water Hitchcock quality in the tidal portion of Dickinson Bayou. The goal of a TMDL is to determine the amount (or load) of a 012345 pollutant that a body of water can receive and still Miles K support its designated uses. This allowable load is then allocated among all the potential sources of pollution traffic. Rice fields in the upper watershed receive within the watershed. Measures to reduce pollutant irrigation water via canals from beyond the watershed. loads are then developed as necessary. The irrigation water returns to Dickinson Bayou in the form of irrigation return flows. -
Consumer Plannlng Section Comprehensive Plannlng Branch
Consumer Plannlng Section Comprehensive Plannlng Branch, Parks Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Texans Outdoors: An Analysis of 1985 Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities By Kathryn N. Nichols and Andrew P. Goldbloom Under the Direction of James A. Deloney November, 1989 Comprehensive Planning Branch, Parks Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744 (512) 389-4900 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Conducting a mail survey requires accuracy and timeliness in every single task. Each individualized survey had to be accounted for, both going out and coming back. Each mailing had to meet a strict deadline. The authors are indebted to all the people who worked on this project. The staff of the Comprehensive Planning Branch, Parks Division, deserve special thanks. This dedicated crew signed letters, mailed, remailed, coded, and entered the data of a twenty-page questionnaire that was sent to over twenty-five thousand Texans with over twelve thousand returned completed. Many other Parks Division staff outside the branch volunteered to assist with stuffing and labeling thousands of envelopes as deadlines drew near. We thank the staff of the Information Services Section for their cooperation in providing individualized letters and labels for survey mailings. We also appreciate the dedication of the staff in the mailroom for processing up wards of seventy-five thousand pieces of mail. Lastly, we thank the staff in the print shop for their courteous assistance in reproducing the various documents. Although the above are gratefully acknowledged, they are absolved from any responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have occurred. ii TEXANS OUTDOORS: AN ANALYSIS OF 1985 PARTICIPATION IN OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................... -
Pesca Austin
APOYe eL DePORTe ¡cOMPRe SU LIceNcIA De PeScA! PESCA EN EL ÁREA DE AUSTIN Su compra de licencia apoya la educación para todos los pescadores y apoya la salud de los PeScA 2338 peces y sus hábitats. 1 Granger Lake 4 Lake 29 Georgetown Para pescar legalmente en aguas públicas, todos 29 los pescadores de 17 años y mayores necesitan Lake Georgetown comprar su licencia de pesca. Travis Leander 11 10 Taylor 79 AUSTIN 6 45 ¿cÓMO PUeDO PROTeGeR A LOS PeceS Y Round Dam 620 183 SUS HABITATS? Rock 95 3d • Use anzuelos sin púas o anzuelos circulares. 14 130 • Capture el pez rápidamente. Lake 2222 35 973 Austin 360 • Toque el pez con las manos mojadas. 620 3c • Recoja su basura y recicle su línea de pesca. 3b • Regale su carnada viva no usada a otro pesca- 3a dor, o póngala en la basura. No la tire en el agua. Bee 2244 Manor 290 AC Expressway Cave Dam 2c MOP 3177 State Elgin Capitol 973 VeR LAS ReGLAS De . 71 360 Barton SpringsLady Bird PeScA eN TeXAS Rd. Lake Walter E. Long 1 183 Reservoir 2b 2a Airport Blvd 5 15 tpwd.texas.gov/espanol/pub Paige Lamar Riverside [ES] 969 290 95 290 ve. Dam txoutdoorannual.com 71 A 13d 973 21 [EN] Oak Hill Congress 71 13a Colorado River 13b 1441 Austin Lake Bastrop APLIcAcIÓN MÓVIL [eN] 18 12 7 35 outdoorannual.com/app 71 183 8 Buda 16 130 13c Park Road 1 9 153 45 Kyle Bastrop Smithville ¿cÓMO PUeDO cOMPRAR 17 MI LIceNcIA De PeScA? tpwd.texas.gov/espanol/pescar/licencia [ES] tpwd.texas.gov/licenses [EN] 1. -
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. -
Future of Irrigated Agriculture and the Transfer of Irrigation Use State Bar
Future of Irrigated Agriculture and the Transfer of Irrigation Use GLENN JARVIS, ESQ. Law Offices of Glenn Jarvis Inter National Bank Bldg. 1801 S. 2nd Street, Ste. 550 McAllen, TX 78503 State Bar of Texas 12th Annual Changing Face of Water Rights Course February 24-25, 2011 San Antonio, Texas Chapter 15 Future of Irrigated Agriculture and the Transfer of Irrigation Use Chapter 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. The Setting - Where are We? ........................................................................................................................... 1 A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 B. REALITIES OF OUR TIME .............................................................................................................. 1 II. What We Are Doing ......................................................................................................................................... 4 A. SURFACE WATER RIGHTS -A Case Study on the Rio Grande - A Large Agricultural Area - Conversion of Irrigation Rights to Municipal and Industrial Rights, Legislation and Marketing ................................................................................ 5 (1) Background ............................................................................................................... 6 (2) Conversion of Irrigation Water Rights to Municipal on Urban Lands ....................... 9 (3) Water Marketing in the Lower and Middle Rio Grande ......................................... -
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). -
MEXICO Las Moras Seco Creek K Er LAVACA MEDINA US HWY 77 Springs Uvalde LEGEND Medina River
Cedar Creek Reservoir NAVARRO HENDERSON HILL BOSQUE BROWN ERATH 281 RUNNELS COLEMAN Y ANDERSON S HW COMANCHE U MIDLAND GLASSCOCK STERLING COKE Colorado River 3 7 7 HAMILTON LIMESTONE 2 Y 16 Y W FREESTONE US HW W THE HIDDEN HEART OF TEXAS H H S S U Y 87 U Waco Lake Waco McLENNAN San Angelo San Angelo Lake Concho River MILLS O.H. Ivie Reservoir UPTON Colorado River Horseshoe Park at San Felipe Springs. Popular swimming hole providing relief from hot Texas summers. REAGAN CONCHO U S HW Photo courtesy of Gregg Eckhardt. Y 183 Twin Buttes McCULLOCH CORYELL L IRION Reservoir 190 am US HWY LAMPASAS US HWY 87 pasas R FALLS US HWY 377 Belton U S HW TOM GREEN Lake B Y 67 Brady iver razos R iver LEON Temple ROBERTSON Lampasas Stillhouse BELL SAN SABA Hollow Lake Salado MILAM MADISON San Saba River Nava BURNET US HWY 183 US HWY 190 Salado sota River Lake TX HWY 71 TX HWY 29 MASON Buchanan N. San G Springs abriel Couple enjoying the historic mill at Barton Springs in 1902. R Mason Burnet iver Photo courtesy of Center for American History, University of Texas. SCHLEICHER MENARD Y 29 TX HW WILLIAMSON BRAZOS US HWY 83 377 Llano S. S an PECOS Gabriel R US HWY iver Georgetown US HWY 163 Llano River Longhorn Cavern Y 79 Sonora LLANO Inner Space Caverns US HW Eckert James River Bat Cave US HWY 95 Lake Lyndon Lake Caverns B. Johnson Junction Travis CROCKETT of Sonora BURLESON 281 GILLESPIE BLANCO Y KIMBLE W TRAVIS SUTTON H GRIMES TERRELL S U US HWY 290 US HWY 16 US HWY P Austin edernales R Fredericksburg Barton Springs 21 LEE Somerville Lake AUSTIN Pecos -
Lampasas River Watershed Final Report
Texas Water Resources Institute TR-442 April 2013 Bacterial Source Tracking to Support the Development and Implementation of Watershed Protection Plans for the Lampasas and Leon Rivers Lampasas River Watershed Final Report L. Gregory, E. Casarez, J. Truesdale, G. Di Giovanni, R. Owen, J. Wolfe Bacterial Source Tracking to Support the Development and Implementation of Watershed Protection Plans for the Lampasas and Leon Rivers Lampasas River Watershed Final Report Funding provided through a Texas State General Revenue Grant from the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board TSSWCB Project 10-51 Authored By: Lucas Gregory1, Elizabeth Casarez2, Joy Truesdale2, George Di Giovanni2, Tony Owen3, and June Wolfe3 1Texas A&M AgriLife Research– Texas Water Resource Institute 2University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health El Paso Regional Campus 3Texas A&M AgriLife Research - Blackland Research and Extension Center Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report 442 April 2013 Table of Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... iii Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................... iv Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... v Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... -
San Angelo Project History
San Angelo Project Jennifer E. Zuniga Bureau of Reclamation 1999 Table of Contents The San Angelo Project.........................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................3 Project Authorization.....................................................4 Construction History .....................................................7 Post Construction History ................................................12 Settlement of Project Lands ...............................................16 Project Benefits and Use of Project Water ...................................16 Conclusion............................................................17 About the Author .............................................................17 Bibliography ................................................................18 Archival and Manuscript Collections .......................................18 Government Documents .................................................18 Articles...............................................................18 Books ................................................................18 Index ......................................................................19 1 The San Angelo Project The San Angelo Project is a multipurpose project in the Concho River Basin of west- central Texas. In a region historically known for intermittent droughts and floods, the project provides protection against both weather extremes. -
Wildlife & Watershed Planning
Wildlife & Watershed Planning Kevin Wagner, PhD WPPs & TMDLs Addressing Non-Domesticated Species (Wildlife) Wildlife Measures in 10 of 11 EPA Accepted WPPs Attoyac Bayou Buck Creek Cypress Creek Geronimo & Alligator Creeks Lake Granbury Lampasas River Leon River Plum Creek Upper Cibolo Creek Upper San Antonio River Wildlife Measures Included in TMDL Implementation Plans Copano Bay Dickinson Bayou Gilleland Creek Guadalupe River above Canyon Texas BST Studies To Date 5-Way Split (averages based on findings in 10 watersheds) Non-Avian Avian Wildlife Wildlife 32% 18% Pets Unidentified 5% 11% All Livestock Human 24% 10% Mean Background Levels in Runoff Fecal Coliform E. coli Site (#/100 mL) (cfu/100 mL) Reference Ungrazed pasture 10,000 Robbins et al. 1972 Ungrazed pasture 6,600 Doran et al. 1981 Control plots 6,800 Guzman et al. 2010 Pasture destocked >2 mos. 1,000-10,000 Collins et al. 2005 Ungrazed pasture 6,200-11,000 Wagner et al. 2012 Pasture destocked >2 wks. 2,200-6,000 Wagner et al. 2012 Impacts of Migratory Wildlife E. coli concentrations at ungrazed site BB1 (2009-2010) Date BB1 BB2 BB3 300,000 3/13/09 140 3/25/09 1,200 250,000 3/26/09 1,000 7,200 /100 mL) 3/27/09 2,000 200,000 cfu 4/17/09 1,155 980 450 4/18/09 4,400 2,225 2,100 150,000 4/28/09 7,600 12,200 24,000 100,000 10/4/09 57,000 5,114 3,065 Concentration ( 10/9/09 36,000 24,043 15,000 coli 50,000 10/13/09 42,851 23,826 5,591 E.