DOCSLIB.ORG

Lavon Lake Watershed Protection Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lavon Lake Watershed Protection Plan Lavon Lake Watershed Protection Plan Developed by The Lavon Lake Watershed Partnership June 2017 Cover photo of Lavon Lake. Lavon Lake Watershed Protection Plan Prepared for the Lavon Lake Watershed Partnership by North Texas Municipal Water District Texas A&M AgriLife Research & Extension Service Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board Funding for the development of this Watershed Protection Plan was provided by the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board’s State Nonpoint Source Grant Program and the North Texas Municipal Water District. Page i Acknowledgements This document and the efforts behind its completion are the result of collaboration and cooperation between many different groups and individuals. These stakeholders have played an important role in the Lavon Lake Watershed Partnership. First and foremost, the Partnership wishes to express thanks to the members of the Steering Committee for their investments of time and energy in participating throughout the process. Without their direction and support, development of this plan would not have been possible. Through the Lavon Lake Watershed Protection Plan, their efforts serve as an example to all stakeholders of the importance of active stewardship of water resources. The Lavon Lake Watershed Partnership also would like to thank the members of the Technical Advisory Group for their assistance and advice: North Texas Municipal Water Texas Department of Agriculture District Texas State Soil and Water Texas Commission on Conservation Board Environmental Quality U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Texas Farm Bureau Texas Parks & Wildlife Department USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USDA Farm Service Agency Texas A&M AgriLife Research and U.S. Geological Survey Extension Services The Partnership would like to thank Galen Roberts with the North Texas Municipal Water District, Dr. Jake Mowrer with Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, and Liza Parker and Mitch Conine with the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board for authoring the Lavon Lake Watershed Protection Plan. The Partnership also expresses thanks to Dr. R. Karthikeyan, Kyna Borel, and Vaishali Swaminathan of the Texas A&M University Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department and David Shoemate and Dr. Raghavan Srinivasan of the Texas A&M University Spatial Sciences Laboratory for their expertise and tremendous assistance in analyzing land use and water quality for this project. The Partnership is especially grateful to the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board for technical and financial support of this effort. Funding provided through the TSSWCB enabled the development of this Watershed Protection Plan and established a solid foundation for watershed stewardship in Lavon Lake. Page ii Statement of Purpose Lavon Lake is a vital resource for the area, providing municipal water supply, flood control, wildlife habitat, and opportunities for recreation. Over 1.6 million North Texas residents rely on Lavon Lake as their primary source of drinking water. The land surrounding the lake supports a wide array of agricultural, industrial, and urban uses. Although the majority of the watershed is rural, the southwestern portion of the watershed is one of the most rapidly developing urban areas in the nation. Agriculture remains a vital part of the local economy, but the economic landscape in the watershed is changing as land uses shift from rural to urban. In 2010, two tributaries to Lavon Lake were identified as impaired due to elevated levels of E. coli bacteria. The Lavon Lake Watershed Protection Plan was developed using a stakeholder process to provide a foundation for addressing these bacteria issues and to protect water quality in Lavon Lake and its tributaries from other pollutants of concern. By identifying key water quality issues and determining their contributing factors, management programs and public outreach efforts can be targeted to protect the vital water resources of this watershed. The Lavon Lake Watershed Protection Plan incorporates analysis of existing water quality data and investigation of potential pollutant sources to develop a strategy for addressing water quality concerns. Stakeholders are any individual or group that may be directly or indirectly affected by activities implemented to protect water quality, such as citizens, civic organizations, businesses, municipalities, county governments, river authorities, soil and water conservation districts, agricultural committees, nonprofit organizations, and state and federal agencies. This Watershed Protection Plan is a means by which stakeholders can become more familiar with the Lavon Lake watershed and help protect the quality and health of their water resources through adoption of voluntary management practices. It helps focus protection efforts and enables financial and technical assistance to facilitate improvements in the Lavon Lake watershed. The plan is intended to be a living document, adjusted to include new data and modified as conditions in the watershed change over time. It will evolve as needs and circumstances dictate and will be guided by stakeholders as they undertake active stewardship of the watershed. Page iii Table of Contents Page List of Figures.. .............................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables.... ............................................................................................................................. ix Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... xi Section 1 - Watershed Management ................................................................................................1 1.1 - Watersheds and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 - Benefits of a Watershed Approach ................................................................................................... 2 1.3 - Watershed Protection Planning ......................................................................................................... 2 Section 2 - Overview of the Watershed ...........................................................................................3 2.1 - Geography......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 - Physical and Natural Features........................................................................................................... 7 2.3 - Climate ............................................................................................................................................ 13 2.4 - History ............................................................................................................................................ 14 2.5 - Land Uses ....................................................................................................................................... 15 2.6 - Permitted Discharges ...................................................................................................................... 16 2.7 - Water Quality .................................................................................................................................. 19 2.8 - Watershed Selection ....................................................................................................................... 24 Section 3 - The Lavon Lake Partnership ........................................................................................25 3.1 - Partnership Formation .................................................................................................................... 25 3.2 - Partnership Meetings ...................................................................................................................... 25 3.3 - Partnership Structure ...................................................................................................................... 26 Section 4 - Methods of Analysis ....................................................................................................29 4.1 - Land Use Classification .................................................................................................................. 29 4.2 - Determining Sources of Pollution................................................................................................... 32 4.3 - Determining Bacteria Loads ........................................................................................................... 39 4.4 - Determining Sediment Loads ......................................................................................................... 43 4.5 - Determining Nutrient Loads ........................................................................................................... 44 4.6 - Recommended Percent Load Reduction ......................................................................................... 52 4.7 - Annual Loads and Load Reductions ............................................................................................... 53 4.8 - How Variable Flows Influence Trends in Pollutant Loads ............................................................. 54 Section 5 - Pollutant Source Assessment .......................................................................................56
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sewage Data for Digital
    BODY OF WATER GALLONS OF SEWAGE IN 2018 *Unknown 35,445,373 Lake Ray Hubbard 14,002,405 Trinity River 10,217,500 Red Oak Creek 7,677,000 Sycamore Creek 7,237,800 Mauk Branch Creek 7,119,765 Elm Fork Trinity River 6,590,450 Horne Branch Creek 4,361,850 Ten Mile Creek 3,474,332 White Rock Creek 2,201,195 Clear Fork Trinity River 2,150,015 Bull Creek 1,770,900 Big Fossil Creek 1,326,602 Bear Creek 1,213,943 Little Creek to Mustang Creek 1,143,000 Ticky Creek to Lavon Lake 1,050,000 Marine Creek 1,045,240 White Rock Creek Basin 1,042,655 Post Oak Creek 787,300 West Fork Trinity River 749,910 Waxahachie Creek 680,100 Delaware Creek 662,000 Mustang Creek 520,200 Spring Creek Basin 365,970 White Rock Lake 364,400 Village Creek 360,080 Lake Lavon 317,214 Valleyview Branch 309,036 Rowlett Creek basin 296,830 Deer Creek 282,325 White Rock Creek Drainge Basin 271,000 Lake Arlington 259,350 Tenmile Creek 214,549 Segment 0821 Sister Grove Creek to Lake Lavon 205,000 Clear Fork Trinity 200,243 Sister Grove Creek 200,000 Cottonwood branch 192,600 Prairie Creek 169,834 Praire Branch, Big Cottonwood Creek, Kings Creek into Cedar Creek Reservoir 159,000 East Bank 155,666 Hutton Branch 151,200 Cooks Creek 133,500 Kings Creek to Cedar Creek Reservoir 88,000 Eagle Mountain Reservoir 86,000 White Rock Branch 80,000 Rowlett Creek 79,600 Spring Creek 79,224 Turtle Creek 78,660 Town Creek 78,600 Choctaw Creek 74,800 Coombs Creek 71,838 Beck Branch Creek 67,500 !1 Post oak creek to Choctaw Creek 64,000 Rowlett Creek Draiage Basin 62,350 Spring Creek Drainage Basin
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Page 1 Chapter 292 - Special Requirements for Certain Districts and Authorities
    Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Page 1 Chapter 292 - Special Requirements for Certain Districts and Authorities SUBCHAPTER A: GENERAL PROVISIONS §292.1, §292.2 Effective November 28, 2002 §292.1. Objective and Scope of Rules. (a) The commission has the continuing right of supervision of districts and authorities created under Article III, §52 and Article XVI, §59 of the Texas Constitution. The authorities identified in Texas Water Code (TWC), §9.010, shall report to the Texas Water Advisory Council as specified in TWC, §9.011. This chapter shall govern the administrative policies of the following districts: (1) Angelina and Neches River Authority; (2) Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Counties Water Control and Improvement District Number 1; (3) Brazos River Authority; (4) Canadian River Municipal Water Authority; (5) Central Colorado River Authority; (6) Colorado River Municipal Water District; (7) Dallas County Utility and Reclamation District; (8) Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority; (9) Gulf Coast Water Authority; (10) Lavaca-Navidad River Authority; (11) Lower Colorado River Authority; (12) Lower Neches Valley Authority; (13) Mackenzie Municipal Water Authority; (14) North Central Texas Municipal Water Authority; (15) North Harris County Regional Water Authority; (16) North Texas Municipal Water District; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Page 2 Chapter 292 - Special Requirements for Certain Districts and Authorities (17) Northeast Texas Municipal Water District; (18) Nueces River Authority; (19) Red River Authority of Texas; (20) Sabine River Authority; (21) San Antonio River Authority; (22) San Jacinto River Authority; (23) Sulphur River Basin Authority; (24) Sulphur River Municipal Water District; (25) Tarrant Regional Water District, a Water Control and Improvement District; (26) Titus County Fresh Water Supply District Number 1; (27) Trinity River Authority of Texas; (28) Upper Colorado River Authority; (29) Upper Guadalupe River Authority; (30) Upper Neches River Municipal Water Authority; and (31) West Central Texas Municipal Water District.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Heath Newsletter
    DECEMBER2018 CITY OF HEATH C I S NEWSLETTER T A Y X O E F T H E A T H , HOLIDAY IN THE PARK BOY SCOUT TROOP 690 SERVES HEATH KICKS OFF CHRISTMAS IN HEATH! Boy Scout Troop 690 had an exciting camping trip planned for a recent As this newsletter was going to print, Santa and his wonderful helpers in fall weekend. Thanks to the rain, it was a wash out. So Scoutmaster Rick Heath were getting ready for another spectacular Holiday in the Park at Handschuch asked if the Scouts could perform a service project for the City Towne Center Park on Friday, November 30 from 5:30-8:30 p.m. Now in its instead. Troop 690 ended up cleaning the entire Highlands of Heath Trail, 24th year, this hometown tradition features all of the sights and sounds of which involved removing a tree that was blocking the path, shoveling off mud Christmas, including live music, the Christmas Tree Lighting, kids’ activities, from the rain, trimming shrubs and trees, and collecting trash. Thank you, miniature train rides, cookies, hot cocoa, food trucks and the Jolly Old Santa Troop 690! If you are looking for a Scouting home for a young man in your himself. To make your parking easier, the Heath Economic Development life, Troop 690 welcomes your interest. Contact Scoutmaster Handschuch at Corporation/Municipal Benefits Corporation (HEDC/HMBC) is providing a 214-755-5464 to learn more. courtesy mini-bus shuttle from the parking lot of Rockwall-Heath High School to Towne Center Park from 5 to 9 pm.
    [Show full text]
  • List of State Agencies and Higher Education Institutions
    List of State Agencies and Institutions of Higher Education (List may not be all inclusive) Abilene State Supported Living Center Civil Commitment Office, Texas Fire Protection, Commission on Accountancy, Board of Public Clarendon College Forest Service, Texas Administrative Hearings, Office of Coastal Bend College Frank Phillips College Affordable Housing Corporation College of the Mainland Funeral Service Commission Aging and Disability Services, Dept. of Collin County Community College Galveston College Agriculture, Department of Competitive Government, Council on Geoscientists, Board of Professional AgriLife Extension Service, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Governor, Office of the AgriLife Research, Texas Consumer Credit Commissioner, Office of Grayson County College Alamo Community College District Corpus Christi State Supported Groundwater Protection Committee Alcoholic Beverage Commission County and District Retirement System Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Alvin Community College Court Administration, Office of Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority Amarillo College Credit Union Department Headwaters Groundwater Conservation Anatomical Board Criminal Appeals, Court of Health and Human Services Commission Angelina and Neches River Authority Criminal Justice, Department of Health Professions Council Angelina College Dallas County Community College Health Services, Department of State Angelo State University Deaf, School for the High Plains Underground Water Conserv. Animal Health Commission Del Mar College Higher Education Coordinating
    [Show full text]
  • Floods in South-Central Oklahoma and North-Central Texas October 1981
    FLOODS IN SOUTH-CENTRAL OKLAHOMA AND NORTH-CENTRAL TEXAS OCTOBER 1981 By Harold D. Buckner and Joanne K. Kurklin U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 84-065 Austin, Texas 1984 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information For sale by: write to: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch 649 Federal Building U.S. Geological Survey, MS 306 300 E. Eighth Street Box 25425, Denver Federal Center Austin, TX 78701 Denver, CO 80225 Telephone: (303) 234-5888 II CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction- 2 Meteorological setting and precipitation distribution 4 Description of floods- 7 Red River basin 20 Trinity River basin- 25 Brazos River basin 28 Flood damages 33 Oklahoma 33 Texas- 33 Explanation of station data 36 References cited- 37 Supplementary data 38 III ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Map showing area of flooding in Oklahoma and Texas with location of flood-determination points 3 2. Map showing surface front, upper level trough line, and jet- stream on October 11, 1981 5 3. Map showing surface front, upper level trough line, outflow boundary, jetstream, and path of Hurricane Norrna- 6 4a-f. GOES enhanced infrared and visual imagery pictures showing track of Hurricane Norma across Mexico and Texas: a. 1:30 a.m. c.d.t., October 12, 1981 8 b. 5:00 a.m. c.d.t., October 12, 1981 9 c. 9:30 a.m. c.d.t., October 12, 1981 10 d. 1:30 p.m. c.d.t., October 12, 1981 11 e.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Rule
    Billing Code 4333–15 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS–R2–ES–2019–0061; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] RIN 1018–BD16 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status with Critical Habitat for Guadalupe Fatmucket, Texas Fatmucket, Guadalupe Orb, Texas Pimpleback, and False Spike, and Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat for Texas Fawnsfoot AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), propose to list six Central Texas mussel species: the Guadalupe fatmucket (Lampsilis bergmanni), Texas fatmucket (Lampsilis bracteata), Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon), Guadalupe orb (Cyclonaias necki), Texas pimpleback (Cyclonaias (=Quadrula) petrina), and false spike (Fusconaia (=Quincuncina) mitchelli) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing Guadalupe fatmucket, Texas fatmucket, Guadalupe orb, Texas pimpleback, and false spike as endangered species is warranted, and listing Texas fawnsfoot as a threatened species is warranted. We propose a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (“4(d) rule”) for the Texas fawnsfoot. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would add these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act’s protections to the species. We also propose to designate critical habitat for all six species under the Act. In total, approximately 1,944 river miles (3,129 river kilometers) in Texas fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designations.
    [Show full text]
  • USACE Recreation 2016 State Report, Texas
    VALUE TO THE NATION FAST FACTS USACE RECREATION 2016 STATE REPORT TEXAS Natural and recreational resources at USACE lakes provide social, economic and environmental benefits for all Americans. The following information highlights some of the benefits related to USACE's role in managing natural and recreational resources in Texas. SOCIAL BENEFITS Facilities in FY 2016 Visits (person-trips) in FY 2016 Benefits in Perspective • 474 recreation areas • 21,116,345 in total By providing opportunities for active • 4,557 picnic sites • 2,579,059 picnickers recreation, USACE lakes help combat • 10,400 camping sites • 613,645 campers one of the most significant of the • 157 playgrounds • 2,213,810 swimmers nation's health problems: lack of • 98 swimming areas • 936,607 water skiers physical activity. • 217 trails • 4,044,269 boaters Recreational programs and activities • 861 trail miles • 7,736,119 sightseers at USACE lakes also help strengthen • • 49 fishing docks 6,204,027 anglers family ties and friendships; provide • 449 boat ramps • 176,745 hunters opportunities for children to develop • 15,473 marina slips • 3,169,565 others personal skills, social values, and self- esteem; and increase water safety. Public Outreach in FY 2016 • 309,805 public outreach contacts ECONOMIC BENEFITS Economic Data in FY 2016 Benefits in Perspective 21,116,345 visits per year resulted in: With multiplier effects, visitor trip spending The money spent by visitors to USACE • $ 621,411,261 in visitor spending within resulted in: lakes on trip expenses adds to the 30 miles of USACE lakes • $ 646,183,208 in total sales local and national economies by • $ 397,320,740 in sales within 30 miles • 5,600 jobs supporting jobs and generating of USACE lakes • $ 189,257,249 in labor income income.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Meeting Material
    Richardson Lovewell Washington State County Surface Ownership and BIA- Wildlife Lovewell Fishing Lake And Falls City Reservoir Wildlife Area St. Francis Keith Area Brown State Wildlife Sebelius Lake Norton Phillips Brown State Fishing Lake And Area Cheyenne (Norton Lake) Wildlife Area Smith County Washington Marshall Wildlife Area County Lovewell Nemaha Fishing Lake County State ¤£77 County Wildlife administered Tribal and Allotted 36 Rawlins State Park Fishing Lake Sabetha ¤£ Decatur Norton Area County Republic County Norton County Marysville ¤£75 36 36 Brown County ¤£ £36 County ¤£ Washington Phillipsburg ¤ Jewell County Nemaha County Doniphan County St. Subsurface Minerals Estate £283 County Joseph ¤ Atchison State Kirwin National Glen Elder Jamestown Tuttle Fishing Lake Wildlife Refuge Reservoir Sherman (Waconda Lake) Wildlife Area Creek Atchison State Fishing Webster Lake 83 State Glen Elder Lake And Wildlife Area County ¤£ Sheridan Nicodemus Tuttle Pottawatomie State Thomas County Park Webster Lake Wildlife Area Concordia State National Creek State Fishing Lake No. Atchison Parks 159 BIA-managed tribal and allotted subsurface Fishing Lake Historic Site Rooks County 1 And Wildlife ¤£ Fort Colby Cloud County Atchison Leavenworth Goodland 24 Beloit Clay County Holton 70 ¤£ Sheridan Osborne Riley County §¨¦ 24 County Glen Elder ¤£ Jackson 73 County Graham County Rooks State County ¤£ minerals estate State Park Mitchell Clay Center Pottawatomie County Sherman State Fishing Lake And ¤£59 Leavenworth Wildlife Area County County Fishing
    [Show full text]
  • Texas River Authorities
    The Senate Committee on Natural Resources Interim Report to the 81st Legislature Texas River Authorities March 2009 INTERIM CHARGE Review all state-created river authorities, including the powers exercised by each authority and the advisability of subjecting these authorities to legislative review. Consider options for ensuring adequate protection of public assets, improving transparency of operations, enhancing appropriate access to financial and management records, and authorizing audits by the State Auditor's Office. BACKGROUND The following background on past attempts to subject river authorities to legislative review was provided during testimony at the April 8, 2008, hearing of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources (Committee) by Dean Robbins of the Texas Water Conservation Association: In 1985, the Legislature added 19 of the State's river authorities to the list of agencies subject to review under the Sunset Act. Those entities were scheduled for review in 1991. That law provided that unless the board of directors of the river authorities were continued in office, their membership would expire and the Governor would appoint a new board. Another bill was passed in 1985 requiring the State Auditor to conduct an annual audit of 23 specifically named districts and authorities. That bill also created a Water Districts and River Authority Study Committee to consider the appropriate role and level of accountability of these entities. In December 1986, the Water Districts and River Authority Study Committee issued its report. That report recommended that the state audit and sunset requirements passed in 1985 be repealed. That report also addressed many other issues still being debated today such as water conservation, water planning, and groundwater management.
    [Show full text]
  • (Walker-Calloway System) Revenue Bonds, Series 2018
    OFFICIAL STATEMENT Dated February 6, 2018 Ratings: S&P: “AA” (See “CONTINUING DISCLOSURE (see “OTHER INFORMATION OF INFORMATION” herein) - Ratings” herein) NEW ISSUE - Book-Entry-Only In the opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Bonds will be excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes under statutes, regulations, published rulings and court decisions existing on the date thereof, subject to the matters described under “TAX MATTERS” herein. $6,530,000 TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS (WALKER-CALLOWAY SYSTEM) REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2018 Dated Date: February 1, 2018 Due: February 1, as shown on Page ii Interest to accrue from Delivery Date PAYMENT TERMS . Interest on the $6,530,000 Trinity River Authority of Texas (Walker-Calloway System) Revenue Bonds, Series 2018 (the “Bonds”) will accrue from the date they are initially delivered (the “Delivery Date”) to the underwriters listed below (the “Underwriters”), will be payable on August 1, 2018, and on February 1 and August 1 of each year thereafter until maturity or prior redemption, and will be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of twelve 30-day months. The definitive Bonds will be initially registered and delivered only to Cede & Co., the nominee of The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) pursuant to the Book-Entry-Only System described herein. Beneficial ownership of the Bonds may be acquired in denominations of $5,000 or integral multiples thereof within a maturity. No physical delivery of the Bonds will be made to the beneficial owners thereof. Principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds will be payable by the Paying Agent/Registrar to Cede & Co., which will make distribution of the amounts so paid to the participating members of DTC for subsequent payment to the beneficial owners of the Bonds (see “THE BONDS - Book-Entry-Only System” herein).
    [Show full text]
  • Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(1) Appendix A
    Figure: 30 TAC §307.10(1) Appendix A - Site-specific Uses and Criteria for Classified Segments The following tables identify the water uses and supporting numerical criteria for each of the state's classified segments. The tables are ordered by basin with the segment number and segment name given for each classified segment. Marine segments are those that are specifically titled as "tidal" in the segment name, plus all bays, estuaries and the Gulf of Mexico. The following descriptions denote how each numerical criterion is used subject to the provisions in §307.7 of this title (relating to Site-Specific Uses and Criteria), §307.8 of this title (relating to Application of Standards), and §307.9 of this title (relating to Determination of Standards Attainment). Segments that include reaches that are dominated by springflow are footnoted in this appendix and have critical low-flows calculated according to §307.8(a)(2) of this title. These critical low-flows apply at or downstream of the spring(s) providing the flows. Critical low-flows upstream of these springs may be considerably smaller. Critical low-flows used in conjunction with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regulatory actions (such as discharge permits) may be adjusted based on the relative location of a discharge to a gauging station. -1 -2 The criteria for Cl (chloride), SO4 (sulfate), and TDS (total dissolved solids) are listed in this appendix as maximum annual averages for the segment. Dissolved oxygen criteria are listed as minimum 24-hour means at any site within the segment. Absolute minima and seasonal criteria are listed in §307.7 of this title unless otherwise specified in this appendix.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Non-Rulemaking Notices
    Index of Non-Rulemaking Notices The following is a list of notices published January 1 - December 28, 2018. Listed alphabetically by agency name are non-rule- making notices that appeared in the following Texas Register sections: In Addition, Office of the Attorney General, Texas Ethics Commission, Office of the Governor, Review of Agency Rules, and Transferred Rules. 33rd and 424th District Court Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Miscellaneous Review of Agency Rules Public Notice............................................................. 5424 Proposed Rule Reviews .................................... 783, 2293 Adopted Rule Reviews ........................... 587, 2293, 3805 Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation Miscellaneous Texas Animal Health Commission Draft 2019 Annual Action Plan Available for Public Review of Agency Rules Comment................................................................... 8647 Proposed Rule Reviews ............................................ 5543 Draft Bond Program Policies and Request for Proposals Adopted Rule Reviews ............................................. 2801 Available for Public Comment.................................. 7381 Notice of Public Hearing Regarding the Issuance of Texas Appraiser Licensing and Certification Board Bonds .............................................................. 3819, 6673 Review of Agency Rules Notice of Request for Proposals ............................... 4491 Proposed Rule Reviews .................................. 1149, 3125 Notice of Request for Qualifications........................
    [Show full text]