Implementation Plan for Two Total Maximum Daily...

Implementation Plan Two TMDLs for the Tidal Segment of the Mission and Aransas Rivers

Peer Review Draft, August 2013

Implementation Plan for Two Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria in the Tidal Segment of the Mission and Aransas Rivers Segment 2001, 2003

W a t e r Q u a l i t y P l a n n i n g D i v i s i o n , C h i e f E n g i n e e r ’ s O f f i c e

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY


Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ii Peer Review Draft, Date

Distributed by the Total Maximum Daily Load Team

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality MC-203

P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087

E-mail: [email protected]

TMDL implementation plans are also available on the TCEQ Web site at: <www.tceq.texas.gov/implementation/water/tmdl/>

The preparation of this report was financed in part through grants from

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document may be requested in alternate formats by contacting the TCEQ at

512/239-0028, Fax 239-4488, or 1-800-RELAY-TX (TDD), or by writing P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087.

This TMDL report is based in large part on technical reports prepared for the

TCEQ by the Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research (TIAER), and in large part by the recommendations of the 3 stakeholder groups organized by the

Texas Water Resources Institute (TWRI).

Agencies engaged in the development of this document include:

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service Texas A&M AgriLife Research

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board Bee Soil and Water Conservation District #344

Goliad Soil and Water Conservation District # 352 San Patricio Soil and Water Conservation District # 324 Copano Bay Soil and Water Conservation District #329

Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program Nueces River Authority

Local Stakeholders


Texas Commission on Environmental Quality iii Peer Review Draft, Date

Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 Watershed Overview .................................................................................................................. 5 Summary of TMDLs ................................................................................................................... 8 Pollutant Load Allocation .......................................................................................................... 9

Waste Load Allocation (WLA) ........................................................................................... 10 Wastewater Treatment Facilities ................................................................................ 10 Regulated Storm Water ................................................................................................ 12 Implementation of WLAs ............................................................................................. 13 Updates to WLAs .......................................................................................................... 15

Load Allocation .................................................................................................................... 15 Allowance for Future Growth (AFG).................................................................................. 15 Summary of TMDL Calculations ........................................................................................18

Implementation Strategy ..........................................................................................................18 Adaptive Implementation ................................................................................................... 19 Activities and Milestones ................................................................................................... 20 Control Action .................................................................................................................... 20 Management Measures ...................................................................................................... 20

Control Action 1.0 ...................................................................................................................... 21 Control Action 2.0 .................................................................................................................... 27 Management Measure 1.0 ........................................................................................................ 33 Management Measure 2.0 ....................................................................................................... 44 Management Measure 3.0 ....................................................................................................... 49 Management Measure 4.0 ....................................................................................................... 55 Management Measure 5.0 ....................................................................................................... 60 Management Measure 6.0 ....................................................................................................... 66 Management Measure 7.0......................................................................................................... 71 Management Measure 8.0 ........................................................................................................ 77 Sustainability ............................................................................................................................ 82 Water Quality Indicators .......................................................................................................... 82 Implementation Milestones ..................................................................................................... 82 Communication Strategy ......................................................................................................... 83 References ................................................................................................................................. 84 Appendix A. I-Plan Matrix ...................................................................................................... 85 Appendix B. Load Reduction Estimates................................................................................. 96


Texas Commission on Environmental Quality iv Peer Review Draft, Date

Figures Figure 1. Boundaries for the Mission and Aransas River Watersheds ....................... 7 Figure 2. Copano Bay Subbasins ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Tables Table 1. Sampling results used for the 2012 waterbody assessment ........................................ 1 Table 2. NLCD Land Use Classification Acreage for the Mission and Aransas Watersheds . 6 Table 3. Municipal Dischargers into the Mission and Aransas Watersheds .......................... 8 Table 4. Water Quality Inventory Assessment Data, 2001 – 2008 ........................................ 9 Table 5. WLAWWTF calculations for downstream stations within the Mission and Aransas Rivers. .......................................................................................................................... 11 Table 6. Stormwater General Permit areas and calculation of the FDASWP term for the Mission and Aransas Rivers. ..................................................................................................... 13 Table 7. WLASW calculations for downstream stations within the Mission and Aransas Rivers. ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 8. WLA calculations for downstream stations within the Mission and Aransas Rivers. ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 9. LA calculations for downstream stations within the Mission and Aransas Rivers. 15 Table 10. FG calculations for downstream stations within the Mission and Aransas Rivers. Entries are sorted alphabetically by County and Watershed User Group. ............................ 17 Table 11. TMDL Allocation Summary for Impaired Mission River Tidal and Aransas River Tidal Watersheds (units in billion MPN/day Enterococci) ..........................................18 Table 12. Permitted WWTFs in the Mission and Aransas River Watersheds ...................... 22 Table 13. Estimated Costs ........................................................................................................ 25 Table 14. Summary of Control Action 1.0: Monitoring WWTF Effluent to Ensure Permit Compliance Causes and Sources: Point sources from WWTFs ............................................. 26 Table 15. Needed Improvements and Estimated Costs for WWTFs ..................................... 30 Table 16. Summary of Control Action 2.0: Improve and Upgrade WWTFs ................... 32 Table 17. Estimated Costs of Assistance Needed .................................................................... 42 Table 18. Management Measure 1.0: Develop and implement conservation plans in priority areas of the watershed .............................................................................................................. 43 Table 19. Estimated Costs of Assistance Needed .................................................................... 46 Table 20. Management Measure 2.0: Explore Feasibility of Altering Tax Exemption Requirements for Small Acreage Landowners ....................................................................... 48 Table 21. Estimated Costs ........................................................................................................ 52 Table 22. Management Measure 3.0: Promote the Management of and Control Feral Hog Populations ............................................................................................................................... 54 Table 23. Estimated Costs ........................................................................................................ 58 Table 24. Management Measure 4.0: Promote the Reduction of Illicit Dumping and Proper Disposal of Animal Carcasses .................................................................................................. 59 Table 25. Estimated Funding Needs ....................................................................................... 63 Table 26. Management Measure 5.0: Identify OSSFs, Prioritize Problem Areas, and Systematically Work to Bring Systems into Compliance ....................................................... 65


Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v Peer Review Draft, Date

Table 27. Estimated Funding Needs ....................................................................................... 69 Table 28. Management Measure 6.0: Promote the Improved Quality of and Management of Urban Storm water ............................................................................................................... 70 Table 29. Estimated Funding Needs ....................................................................................... 74 Table 30. Management Measure 7.0: Coordinate Efforts for Reducing Unauthorized Discharges ................................................................................................................................. 76 Table 31. Estimated Funding Needs ........................................................................................ 79 Table 32. Management Measure 8.0: Coordinate and Expand Existing Water Quality Monitoring in the Watershed ...................................................................................................81 Table A-1. Control Acton 1: Monitoring WWTF Effluent to Ensure Permit Compliance — Implementation Schedule and Tasks .................................................................................. 86 Table A-2. Control Action 2: Improve and Upgrade WWTFs — Implementation Schedule and Tasks .................................................................................................................. 86 Table A-3. Management Measure 1: Develop and implement conservation plans in priority areas of the watershed — Implementation Schedule and Tasks ........................... 87 Table A-4. Management Measure 2: Explore Feasibility of Altering Tax Exemption Requirements for Small Acreage Landowners — Implementation Schedule and Tasks .. 88 Table A-5. Management Measure 3: Promote the Management of and Control Feral Hog Populations — Implementation Schedule and Tasks .................................................... 89 Table A-6. Management Measure 4: Promote the Reduction of Illicit Dumping and Proper Disposal of Animal Carcasses — Implementation Schedule and Tasks .................. 91 Table A-7. Management Measure 5 Identify OSSFs, Prioritize Problem Areas, and Systematically Work to Bring Systems into Compliance — Implementation Schedule and Tasks 92 Table A-8. Management Measure 6: Promote the Improved Quality of and Management of Urban Storm water — Implementation Schedule and Tasks ................... 93 Table A-9. Management Measure 7: Coordinate Efforts for Reducing Unauthorized Discharges — Implementation Schedule and Tasks .............................................................. 94 Table A-10. Management Measure 8: Coordinate and Expand Existing Water Quality Monitoring in the Watershed — Implementation Schedule and Tasks ............................... 95 Table B-1. Estimated loading reductions from compliance of all WWTFs with TWQS geomean for Entero. ................................................................................................................. 97 Table B-2. Summary of Short Term (Years 1-5) Implementation and Enterococcus Reductions .............................................................................................................................. 102 Table B-3. Summary of Long Term Implementation and Enterococcus Reductions. ...... 102


Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 1 Peer Review Draft, Date

Implementation Plan for Two TMDLs for Bacteria

in the Tidal Segment of the Mission and Aransas Rivers

Executive Summary Currently, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is considering Two Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Bacteria in the Tidal Segments of the Mission and Aransas Rivers (Segments 2001 and 2003) for public comment and simultaneously considering this associated Implementation Plan for public comment. The tidal segments of the Mission and Aransas Rivers fall within two segments listed by the state, segments 2001 and 2003 respectively. These water bodies are the primary sources of freshwater for Copano Bay, provide habitat for a wide varie-ty of aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species (including the endangered Whooping Crane), and is a prime area for many types of recreation. Regulated dischargers consist of 3 WWTFs in the Mission River watershed and 9 WWTFs in the Aransas River watershed. Table 1. Sampling results used for the 2012 waterbody assessment

Water-body

Seg-ment Num-

ber

Assess-ment Unit

(AU) Parameter Station

No. of Sam-ples

Data Date

Range

Station Geometric

Mean (MPN/100

mL) Mission

River Tidal

2001 2001_01 Enterococcus Geomean

12943 28 2001-2008

68

Aransas River Tidal

2003 2003_01 Enterococcus Geomean

12948/ 12947

28 2001-2008

66

Table 1 contains the sampling results from the 2012 Texas Integrated Report. Samples for this assessment were taken at 1 station on the tidal segment of the Mission River and 2 stations on the tidal segment of the Aransas River. The TMDL developed identifies regulated sources and unregulated sources of bac-teria in the watersheds that could contribute to the water quality impairment. Regulated sources identified are primarily permitted discharges of wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs). Unregulated sources that could contribute to the bacteria load to the Mission and Aransas tidal segments include domestic animals (e.g., cattle, horses, dogs), neglected and failing on-site sewage facilities (OSSFs), wildlife and other unmanaged animals (e.g., deer, feral hogs, waterfowl and other



birds). In addition, illicit dumping and urban stormwater have also been identified as potential contributors. To develop the TMDL, the Load Duration Curve (LDCs) approach was utilized. LDCs allow for pollutant estimation of existing and allowable loads by utilizing cumulative frequency, distribution of streamflow, and measured pollutant concen-tration data (Clealand 2013). LDCs also allow for the determination of the hydrologic conditions that the impairment most commonly occurs under. With this information, broad categories of the impairment can be classified (point source and nonpoint source) (Painter, Hauck et al. 2013). The TMDL calculations in this report will guide determination of the assimilative capacity of each stream under changing conditions, including future growth. To meet the appropriate water quali-ty standards in the future, as calculated by the TMDL, stakeholders have outlined in this implementation plan, the locally preferred strategy. This implementation plan, or I-Plan: describes the steps that TCEQ and stakeholders will take to achieve the

pollutant reductions identified in the TMDL report, and outlines the schedule for implementation activities.

The ultimate goal of this I-Plan is the reduction of bacteria concentrations in tidal segments of the Mission and Aransas Rivers (segments 2001 and 2003 respective-ly), by approximately 25% in the next 5 years. The ultimate long term goal of future phases of implementation will be to achieve water quality standards. This I-Plan includes 8 management measures and 2 control actions that will be implemented to reduce the level of bacteria in the Mission and Aransas tidal seg-ments. Implementation of these measures will largely be dependent upon the availability of funding. Management Measures and Control Actions include: Control Actions 1. Monitoring WWTF Effluent to Ensure Permit Compliance 2 Improve and Upgrade WWTFs Management Measures 1. Develop and Implement Conservation Plans in Priority Areas of the Watershed 2. Explore Feasibility of Altering Tax Exemption Requirements for Small Acreage

Landowners 3. Promote the Management of and Control Feral Hog Populations 4. Promote the Reduction of Illicit Dumping and Proper Disposal of Animal Car-

casses 5. Identify OSSFs, Prioritize Problem Areas, and Systematically Work to Bring

Systems into Compliance



6. Promote the Improved Quality of and Management of Urban Storm water 7. Coordinate Efforts for Reducing Unauthorized Discharges 8. Coordinate and Expand Existing Water Quality Monitoring in the Watershed The TCEQ will track the progress of this I-Plan in restoring the affected use. Water quality data will be collected to identify trends and compliance with the water qual-ity standards. If standards are not attained by the end of the monitoring period, the TCEQ will reevaluate the TMDL and the I-Plan and reassess the strategy taken. The TCEQ will report the results of implementation tracking and evaluation in its biennial program status report and at regional forums.



Introduction To keep Texas’ commitment to restore and maintain water quality in impaired riv-ers, lakes, and bays, the TCEQ worked with stakeholders to develop an I-Plan for each adopted TMDL. A TMDL is a technical analysis that: determines the amount of a particular pollutant that a water body can receive

and still meet applicable water quality standards, and sets limits on categories of sources that will result in achieving standards. This I-Plan is designed to guide activities that will achieve the water quality goals for the Mission and Aransas River tidal segments as defined in the TMDL. This I-Plan is a flexible tool that governmental and nongovernmental organizations in-volved in implementation can use to guide their activities to reduce bacteria loads. The participating partners may accomplish the activities described in this I-Plan through rule, order, guidance, or other appropriate formal or informal action. This I-Plan contains the following components for each control action and man-agement measure:

1) A description of control actions and management measures1 that will be im-plemented to achieve the water quality target.

2) An educational component that will contribute to meeting the goals of the control action and management measure

3) The priority areas in which implementation of control actions and man-agement measures should occur

4) Measurable milestones to determine how the control actions and manage-ment measures will be measured

5) Progress Indicators to be measured against to determine the level of achievement for control actions and management measures

6) A monitoring component to guide how control actions and management measures have effected in-stream water quality

7) Technical assistance that is available for each control action and manage-ment measure

8) Financial assistance needed to accomplish the goals of each control action and management measure

9) A schedule of implementation for each control action and management measure

10) An estimate of loading reductions expected from each control action and management measure as it could be calculated

1 Control actions refer to regulated sources reduction strategies, generally TPDES permits. Management measures refer to strategies for

reducing unregulated pollutants, generally through voluntary best management practices (BMPs).



Provided the above components for each management measure, as outlined in the Nonpoint Source Program Grants Guidelines for States and Territories (EPA, 2003), projects developed to implement unregulated (nonpoint) source elements of this plan that meet the grant program conditions may be eligible for funding un-der the EPA’s Section 319(h) incremental grant program. In accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the TCEQ and the TSSWCB Regarding TMDLs, I-Plans, and Watershed Protection Plans, the TSSWCB will consider approval of this I-Plan. The TSSWCB has primary responsi-bility for managing programs and practices for the prevention and abatement of nonpoint sources of water pollution originating from agricultural and silvicultural (forestry) activities in Texas. The TCEQ has primary responsibility for restoring water quality standards in all impaired water bodies in Texas.

Watershed Overview The TCEQ first identified the impairments to tidal segments of the Mission and Aransas Rivers (2001 and 2003 respectively) in 2004 in the 2004 Texas 303(d) List (May 13, 2005). The impaired assessment units are 2001_1 and 2003_1. The tidal segments of both the Mission and Aransas Rivers lie within the Copano Bay watershed which encompasses nearly all of the entire San Antonio – Nueces Basin. The landuses for the two watershed can be found in Table 2 and a descrip-tion of the each land use classifications can be found at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd06_leg.php.



Table 2. NLCD Land Use Classification Acreage for the Mission and Aransas Wa-tersheds

NLCD Land Use Classification Mission River Water-shed

Aransas River Water-shed

Open Water 846 1,224

Developed, Open Space 21,063 21,678

Developed, Low Intensity 4,086 7,881

Developed, Medium Intensity 475 2,585

Developed, High Intensity 74 517

Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 1,708 661

Deciduous Forest 44,532 14,098

Evergreen Forest 3,685 352

Mixed Forest 359 20

Shrub/Scrub 278,232 116,254

Grassland/Herbaceous 33,522 14,965

Pasture/Hay 207,377 100,958

Cultivated Crops 38,523 241,386

Woody Wetlands 13,771 10,159

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 10,562 7,054

Total 658,814 539,793

The Mission River watershed begins in Southern Karnes County and North West-ern Bee County, bordering the San Antonio River Basin on the North and Eastern portion of the watershed as it transects portions of Bee, Goliad, and Refugio Coun-ties. On the Southern and Western region of the watershed, the topographic boundary extends from north of Beeville, North East of Skidmore, and South of Woodsboro. The primary urban areas of this watershed are Pettus, Woodsboro, and Refugio. Major tributaries include the Medio Creek, Blanco Creek, and Melon Creek. Figure 1 displays the boundaries for the Mission River Watershed. The Aransas River originates northwest of the City of Beeville, follows the Bee and Live Oak county line to Southern Bee County and continues Southeast to Odem, South of the City of Taft and parallel to McKamey Road until it reaches the mouth of the Aransas River. Urban areas in the Aransas River watershed include Beeville, Tynan, Skidmore, St. Paul, Sinton, Taft, and a small portion of Odem. Major tribu-taries for the Aransas River are the Aransas creek, Poesta creek, Papalote creek, and Chiltipin creek. Figure 1 displays the boundaries for the Aransas River Water-shed.



Figure 1. Boundaries for the Mission and Aransas River Watersheds

Several Cities and Municipal Districts discharge treated effluent into tributaries that flow into the Mission and Aransas Rivers; however, some discharge into water bodies that flow outside the watersheds of interest. Table 3 contains a list of dis-chargers into waterbodies that flow into the respective water bodies of interest.



Table 3. Municipal Dischargers into the Mission and Aransas Watersheds Mission River Watershed Aransas River Watershed

Pettus MUD City of Sinton

Town of Refugio Rob and Bessie Welder Park (City of Sinton)

Town of Woodsboro City of Beeville

Chase Field (City of Beeville)

City of Taft

Skidmore WSC

St. Paul WSC

Tynan WSC

Texas Department of Transportation - Sinton Engi-neering Building WWTF

Summary of TMDLs This section summarizes the information developed for the Two Total Maximum Daily Loads for Indicator Bacteria in the Mission and Aransas Rivers. Additional background information including the problem definition, endpoint identification, source analysis, linkages between sources and receiving waters, and pollutant load allocations can be found in the draft TMDLs for the Mission and Aransas Rivers. Unless otherwise noted, all information contained in this section was derived from the Technical Support Document for Total Maximum Daily Loads for Indicator Bacteria in the Watersheds of the Mission and Aransas (Segments 2001 and 2003) (Painter, Hauck et al. 2013). The Mission and Aransas Rivers (Segments 2001 and 2003) were both listed on the Texas Integrated Report – Texas 303(d) List in 2004 for having Enterococcus levels that exceeded water quality standards (TCEQ, 2012). Enterococci are the preferred indicator bacteria for assessing the recreational use in tidal water bodies, and were used for analysis to support TMDL development for the Mission and Aransas Rivers. The criteria for assessing attainment of the primary contact recrea-tion use are expressed as the number (or “counts) of Enterococci bacteria, given by most probable number (MPN). For the Enterococcus indicator, if the minimum sample requirement is met, the primary contact recreation use is not supported when:

The geometric mean of all Enterococcus samples exceeds 35 MPN per 100 mL;

And/or the individual samples exceed 89 MPN per 100 mL more than 25 percent of the time.



Table 4 provides a summary of the water quality data from 2001 to 2008 and illus-trates the current water quality at the monitoring station and stream segments. Table 4. Water Quality Inventory Assessment Data, 2001 – 2008

Water-body

Seg-ment Num-

ber

As-sessmen

t Unit (AU)

Parame-ter Station

No. of Samples

Data Date Range

Station Ge-ometric

Mean (MPN/100

mL) Mission

River Tidal

2001 2001_01 Entero-coccus

Geomean

12943 28 2001-2008 68

Aransas River Tidal

2003 2003_01 Entero-coccus

Geomean

12948/ 12947

28 2001-2008 66

Pollutant Load Allocation Sampling for the Mission and Aransas TMDL consisted of routine, quarterly water-quality monitoring conducted between 2001 and 2008 by the Nueces River Au-thority (NRA) through the TCEQ’s Clean Rivers Program. The geometric mean concentration of Enterococcus exceeded the criterion of 35 MPN/100 mL during the time period used for the 2010 Texas Integreated Report assessment. . No addi-tional monitoring was conducted as part of the TMDL development process. A TMDL estimates the maximum amount of a pollutant that the stream can receive in a single day without exceeding water quality standards. It also establishes pollu-tant contribution levels from source categories that will result in achieving water quality standards. The pollutant load allocations were calculated using the follow-ing equation:

TMDL = ∑WLA + ∑LA + ∑FG + MOS Where: WLA = waste load allocation, the amount of pollutant allowed from permit-ted dischargers LA = load allocation, the amount of pollution allowed from unregulated sources FG = future growth associated with regulated facilities MOS = margin of safety Updates to TMDLs are made through the TCEQ’s Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which provides long-range planning and technical data for management activities, as required under the Texas Water Code and federal Clean Water Act.



Waste Load Allocation (WLA) The Waste Load Allocation (WLA) consists of two parts – the waste load that is allocated to permitted wastewater treatment facilities (WLAWWTF) and the waste load that is allocated to permitted stormwater dischargers (WLASW). The Equa-tion can be expressed as follows: WLA = WLAWWTF + WLASW Where:

WLAWWTF =Waste Load Allocation from WWTFs WLASW= Waste Load Allocation from Stormwater

Wastewater Treatment Facilities TPDES-permitted wastewater treatment facilities are allocated a daily waste load (WLAWWTF) calculated as their full permitted discharge flow rate multiplied by the instream geometric criterion. The water quality criterion (35 MPN/100mL) is used as the WWTF target to provide instream and downstream load capacity. This is expressed in the following equation: WLAWWTF = Criterion * Flow (MGD) * conversion factor * (1 – FMOS) (Eq. 5) Where:

Criterion= 35 MPN/100 mL Flow (MGD) = full permitted flow Conversion factor = 283.16846592 100 mL/ft3 * 86,400 seconds/day FMOS = fraction of loading assigned to margin of safety (5% or 0.05)

The full permitted flows for all WWTFs within the Mission and Aransas River wa-tersheds are all included in the WLAWWTF computation. Two of the WWTFs have been approved for expansion (City of Beeville – Chase Field WWTF and City of Sinton – Rod and Bessie Welder WWTF), and their full permitted flows upon completion of the expansions are used in the WLAWWTF calculations.



Table 5. WLAWWTF calculations for downstream stations within the Mission and Aransas Rivers. Water- shed

AU TPDES Permit No.

Facility Full Permitted Flow a,b WLAWWTF

MGD CFS Entero- cocci

MPN/ day

Entero- cocci Billion MPN/

day

Mission (12943)

2001 WQ0010156001 Town of Woodsboro WWTF 0.25 0.39 3.31E+08 0.3312

2002 WQ0010748001 Pettus MUD WWTF 0.105 0.162 1.39E+08 0.1391

2002 WQ0010255001 Town of Refugio WWTF 0.576 0.891 7.63E+08 0.7631

Mission Total 0.931 1.440 1.23E+09 1.2335

Aransas (12947)

2003 WQ0010055001 Main WWTF City of Sinton 0.80 1.24 1.06E+09 1.0599

2003 WQ0013641001

Rod and Bessie Welder WWTF City of Sinton

0.015 0.023 1.99E07 0.0199

2003 WQ0010705001

City of Taft WWTF 0.90 1.39 1.19E+09 1.1924

2003 WQ0014119001 St. Paul WSC WWTF

0.05 0.08 6.62E+07 0.0662

2003 WQ0013412001 Texas Department of Transportation - Sinton Engineering Building WWTF

0.00038 0.00059 5.03E+05 0.0005

2004 WQ0010124004 City of Beeville - Chase Field WWTF

2.5 3.9 3.31E+09 3.3122

2004 WQ0010124002 City of Beeville - Moore Street WWTF

3.0 4.6 3.97E+09 3.9747

2004 WQ0014112001 Skidmore WSC WWTF 0.131 0.203 1.74E+08 0.1736

2004 WQ0014123001 Tynan WSC WWTF

0.045 0.070 5.96E+07 0.0596

Aransas Total 7.4414

11.5135 9.86E+09 9.8590

a Expansion permitted flows are included for City of Beeville - Chase Field WWTF and City of Sinton - Rod and Bessie Welder WWTF b Significant figures reflect MGD figures presented in TPDES permits.



Regulated Storm Water Stormwater discharges from MS4, industrial, and construction areas are also con-sidered permitted or regulated point sources. Therefore, the WLA calculations must also include an allocation for permitted stormwater discharges (WLASW). A simplified approach for estimating the WLA for these areas was used in the devel-opment of these TMDLs due to the limited amount of data available, the complexities associated with simulating rainfall runoff, and the variability of stormwater loading. The percentage of each watershed that is under the jurisdic-tion of stormwater permits is used to estimate the amount of the overall runoff load that should be allocated as the permitted stormwater contribution in the WLASW component of the TMDL. The LA component of the TMDL corresponds to direct nonpoint runoff and is the difference between the total load from storm wa-ter runoff and the portion allocated to WLASW. WLASW is the sum of loads from regulated (or permitted) stormwater sources and is calculated as follows:

WLASW = (TMDL – WLAWWTF – FG – MOS) * FDASWP Where:

WLASW = sum of all permitted storm water loads TMDL = total maximum daily load WLAWWTF = sum of all WWTF loads FG = sum of future growth loads from potential permitted facilities MOS = margin of safety load FDASWP = fractional proportion of drainage area under jurisdiction of stormwater permits

In order to calculate the WLASW component of the TMDL, the Future Growth component (FG) must first be known. At this point in the process, only FDASWP can be calculated. The percentage of each watershed that is under the jurisdiction of stormwater permits is used to estimate the amount of overall runoff load that should be allocated in WLASW as the permitted stormwater contribution. A search for five categories of stormwater general permits was performed and results can be found in Table 5. For the Multi-sector and Concrete Production general permits, only the acreages associated with active permits were tallied. These acreages were calculated by importing the location information associated with the authorizations into GIS, and measuring the estimated disturbed area based on the most recently available aerial imagery. For the Construction Activities general permits, the authorization contains an Area Disturbed field. Due to the variable and temporary nature of construction projects, it was preferable to average the acreages (on a monthly ba-sis) associated with active permits over the entire available period of record (approximately 5 years). The results of this temporal averaging were used as rep-resentative of the average area under Construction Activities stormwater permits.



Table 6. Stormwater General Permit areas and calculation of the FDASWP term for the Mission and Aransas Rivers.

Water-shed

MS4 Area (acres)

Construc-tion Activities Area (acres)

Concrete Produc-tion Facilities Area (acres)

Petrole-um Bulk Stations Area (acres)

Permits Total Area (acres)

Per-mits Total Area (acres)

Watershed Area (acres)

FDASWP

Mission (2001)

0 343 57 0 0 475.5 658,817.5 0.06%

Aransas (2003)

0 49 149 5 0 208.6 539,806.1 0.04%

In order to calculate WLASW, the Future Growth (FG) term must be known. The calculation for the FG term is presented in the next section, but the results will be included here for continuity. Table 7. WLASW calculations for downstream stations within the Mission and Aransas Rivers.

Watershed TMDL WLAWWTF

FG

MOS

FDASWP

WLASW

Units in Billion MPN/ day Enterococci

Mission (12943)

370.4171

1.2335

0.1255

18.5209

0.0006

0.2126

Aransas (12947)

149.0665

9.8590

1.2539

7.4533

0.0004

0.0490

Table 8. WLA calculations for downstream stations within the Mission and Aransas Rivers. Watershed WLAWWTF WLASW WLA


Mission (12943) 1.2335 0.2126 1.4460

Aransas (12947) 9.8590 0.0490 9.9080

Implementation of WLAs The TMDL document will result in protection of existing beneficial uses and con-form to Texas’s antidegradation policy. The three-tiered antidegradation policy in the Standards prohibits an increase in loading that would cause or contribute to degradation of an existing use. The Antidegradation Policy applies to point source pollutant discharges. In general, antidegradation procedures establish a process for reviewing individual proposed actions to determine if the activity will degrade wa-ter quality.



The TCEQ intends to implement the individual WLAs through the permitting pro-cess as monitoring requirements and/or effluent limitations as required by the amendment of 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 319 which became effective November 26, 2009. WWTFs discharging to the TMDL Segments will be assigned an effluent limit based on the TMDL. Monitoring requirements are based on per-mitted flow rates and are listed in §319.9. The permit requirements will be implemented during the routine permit renewal process. However, there may be a more economic or technically feasible means of achieving the goal of improved water quality and circumstances may warrant changes in individual WLAs after the TMDL is adopted. Therefore, the individual WLAs, as well as the WLAs for stormwater, are non-binding until implemented via a separate TPDES permitting action, which may involve preparation of an update to the state’s Water Quality Management Plan. Regardless, all permitting actions will demonstrate compliance with the TMDL. The executive director or commission may establish interim effluent limits and/or monitoring-only requirements at a permit amendment or permit renewal. These interim limits will allow a permittee time to modify effluent quality in order to at-tain the final effluent limits necessary to meet the TCEQ and EPA approved TMDL allocations. The duration of any interim effluent limits may not be any longer than three years from the date of permit re-issuance. New permits will not contain inter-im effluent limits because compliance schedules are not allowed for a new permit. Where a TMDL has been approved, domestic WWTF TPDES permits will require conditions consistent with the requirements and assumptions of the wasteload al-locations. For NPDES/ TPDES-regulated municipal, construction stormwater discharges, and industrial stormwater discharges, water quality-based effluent lim-its (WQBELs) that implement the WLA for stormwater may be expressed as BMPs or other similar requirements, rather than as numeric effluent limits. The November 22, 2002 memorandum from EPA relating to establishing WLAs for stormwater sources states:

“The Interim Permitting Approach Policy recognizes the need for an iterative approach to control pollutants in stormwater discharges. Specifically, the policy anticipates that a suite of BMPs will be used in the initial rounds of permits and that these BMPs will be tailored in subsequent rounds.”

Using this iterative adaptive BMP approach to the maximum extent practicable is appropriate to address the stormwater component of this TMDL.



Updates to WLAs This TMDL is, by definition, the total of the sum of the wasteload allocation, the sum of the load allocation, and the margin of safety. Changes to individual WLAs may be necessary in the future in order to accommodate growth or other changing conditions. These changes to individual WLAs do not ordinarily require a revision of the TMDL document; instead, changes will be made through updates to the TCEQ’s Water Quality Management Plan. Any future changes to effluent limita-tions will be addressed through the permitting process and by updating the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Load Allocation The load allocation (LA) is the loads from unregulated sources, and is calculated as:

LA = TMDL - WLA - FG - MOS

Where: LA = allowable loads from unregulated sources within the AU TMDL = total maximum daily load WLA = sum of all WWTF loads and all permitted stormwater loads FG = sum of future growth loads from potential permitted facilities MOS = margin of safety load

Table 9. LA calculations for downstream stations within the Mission and Aransas Rivers. Assessment Unit TMDL WLA FG MOS LA


Mission (2001_01)

370.4171

1.4460

0.1255

18.5209

350.3248

Aransas (2003_01)

149.0665

9.9080

1.2539

7.4533

130.4513

Allowance for Future Growth (AFG) The Future Growth (FG) component of the TMDL equation addresses the require-ment of TMDLs to account for future loadings that may occur as a result of population growth, changes in community infrastructure, and development. The assimilative capacity of streams increases as the amount of flow increases. Increas-es in flow allow for additional indicator bacteria loads if the concentrations are at or below the contact recreation standard.



Currently there are 12 facilities that treat domestic water are located within the Mission and Aransas River watersheds; 3 in the Mission watershed and 9 in the Aransas watershed (Table 5). To account for the FG component of the impaired segments (2001 or 2003), the loading from all WWTFs are included in the FG computation, which is based on the WLAWWTF formula. The FG equation contains an additional term to account for projected population growth within the WWTF service areas between 2010 and 2050, based on data obtained from the TWDB 2017 State Water Plan Projections Data website (TWDB 2013). Thus, the future growth (FG) term is calculated as follows: FG = Criterion * [%POP2010-2050 * Flow (MGD)] * Conversion Factor * (1 – FMOS) Where:

Criterion = 35 MPN/100 mL %POP2010-2050 = estimated % increase in population between 2010 and 2050 Flow (MGD) = full permitted flow Conversion factor = 283.16846592 100 mL/ft3 * 86,400 seconds/day FMOS = fraction of loading assigned to margin of safety (5% or 0.05)

The calculation results are shown in Table 10.



Table 10. FG calculations for downstream stations within the Mission and Aransas Rivers. Entries are sorted alphabetically by County and Watershed User Group.

Watershed County

Watershed User Group (WUG)

% Popula-tion Increase (2010-2050) Facility Segment

Full Per-mitted Flow (CFS)a,b

Future Growth (CFS)

FG (Entero-cocci Billion MPN/ day)

Mission

Bee County - Other

11.6% Pettus MUD WWTF 2002 0.162 0.0188 0.0161

Refugio

Refugio 10.0% Town of Refugio WWTF 2002 0.891 0.0891 0.0763

Woodsboro 10.0% Town of Woodsboro WWTF 2001 0.39 0.0386 0.0331

Mission Total 1.440 0.1465 0.1255

Aransas Bee

Beeville 11.6% City of Beevillle -Moore Street WWTF 2004 4.6 0.5370 0.4598

County - Other

11.6% City of Beevillle - Chase Field WWTF 2004 3.9 0.4470 0.3828

11.6% Skidmore WSC WWTF 2004 0.203 0.0234 0.0201

11.6% Tynan WSC WWTF 2004 0.070 0.0080 0.0069

San Patricio

County - Other

16.4% St. Paul WSC WWTF 2003 0.08 0.0127 0.0109

16.4% Texas Dept of Transportation - Sinton Engineering Building WWTF

2003 0.00059 0.00010 0.0001

Sinton 16.4% City of Sinton-Main WWTF 2003 1.24 0.2034 0.1742

16.4% City of Sinton-Rod and Bessie Welder WWTF

2003 0.023 0.0038 0.0033

Taft 16.4% City of Taft WWTF 2003 1.39 0.2289 0.1960

Aransas Total 11.514 1.464 1.2539

a Full permitted flows includes post‐expansion flows for City of Beeville ‐ Chase Field WWTF and City of Sinton ‐ Rod and Bessie Welder WWTF b Significant figures reflect MGD figures presented in TPDES permits



Summary of TMDL Calculations Each of the TMDLs were calculated based on the median flow in the 0-10 percen-tile range (5% exceedance, high flow regime) for flow exceedance from the LDC developed for the downstream SWQM station within each watershed. Allocations are based on the current geometric mean criterion for Enterococcus of 35 MPN/100 mL for each component of the TMDL. The final TMDL allocations needed to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 130.7 include the future growth component within the WLAWWTF while allocations to permitted MS4 entities are designated as WLAsw. The LA component of the fi-nal TMDL allocations includes both tributary and upstream bacteria loadings and loadings arising from within each segment from non-permitted sources (LA). Overall, the TMDL equation can be expanded to show the components of WLA and LA that also includes allowable future growth (AFG); however, in Table 11 AFG is included in the WLAWWTF calculation:

TMDL = WLAWWTF + WLASW + LA + AFG + MOS Table 11. TMDL Allocation Summary for Impaired Mission River Tidal and Aransas River Tidal Watersheds (units in billion MPN/day Enterococci)

AU Stream Name

TMDL WLAWWTF* WLASW LA MOS

2001_01 Mission River Tidal 370.417 1.291 0.213 350.393 18.521

2003_01 Aransas River Tidal

149.066 6.187 0.051 135.375 7.453

* WLAWWTF includes the future potential allocation to wastewater treatment facilities

Implementation Strategy This plan documents 8 Management Measures and 2 Control Actions to reduce bacteria loads. Management Measures are voluntary activities, such as adopting Best Management Practices under Conservation Plans. Control Actions are regula-tory activities, such as monitoring E. coli and/or Enterococcus concentrations in WWTF effluent. Management Measures were selected based on feasibility, costs, support, and timing. Implementation activities can be implemented in phases based on the needs of the stakeholders, availability of funding, and the progress made in improving water quality. In an effort to identify priority areas where im-plementation would be most effective, subwatersheds were identified and listed in each management measure using the unique numbers in Figure 2. Finally, this Implementation Plan is meant to be a 5 year strategy to guide progress in imple-mentation toward achieving water quality standards.



Figure 2 Numbered subwatersheds for the Aransas and Mission River watersheds

Adaptive Implementation All I-Plans are implemented using an adaptive management approach in which measures are periodically assessed for efficiency and effectiveness. This adaptive management approach is one of the most important elements of the I-Plan. The iterative process of evaluation and adjustment ensures continuing progress toward achieving water quality goals, and expresses stakeholder commitment to the pro-cess. At annual meetings hosted by TCEQ, the stakeholders will periodically assess pro-gress using the schedule of implementation, interim measurable milestones, water quality data, and the communication strategy included in this document. If period-ic assessments find that insufficient progress has been made or that implementation activities have improved water quality, the implementation strate-gy will be adjusted.



Activities and Milestones To facilitate the development of the Mission and Aransas Rivers TMDL I-Plan, public meetings were held January 2012 through August 2013. From these meet-ings, a coordination committee was formed that consists of watershed stakeholders and is considered the local decision making body for the development of the I-Plan. The stakeholders felt it pertinent to form workgroups to determine appropri-ate Management Measures and Control Actions for the workgroup’s respective area of interest. The developmental workgroups were: Agricultural and Wildlife, and Wastewater. Each workgroup developed detailed, consensus-based sections of this I-Plan for the bacteria loading sources in the watershed. The Management Measures and Control Actions contained in this I-Plan are the combined products of the two workgroups. The Mission and Aransas River I-Plan includes the eight stakeholder-developed Management Measures and two Control Actions described in the following sec-tions. Control Action

1) Monitoring WWTF Effluent to Ensure Permit Compliance 2) Improve and Upgrade WWTFs

Management Measures

1) Develop and Implement Conservation Plans in Priority Areas of the Wa-tershed

2) Explore Feasibility of Altering Tax Exemption Requirements for Small Acreage Landowners

3) Promote the Management of and Control Feral Hog Populations 4) Promote the Reduction of Illicit Dumping and Proper Disposal of Animal

Carcasses 5) Identify OSSFs, Prioritize Problem Areas, and Systematically Work to

Bring Systems into Compliance 6) Promote the Improved Quality of and Management of Urban Storm water 7) Coordinate Efforts for Reducing Unauthorized Discharges 8) Coordinate and Expand Existing Water Quality Monitoring in the Water-

shed



Control Action 1.0 Monitoring WWTF Effluent to Ensure Permit Compliance Description In November 2009, the TCEQ commissioners approved Rule Project No. 2009-005-309-PR. This rule requires the addition of bacteria limits for either E. coli in freshwater discharges or Enterococci in saltwater discharges to all TPDES domes-tic permits during their next permit amendment or revision. This rule is defined in title 30 Administrative Code Chapter 309 and the frequency of testing is defined in chapter 319. Through this Control Action, each permit holder will continue to monitor for E. coli or Enterococcus concentrations in WWTF effluent as required by individual WWTF permits and any subsequent permit amendments or revisions. Each permit specifically outlines the effluent constituents that require monitoring as well as the monitoring frequency to which the permittee must adhere. If the permit does not specify a sampling frequency for bacteria, the permittee should begin sampling no less than once per quarter. The TCEQ reviews and documents compliance with in-dividual permits. WWTF permits are issued every five years and must be renewed by the permittee. Currently 12 permitted WWTFs exist in the Mission and Aransas River watersheds where 9 are required to monitor for E. coli and 1 is required to monitor for Entero-coccus levels in effluent. The other 2 will be required to monitor for E. coli or Enterococcus upon renewal of (or amendment to) their permits. Table 12 provides information regarding current bacteria limits, treatment type, and monitoring fre-quency for each individual WWTF. Also, Section 303(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act requires that a MOS be included in all TMDLs. Applying this in the Mission and Aransas River watersheds will re-sult in five percent reductions in allowable E. coli and Enterococcus discharge limits as described in individual TPDES permits. The allowable daily average for E. coli will be reduced from 126 cfu/100mL to 120 cfu/100mL and the allowable daily average of Enterococcus will be reduced from 35 cfu/100mL to 33 cfu/100mL. Changes will occur following the approval of the TMDL and during the next amendment or revision to an individual permit.



Table 12. Permitted WWTFs in the Mission and Aransas River Watersheds

Entity Name Permit Number

E. coli / Entero-coccus

Monitoring Permit Expi-ration Date

Sampling Fre-quency Bacteria Treatment Type

Moore Street WWTF (City of Beeville) WQ0010124-002 E. coli 3/1/2015 One/week Chlorination

Chase Field (City of Beeville) WQ0010124-004 E. coli 3/1/2015 Two/month Chlorination

City of Sinton WQ0010055-001 N/A 3/1/2014 N/A N/A

Rod and Bessie Welder WWTF (City of Sinton)

WQ0013641001

E. coli 3/1/2104 Five/week Chlorination

Town of Woodsboro WQ0010156-001 E. coli 3/1/2015 One/month Chlorination

Town of Refugio WQ0010255-001 E. coli 3/1/2015 Two/month Chlorination

City of Taft WQ0010705-001 Enterococcus 3/1/2015 Two/month Chlorination

Pettus MUD WQ0010748-001 E. coli 3/1/2015 One/month Chlorination

Skidmore WSC WQ0014112-001 N/A 3/1/2015 E. coli Chlorination

St. Paul WSC WQ0014119-001 E. coli 3/1/2015 One/quarter Chlorination

Tynan WSC WQ0014123-001 E. coli 3/1/2015 One/quarter Chlorination

Sinton Engineer Building WWTF (TXDOT)

WQ0013412-001 E. coli 3/1/2015 One/week Chlorination



Education Component The bulk of the educational needs related to this Control Action consist of training staff to properly take samples of treated effluent to get the most accurate results possible. Additionally, elected officials should be educated about the importance of monitoring treated effluent and the potential impacts of noncompliance. Priority Areas Priority areas for this Control Action consist of the location of each WWTF and their respective outfalls but especially those that discharge into or near the im-paired water bodies. Measurable Milestones Measurable milestones for this Control Action consist of:

Number of noncompliant samples quarterly and/or annually Progress Indicators Progress indicators for this Control Action consist of:

Year 1 – 5% reduction of noncompliant samples reported Year 2 – 5% reduction of noncompliant samples reported from previous

year Year 3 – 5% reduction of noncompliant samples reported from previous



year Monitoring Component To ensure in-stream compliance with the standards for this management measure, TCEQ CRP monitoring stations will be utilized for measuring bacteria loadings, especially in critical areas. Additional special monitoring may be needed and should be developed under Management Measure 8 of this document. Responsible Parties City of Beeville will be responsible for maintaining compliance with permit re-quirements at city operated WWTFs through monitoring as required by the permit. City of Sinton will be responsible for maintaining compliance with permit require-ments at city operated WWTFs through monitoring as required by the permit.

Town of Woodsboro will be responsible for maintaining compliance with permit requirements at the city operated WWTF through monitoring as required by the permit.



Town of Refugio will be responsible for maintaining compliance with permit re-quirements at the city operated WWTF through monitoring as required by the permit.

City of Taft will be responsible for maintaining compliance with permit require-ments at the city operated WWTF through monitoring as required by the permit.

Pettus MUD will be responsible for maintaining compliance with permit require-ments at the city operated WWTF through monitoring as required by the permit.

Skidmore WSC will be responsible for maintaining compliance with permit re-quirements at the city operated WWTF through monitoring as required by the permit.

St. Paul WSC will be responsible for maintaining compliance with permit require-ments at the city operated WWTF through monitoring as required by the permit.

Tynan WSC will be responsible for maintaining compliance with permit require-ments at the city operated WWTF through monitoring as required by the permit.

Sinton Engineer Building WWTF (TXDOT) will be responsible for maintaining compliance with permit requirements at the city operated WWTF through monitor-ing as required by the permit. Technical Assistance TCEQ is responsible for permit compliance and enforcement and provide technical assistance as appropriate Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service (TEEX) offers a Water and Wastewater Technical Assistance Program for small wastewater systems within the state. The program aims to provide technical assistance and training to small wastewater sys-tems to help correct wastewater system operational problems. One-on-one technical assistance is available for these small wastewater systems to determine issues with system performance and ensure that the systems are running within permitted limited and in compliance. Texas Rural Water Association has two wastewater training and technical assis-tance providers who assist wastewater systems across the state. They provide training workshops across the state that address topics like wastewater operations and maintenance, testing procedures, rule updates, management, security and other topics as needed or requested that relate to wastewater. They also provide on-site technical assistance to non-profit wastewater systems, districts and small cities that have less than population of 10,000. This technical assistance deals with operations, maintenance, collection systems, treatment facilities, rates, manage-



ment, rule changes, state laws and other topics or situations that occur in the wastewater systems. Chemtech offers onsite training to their customers as part of their water treatment services. This is accomplished through hands on instruction and seminars on basic water treatment practices and procedures, control testing, and the safe handling of chemicals.

Financial Assistance TWDB Economically Distressed Areas Program - The Economically Distressed Are-as Program (EDAP) provides financial assistance to provide water and wastewater services to economically distressed areas where services do not exist or systems do not meet minimum state standards.

USDA Rural Utilities Service Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants- The Ru-ral Utilities Service (RUS) is amending its regulations related to the Section 306C Water and Waste Disposal (WWD) Loans and Grants Program, which provides wa-ter and waste disposal facilities and services to low-income rural communities whose residents face significant health risks. Specifically, RUS is modifying the pri-ority points system in order to give additional priority points to the colonias that lack access to water or waste disposal systems and face significant health problems. The intent is to ensure that the neediest areas receive funding.

EPA/TWDB Clean Water State Revolving Fund - The CWSRF program provides very attractive, low-interest loans that spread project costs over a repayment period of up to twenty years. Repayments are cycled back into the fund and used to pay for additional clean water projects. CWSRF programs are currently funding projects that address agriculture runoff, leaking on-site septic systems, and urban non-point source pollution, including stormwater runoff and brownfield contamination. Table 13. Estimated Costs Entity Activities Needed Estimated Costs

All Responsible Parties Education for City Personnel, Edu-cation for City Officials, etc. – at least 1 event annually for the entire watershed

$25,000

Implementation Schedule All permittees will monitor according to their permit requirements and report re-sults appropriately throughout implementation of this plan. Progress indicators will be tracked by TCEQ (per the above annual indicators) and communicated to stakeholders as appropriate. Estimated Loading Reductions No loading reductions could be estimated.



Table 14. Summary of Control Action 1.0: Monitoring WWTF Effluent to Ensure Permit Compliance

Potential Load Reduction

Technical and Financial Assistance

Needed Education

Component Schedule of

Implementation

Interim, Measurable Milestones

Indicators of Progress

Monitoring Component

Responsible Entity

N/A

Technical Assistance

TCEQ permit compli-ance/assistance

Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service (TEEX)

Texas Rural Water Asso-ciation

Chemtech

Train WWTF staff on proper effluent sam-pling Educate elected offi-cials on importance of effluent monitoring

Continuous monitoring according to permit requirements

Number of noncom-pliant samples quarterly and/or annually

Annual five percent reduc-tions in non-compliant samples

TCEQ CRP City of Beeville City of Sinton Town of Woods-boro Town of Refugio City of Taft Pettus MUD Skidmore WSC St. Paul WSC Tynan WSC Sinton Engineer Building WWTF

Financial Assistance

TWDB Economically Distressed Areas Pro-gram

USDA Rural Utilities Service Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants

EPA/TWDB Clean Water State Revolving Fund



Control Action 2.0 Improve and Upgrade WWTFs Description All WWTFs in the Mission and Aransas River watersheds collect wastewater from urban areas and treat the wastewater prior to discharging to a receiving water body. WWTF operators in the watersheds recognize the importance for treating bacteria in the effluent and are aware of new permit requirements (applicable to cities that do not currently adhere to them). To date, some investments have al-ready been made in improving WWTFs to treat bacteria. The purpose of this management measure is to update WWTFs that are not cur-rently treating bacteria to include bacteria treatment as it is appropriate. Further, those WWTFs that currently treat bacteria may need to improve/upgrade their treatment process to more efficiently treat effluent and reduce periodic exceedenc-es. Responsible parties will identify whether or not bacteria treatment needs to be added to their current treatment methods and also identify the need to im-prove/upgrade the treatment process. Also, as WWTF capacity is reached, there is a need to expand treatment capacity. Responsible parties will also identify whether or not expansion is needed. If any of the previously mentioned tasks are needed, responsible parties will pur-sue funding and make the appropriate improvements/upgrades as funding allows. Education Component Education for this management measure will consist of training staff on how to identify malfunctioning equipment that may need upgraded and identify when ca-pacity close to being reached. Additionally, educating elected officials regarding the importance of efficient treatment processes will also be a critical component of this Control Action. Further, responsible parties may need educated on how to pursue funds for making necessary upgrades and improvements. Priority Areas Priority areas for this management measure will first consist of upgrading those WWTFs that are currently not treating for bacteria and/or not meeting their per-mitted limits. Further, priority areas are at all WWTFs where upgrades and improvements are needed but especially those that discharge in or near impaired water bodies in both the Aransas and Mission River watersheds. Measureable Milestones Measureable milestones for this management measure consist of:

Number of upgraded WWTFs that do not currently treat for bacteria to treat bacteria as required by the permit

Expanded capacity when WWTF nears threshold outlined in permit



Successfully secured funds for improvements as appropriate Progress Indicator Progress indicators for this management measure consist of:

Year 1 – 2: identification of whether or not bacteria needs to be added in-cluded in treatment at WWTFs, added bacteria limits if needed,

Year 3 – 5 – as funding allows, make upgrades/improvements to WWTFs to ensure adequate treatment of effluent

Monitoring Component TCEQ CRP monitoring stations will be utilized for measuring in-stream bacteria loadings, especially in critical areas. Additional special monitoring may be needed and should be developed under Management Measure 8 of this document. Responsible Parties City of Beeville will be responsible for improving/upgrading the facilities as funding allows to maintain compliance with permit requirements

City of Sinton will be responsible for improving/upgrading facilities as funding al-lows to maintain compliance with permit requirements Town of Woodsboro will be responsible for improving/upgrading facilities as fund-ing allows to maintain compliance with permit requirements Town of Refugio will be responsible for improving/upgrading facilities as funding allows to maintain compliance with permit requirements

City of Taft will be responsible for improving/upgrading facilities as funding allows to maintain compliance with permit requirements Pettus MUD will be responsible for improving/upgrading facilities as funding al-lows to maintain compliance with permit requirements Skidmore WSC will be responsible for improving/upgrading facilities as funding allows to maintain compliance with permit requirements St. Paul WSC will be responsible for improving/upgrading facilities as funding al-lows to maintain compliance with permit requirements Tynan WSC will be responsible for improving/upgrading facilities as funding allows to maintain compliance with permit requirements Sinton Engineer Building WWTF (TXDOT) will be responsible for improv-ing/upgrading facilities as funding allows to maintain compliance with permit requirements



Technical Assistance TCEQ is responsible for permit compliance, enforcement, and providing technical assistance to WWTFs as appropriate Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service (TEEX) offers a Water and Wastewater Technical Assistance Program for small wastewater systems within the state. The program aims to provide technical assistance and training to small wastewater sys-tems to help correct wastewater system operational problems. One-on-one technical assistance is available for small wastewater systems to help determine issues with system performance and ensure that the system is running within the permitted limited and in compliance.

Texas Rural Water Association has two wastewater training and technical assis-tance providers who assist wastewater systems across the state. They provide training workshops across the state that address topics like wastewater operations and maintenance, testing procedures, rule updates, management, security and other topics as needed or requested that relate to wastewater. They also provide on-site technical assistance to non-profit wastewater systems, districts and small cities that have less than 10,000 population. This technical assistance deals with operations, maintenance, collection systems, treatment facilities, rates, manage-ment, rule changes, state laws and other topics or situations that occur in the wastewater systems.

Chemtech offers onsite training to their customers as part of their water treatment services. This is accomplished through hands on instruction and seminars on basic water treatment practices and procedures, control testing, and the safe handling of chemicals. Financial Assistance Existing local funding for improvements/upgrades may be used but it is likely that additional funds will be needed

TWDB Economically Distressed Areas Program - The Economically Distressed Are-as Program (EDAP) provides financial assistance to provide water and wastewater services to economically distressed areas where services do not exist or systems do not meet minimum state standards.

USDA Rural Utilities Service Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants- The Ru-ral Utilities Service (RUS) is amending its regulations related to the Section 306C Water and Waste Disposal (WWD) Loans and Grants Program, which provides wa-ter and waste disposal facilities and services to low-income rural communities whose residents face significant health risks. Specifically, RUS is modifying the pri-ority points system in order to give additional priority points to the colonias that



lack access to water or waste disposal systems and face significant health problems. The intent is to ensure that the neediest areas receive funding.

EPA/TWDB Clean Water State Revolving Fund - The CWSRF program provides very attractive low-interest loans that spread project costs over a repayment period of up to twenty years. Repayments are cycled back into the fund and used to pay for additional clean water projects. CWSRF programs are currently funding projects that address agriculture runoff, leaking on-site septic systems, and urban non-point source pollution, including stormwater runoff and brownfield contamination. Table 15. Needed Improvements and Estimated Costs for WWTFs Entity Activities Needed Estimated Costs

Moore Street WWTF (City of Beeville) Complete Upgrade $5 – $10 million

Chase Field (City of Beeville) Complete Upgrade $150,000

City of Sinton Chamber for Chlorination $600,000

Rob and Bessie Welder Park (City of Sinton)

Chamber for Chlorination $400,000

Town of Refugio Clarifier $2 million

City of Taft Complete Upgrade $3 million

For all Responsible Parties Education for city employees, elected officials, etc. – estimated $2,000 for one event annually in each city

$120,000

List is intended to be as comprehensive as possible but funding should not only be limited to the above entities Implementation Schedule Year 1 - 2: Responsible parties will, as funding allows:

identify whether or not bacteria is being treated work towards adding bacteria limits to permit renewals and pursue tech-

nical assistance as appropriate ensure treatment type is adequately treating bacteria if currently treating identify whether capacity needs to be expanded pursue funding for making upgrades/improvements necessary

Year 3 – 5: Responsible parties will, as funding allows:

begin making upgrades to WWTFs that need bacteria treatment, improve-ment treatment methods, and/or expanded capacities



Estimated Loading Reductions Mission River Watershed - No loading reductions could be estimated because all WWTFs are currently meeting their permit requirements Aransas River Watershed – 7.35E+11 annually as a result of all WWTFs meeting standards



Table 16. Summary of Control Action 2.0: Improve and Upgrade WWTFs



Needed Education


Implementation




Responsible Entity

Mission River Watershed – N/A

Aransas River Watershed - 7.35E+11 annu-ally as a result of all WWTFs meeting stand-ards


TCEQ permit compli-ance/assistance

Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service (TEEX)

Texas Rural Water Asso-ciation

Chemtech

Train WWTF staff on identification of mal-functioning equipment and when the facility is near capacity Educate elected offi-cials on importance of efficient WWTF treat-ment

Year 1: Identify whether or not bacteria is being treat-ed Year 2: Work towards adding bacteria limits to per-mit renewals and pursue technical assis-tance as appropriate ensure treatment type is adequately treating bacteria identify whether capacity needs to be expanded pursue funding for making up grades/improvements necessary Year 3 – 5: Begin making up-grades to WWTFs that need bacteria treat-ment, improvement treatment methods, and/or expanded ca-pacities

Number of upgraded WWTFs that do not currently treat for bacteria to treat bac-teria as required by the permit Expanded capacity when WWTF nears threshold outlined in permit Successfully secured funds for improve-ments as appropriate

Identification of whether or not bacteria needs to be added includ-ed in treatment at WWTFs Work towards adding bacteria limits if needed, if bacteria is treated, ensure treatment type is adequately treat-ing effluent As funding al-lows, make up-up-grades/improvements to WWTFs to en-sure adequate treatment of effluent

TCEQ CRP and addi-tional monitoring developed under man-agement measure 8

City of Beeville City of Sinton Town of Woods-boro Town of Refugio City of Taft Pettus MUD Skidmore WSC St. Paul WSC Tynan WSC Sinton Engineer Building WWTF





Existing local funding for improvements



Management Measure 1.0 Develop and implement conservation plans in priority areas of the watershed Description Though land uses in the watershed have somewhat changed and continue to change, the largest part of the Mission and Aransas River watersheds are forest lands, grasslands, pasture, or cultivated crops as seen in the watershed overview of this I-Plan. The majority of the agricultural interests within the watershed consists of grazing operations; however, there are farming operations that consume a good portion of the watersheds as well. The implementation of proven best management practices within priority sub watersheds can lead to in-stream water quality im-provements by reducing degradation and minimization of fecal deposition in the riparian area. Currently, 310 conservation plans have been developed and imple-mented across the two watersheds. Establishing additional acreage under management practices (identified in Appendix B but should not be limited to only those practices) and additional conservation plans in this watershed is the primary goal of this management measure. To do so, responsible parties will provide the necessary technical and financial as-sistance, as resources are available, to implement these management practices under the appropriate program requested by the landowner. Direct contact to landowners in priority areas will be made to discuss what a conservation plan is, its benefits, and other information necessary to inform landowners of the need for adoption. Assistance at the local level may be needed to make the contacts needed. Education Component Education is one of the most critical components of this Management Measure. An intensive education and outreach program is needed to broadly promote the adop-tion of management practices through the appropriate program. Awareness of the programs, management practices, and their benefits is often one of the largest bar-riers to adoption and should also be assessed so that adjustments can be made to encourage adoption. Educational programs specific to some of the landowner in-terests exist and should also be utilized as a part of the education and outreach campaign. Existing programs, such as the Lone Star Healthy Steams, should be de-livered in the watersheds to further promote the adoption of best management practices. Priority Areas Priority areas for the adoption of management practices in these two watersheds will be focused on land uses that have the highest potential capacity for stocking livestock. Specific subwatersheds are:

Aransas River Watershed – 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 Mission River Watershed – 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 25

Measurable Milestones Measurable milestones for this management measure will consist of:



Number of landowners contacted number of conservation plans developed number of education programs delivered and materials developed

Progress Indicators Progress indicators of this management measure will consist of the following:

Year 1: develop 3 conservation plans (3 in the Mission River Watershed), submit a grant proposal for an education campaign

Year 2 –develop 26 conservation plans (13 in each watershed), secure fund-

ing for education campaign, initiate education campaign

Year 3 –develop 26 conservation plans (13 in each watershed), deliver 2 ed-ucational program

Year 4 –develop 26 conservation plans (13 in each watershed), deliver 2 ed-

ucational program

Year 5 –develop 26 conservation plans (13 in each watershed), deliver 2 ed-ucational program

Monitoring Component Monitoring for this management measure will consist of utilizing TCEQ CRP moni-toring and measuring bacteria loadings, especially in critical areas. Additional monitoring may be needed and should be developed under Management Measure 8 of this document. Responsible Parties Local Stakeholders: Local stakeholders will evaluate the option of adopting a conservation plan through their program (listed below) of choice. If found feasible, the stakeholder will ap-proach the appropriate agency and work with them to develop a conservation plan to mitigate impacts to water quality. Stakeholders who adopt conservation plans should adhere to the requirements written into that plan. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service: The Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service provides quality, relevant, outreach and continuing education programs and services to Texans. Extension serves every county in Texas; information is provided by scientists and researchers at Texas A&M and other universities, and is made practical and relevant by Extension edu-cators or agents who work in each county. Extension continually assesses and responds to educational needs identified by community residents, advisory com-mittee members, volunteers, stakeholder groups, and representatives of organizations and agencies. Extension education encompasses the broad areas of agriculture and natural resources, community economic development, family and consumer sciences, and youth development program such as 4-H.



Among other goals and priority objectives pursued by Texas A&M AgriLife Exten-sion, the following relate to agriculture and natural resources:

Consumers, homeowners, agricultural producers, communities, and irriga-tion districts understand and adopt BMPs to protect water quality and enhance conservation so water supplies meet future water needs in Texas that are essential for expanding agricultural growth, jobs, and the economy in both rural and urban areas.

Landowners, professional ecosystem managers, community planners, and other interest groups become more knowledgeable, make informed deci-sions, and adopt BMPs that insure the proper management of rural and urban natural ecosystem resources through stewardship education in order to support the biological, sociological, and economic sustainability of those resources.

Advance the planning and management of natural resource-based recrea-tion opportunities in Texas.

Funded with TSSWCB CWA §319(h) nonpoint source grants, The Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service and the Texas Water Resources Institute has developed the Lone Star Healthy Streams – Grazing Cattle curriculum. This educational pro-gram is delivered statewide and serves and the foundations for landowners’ understanding of effects of grazing cattle on bacteria loading to streams and BMPs designed to reduce bacteria from grazing cattle. The curriculum promotes the adoption of BMPs and participation in federal and state cost-share programs and should be delivered in these watersheds. Funded with TSSWCB CWA §319(h) nonpoint source grants, the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service and the Texas Water Resources Institute has developed the Lone Star Healthy Streams – Horse curriculum. This educational program is being delivered statewide and serves as the foundations for landowners’ under-standing of the effects on bacteria loading to streams and BMPs designed to reduce bacteria from horses. The project manual is available at http://lshs.tamu.edu/media/340453/horse_manual.pdf. Upon request, TSSWCB and Extension will deliver the program to horse owners in the Mission and Aransas River watersheds. In concert with curriculum development, Extension is evaluating the effectiveness of selected BMPs in reducing bacteria loading from grazing cattle to streams. BMPs evaluated include grazing management, shade, fencing, alternative water source development, riparian buffers, and combinations thereof. Results to date show sig-nificant impacts to animal behavior and subsequent fecal loading thus substantiating the use of these practices to mitigate pollutant loading. The project workplan and approved Quality Assurance Project Plan are available at www.tsswcb.state.tx.us/managementprogram/lonestar. TSSWCB is working with AgriLife Extension to develop scopes of work to continue funding BMP effective-ness studies. Once the curriculum is developed, TSSWCB and AgriLife Extension



will deliver the program to cattlemen in the Mission and Aransas River watersheds. More information on this project is available at http://grazinglands-wq.tamu.edu/. Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board: The TSSWCB is the lead agency in Texas responsible for planning, implementing and managing programs and practices for preventing and abating agricultural and silvicultural (forestry-related) nonpoint source pollution (Texas Agriculture Code 2007) . In accordance with this responsibility, the TSSWCB administers a certified Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Program that provides, through soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs), cost-share assistance for management practices on agricultural and silvicultural lands; however, not all WQMPs are re-quired to accept funding. Each WQMP is developed, maintained, and implemented under rules and criteria adopted by the TSSWCB. A WQMP achieves a level of pol-lution prevention or abatement consistent with the state’s water quality standards and is a site-specific plan designed to assist landowners in managing nonpoint source pollution from agricultural and silvicultural activities. WQMPs are tradi-tional conservation plans based on the criteria outlined in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG). The FOTG is the best available technology and is tailored to meet local needs. A WQMP includes appropriate land treatment practices, production practices, management measures, technologies, or combinations thereof. WQMPs are developed in cooperation with the landowner, with assistance from the NRCS, and approved by the local SWCD, and are certified by the TSSWCB. This approach to preventing and abating nonpoint source pollution uses a voluntary approach while affording the landowner a mechanism for compliance with the state’s water quality standards. The TSSWCB regularly performs status reviews on WQMPs to ensure that the pro-ducers are implementing the measures prescribed in the WQMP. The TSSWCB administers technical and cost-share assistance programs to assist producers in implementing their WQMPs. The TSSWCB utilizes both state general revenue and federal grants to fund the WQMP program. Several essential practices from the NRCS FOTG included in a WQMP have specific applicability to the bacteria reduc-tion goals of this TMDL and I-Plan. A grazing management system is a vital component of a WQMP for livestock operations. The TSSWCB, in collaboration with NRCS and the Bee SWCD #344, Goliad SWCD # 352, San Patricio SWCD # 324, and Copano SWCD #329, will continue to pro-vide technical assistance to landowners in developing and implementing WQMPs. TSSWCB will develop WQMPs on 100% of livestock operations in the Mission and Aransas River watersheds who request planning assistance through the SWCD. TSSWCB will annually perform status reviews on at least 50% of all WQMPs in the Mission and Aransas River watersheds. Since the beginning of the TSSWCB WQMP Program in 1995, cost-share (state general revenue) has been allocated to SWCDs in priority areas across the state and obligated by the SWCDs to individual producers. A lesser amount of cost-share is



reserved by TSSWCB for individual producers not in priority areas. The Bee #344, San Patricio # 324, and Copano #329 SWCDs are situated within the priority area known as the coastal management zone and producers in this area may seek cost-share from TSSWCB to implement BMPs prescribed in a WQMP priority area. The Goliad SWCD # 352 is not in a WQMP priority area and as such, livestock produc-ers in the Mission and Aransas River watersheds that live in the Goliad SWCD # 352 may seek cost-share from TSSWCB to implement BMPs prescribed in a WQMP through the statewide, non-priority area allocation. Soil and Water Conservation Districts: A SWCD, like a county or school district, is a subdivision of state government. SWCDs are administered by a board of 5 directors who are elected by their fellow landowners. There are 216 individual SWCDs organized in Texas. It is through this conservation partnership that local SWCDs are able to furnish technical assistance to farmers and ranchers in the preparation of a complete soil and water conserva-tion plan to meet each land unit’s specific capabilities and needs. The Mission and Aransas River watersheds sits inside the Bee SWCD #344, Goliad SWCD # 352, San Patricio SWCD # 324, and Copano SWCD #329. U. S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service: NRCS is a federal agency that works hand-in-hand with Texans to improve and protect their soil, water and other natural resources. For decades, private landown-ers have voluntarily worked with NRCS specialists to prevent erosion, improve water quality and promote sustainable agriculture. The NRCS provides conserva-tion planning and technical assistance to landowners, groups, and units of government to develop and implement conservation plans that protect, conserve, and enhance natural resources. When providing assistance, NRCS focuses on the sound use and management of soil, water, air, plant, and animal resources. NRCS ensures sustainability, allows for productivity, and respects the customers’ needs. Conservation planning can make improvements to livestock operations, crop pro-duction, soil quality, water quality, and pastureland, forestland, and wildlife habitats. The NRCS also integrates ecological and economic considerations in or-der to address private and public concerns. The NRCS administers numerous Farm Bill Programs authorized by the U.S. Con-gress that provides financial assistance for many conservation activities including:

Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHP)



Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) administered by the USDA Farm Ser-vice Agency

EQIP and other programs were reauthorized in the federal Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill) to provide a voluntary conservation program for farmers and ranchers that promotes agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible national goals. People who are engaged in livestock or agri-cultural production on eligible land may participate in EQIP. EQIP offers financial and technical assistance to eligible participants for instillation or implementation of structural and management practices on eligible agricultural land. EQIP also provides incentive and cost-share payments to implement conservation practices. EQIP activities are carried out according to a plan of operations developed in con-junction with the producer that identifies that appropriate conservation practice(s) to address resource concerns. All practices are subject to NRCS technical standards described in the FOTG and adapted for local conditions. The local SWCD approves the plan. Local Work Groups provide recommendations to USDA-NRCS on allocating EQIP county base funds and on resource concerns for other USDA Farm Bill programs. Mission and Aransas River watershed stakeholders are encouraged to participate in the Local Work Group in order to promote the goals of this I-Plan Management Measure as compatible with the resource concerns and conservation priorities of EQIP. Texas Parks and Wildlife Private Lands Services: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Private Lands Services is a program for private landowners to provide practical information on ways to manage wildlife resources consistent with other land use goals, to ensure plant and animal diversi-ty, to provide aesthetic and economic benefits, and to conserve soil, water and related natural resources. To participate, landowners may request assistance by contacting the TPWD district serving their county http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/technical_guidance/biologists/. TPWD’s only cost share program is the Landowner Incentive Program (LIP). To learn more about TPWD’s LIP or request financial assistance from a TPWD biolo-gist, visit the website at: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/private/lip/, which explains the types of projects funded by LIP. Once a property’s potential has been determined, a biologist will provide recommendations and, if requested, help the landowner develop a written wildlife management plan. Other funding oppor-tunities may be available through various programs. Prevention and management of wildlife conflicts is an essential and responsible part of wildlife management. The complex wildlife-damage management environ-ment includes a combination of biological, legal, socio-political, financial, and technical considerations. Texas Wildlife Services accomplishes this through coop-eration with federal, state, and private entities, servicing both rural and urban areas, utilizing technical assistance and direct control services in this specialized field of wildlife management.



Technical Assistance The below entities provide sources of technical and financial assistance but sources should not be limited to these entities. The intent of these programs is for the agencies listed under Management Measure 1 to work with landowners to voluntarily implement conservation plans. Technical assistance to agricultural producers in developing conservation plans provided through the TSSWCB WQMP Program is funded through state general revenue. It is anticipated that new sources of funding will be required to implement this man-agement measure; however, this is dependent on continued appropriations from the Texas Legislature. TSSWCB, NRCS, and TPWD will continue to provide appropriate levels of cost-share assistance to agricultural producers that will facilitate the implementation of BMPs and conservation programs in the Mission and Aransas River watersheds, as described in this management measure. Historically, conservation plan develop-ment and implementation in this watershed has been moderately low; as such, it is anticipated that additional levels of funding will be needed to meet implementation needs. Financial Assistance USDA-NRCS Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) - The Agricultur-al Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) is a voluntary conservation initiative that provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers to implement agricultural water enhancement activities on agricultural land to conserve surface and ground water and improve water quality. USDA Conservation Innovation Grants - Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) is a voluntary program intended to stimulate the development and adoption of inno-vative conservation approaches and technologies while leveraging Federal investment in environmental enhancement and protection, in conjunction with ag-ricultural production. Under CIG, Environmental Quality Incentives Program funds are used to award competitive grants to non-Federal governmental or non-governmental organizations, Tribes, or individuals. USDA-NRCS - The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a volun-tary program that provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers through contracts up to a maximum term of ten years in length. These contracts provide financial assistance to help plan and implement conservation practices that address natural resource concerns and for opportunities to improve soil, water, plant, animal, air and related resources on agricultural land and non-industrial private forestland. In addition, a purpose of EQIP is to help producers meet Federal, State, Tribal and local environmental regulations. USFWS National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grants - The Coastal Grants Pro-gram is an effective approach that assists States to acquire, restore, manage, and



enhance their coastal wetland resources. The program’s emphasis on encouraging partnerships, supporting watershed planning and leveraging on-going funds pro-duces in maximum benefits. EPA/TCEQ/TSSWB 319(h) - The CWA requires EPA to award section 319(h) grants to the state nonpoint source agency, designated by the governor, to imple-ment its approved Nonpoint Source Management Program to help achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water, such as swimming or fishing. EPA-approved state Nonpoint Source Management Programs provide the framework for deter-mining which activities are eligible for funding under section 319(h). In general, these activities include non-regulatory or regulatory programs for compliance and enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, tech-nology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source projects, to the extent these activities are related to con-trolling nonpoint source pollution. USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education (SARE) - Implementing pro-grams that enhance the capabilities of Texas Ag professionals in the area of sustainable agriculture. Grants and education to advance innovations in sustaina-ble agriculture is aimed at advancing sustainable innovations. These grants add up to an impressive portfolio of sustainable agriculture efforts across the nation. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Farm Business Management and Benchmarking (FBMB) Competitive Grants Program - The Farm Business Man-agement and Benchmarking (FBMB) Competitive Grants Program provides funds to (1) improve the farm management knowledge and skills of agricultural produc-ers; and (2) establish and maintain a national, publicly available farm financial management database to support improved farm management. NOAA Coastal Zone Management Administration Awards - This program assists states in implementing and enhancing Coastal Zone Management Administration (CZMA) programs that have been approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Funds are available for projects in areas such as coastal wetlands management and pro-tection, natural hazards management, public access improvements, reduction of marine debris, assessment of impacts of coastal growth and development, special area management planning, regional management issues, and demonstration pro-jects with potential to improve coastal zone management. USDA National Integrated Water Quality Program (NIWQP) - The National Inte-grated Water Quality Program (NIWQP) provides funding for research, education, and extension projects aimed at improving water quality in agricultural and rural watersheds. The NIWQP has identified eight "themes" that are being promoted in research, education and extension. The eight themes are (1) Animal manure and waste management (2) Drinking water and human health (3) Environmental resto-ration (4) Nutrient and pesticide management (5) Pollution assessment and prevention (6) Watershed management (7) Water conservation and agricultural water management (8) Water policy and economics. Awards are made in four pro-



gram areas - National Projects, Regional Coordination Projects, Extension Educa-tion Projects, and Integrated Research, Education and Extension Projects. Please note that funding is only available to universities. EPA Environmental Education Grants - Under the EE Grant Program, EPA seeks grant proposals from eligible applicants to support environmental education pro-jects that promote environmental stewardship and help develop knowledgeable and responsible students, teachers, and citizens. This grant program provides fi-nancial support for projects that design, demonstrate, and/or disseminate environmental education practices, methods, or techniques as described in the so-licitation notices. EPA expects to award two rounds of environmental education grants from the ten EPA Regional offices. EPA Targeted Watershed Grants Program - EPA is asking the nation's Governors, Tribal Leaders, and leading watershed organizations to apply for the next round of funding to support collaborative partnerships to protect and restore the nation's water resources. Two separate types of grants will be awarded in 2007. The Agency will select up to 12 watershed organizations to receive grants to implement water-shed-based, on-the-ground implementation projects and up to 5 training and educational organizations to receive grants or cooperative agreements to help build capacity of the many grass roots watershed organizations across the country. Both grants will focus on strong stakeholder support and producing improved environ-mental change. In a third part of the program, the Agency will also award Targeted Watershed funds to support nutrient management projects in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. USDA-National Institute of Food and Agriculture Integrated Programs - NIFA In-tegrated Programs provide support for integrated research, education, and extension activities. Integrated, multi-functional projects are particularly effective in addressing important agricultural issues through the conduct of problem-focused research that is combined with education and extension of knowledge to those in need of solutions. These activities address critical national, regional, and multi-state agricultural issues, priorities, or problems. Integrated Programs hold the greatest potential to produce and disseminate knowledge and technology di-rectly to end users while providing for educational opportunities to assure agricultural expertise in future generations. USDA-National Institute of Food and Agriculture Agricultural Food Research Ini-tiative Competitive Fellowship Grants Program - To establish a new competitive grant program to provide funding for fundamental and applied research, exten-sion, and education to address food and agricultural sciences. SIX TOPIC AREAS A) Plant health and production and plant products B) Animal health and produc-tion and animal products C) Food safety, nutrition, and health D) Renewable energy, natural resources, and environment E) Agriculture systems and technology and F) Agriculture economics and rural communities



Estimated Costs Table 17. Estimated Costs of Assistance Needed Entity Activities Needed Estimated Costs

Responsible Parties with Incentive Programs for Stakeholders

Implementation of 107 Conserva-tion Plans at $15,000 each

$1,605,000

Educational Entities Education and Outreach Pro-grams

$300,000

Implementation Schedule Year 1: Responsible parties will, as funding allows:

Contact landowners, first in priority subwatersheds, and then throughout the Mission and Aransas River watersheds.

Document the number of contacts made and general discussion Develop 3 conservation plans in the Mission River watershed Pursue funding for educational programs as documented with the success-

ful submission of a 319 proposal. Year 2: Responsible parties will, as funding allows:

Continue to make contacts (documenting number of contacts and discus-sions)

Develop 26 conservation plans (13 in each watershed) Successfully secure funding for an educational campaign and initiate the

campaign Year 3 – 5: Responsible parties will, as funding allows:

Continue to make contacts (documenting number of contacts and discus-sions)

Develop 78 conservation plans (13 in each watershed annually) Deliver 6 educational programs in the watersheds (2 annually) to encourage

the adoption of conservation plans In year 5, assess overall progress and develop a new strategy for implemen-

tation if necessary. Estimated Loading Reductions Mission River Watershed – 4.46E+14 Aransas River Watershed – 4.22E+14



Table 18. Management Measure 1.0: Develop and implement conservation plans in priority areas of the watershed


Technical and Financial Assistance Need-

ed Education


Implementation



Monitor-ing

Compo-nent

Responsible Entity

Mission River Watershed - 4.46E+14

Aransas River Watershed – 4.22E+14


TSSWCB, NRCS, and TPWD


TSSWCB WQMP Program

USDA-NRCS Agricultural Wa-ter Enhancement Program

USDA Conservation Innova-tion Grants

USFWS National Coastal Wet-lands Conservation Grants

EPA/TCEQ/TSSWB 319(h)

NIFA FBMB Competitive Grants Program

NOAA Coastal Zone Manage-ment Administration Awards

EPA Environmental Education Grants

EPA Targeted Watershed Grants Program

EPA- Regional Pollution Pre-vention Office Source Reduction Assistance

NIFA Integrated Programs

An intensive education and outreach program is needed to broadly pro-mote the adoption of management practices through the appropriate program such as Lone Star Healthy Steams.

Year 1 contact landowners in priority areas, document number of contacts made, develop 3 conservation plans in the Mission River Watershed, pursue funding for education programs and financial assistance Year 2 continue making contacts, develop 13 conservation plans in each Water-shed, secure funding for education campaign, initiate education cam-paign Year 3-5 continue making contacts, develop 78 conservation plans (13 annually in each Watershed), deliver educa-tion programs, assess overall strategy for implementation

Number of land-owners contacted Number of con-servation plans developed Number of edu-cation programs delivered and materials devel-oped

Year 1: develop 3 conservation plans in the Mission River Watershed Year 2 - 5: develop 13 conservation plans in each watershed annually

TCEQ CRP and addi-tional monitoring developed under manage-ment measure 8

Local Stake-holders Texas A&M AgriLife Exten-sion Service Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board NRCS Bee SWCD #344 Goliad SWCD #352 San Patricio SWCD #324 Copano SWCD #329 Local Work Groups TPWD Private Lands Services



Management Measure 2.0 Explore Feasibility of Altering Tax Exemption Requirements for Small Acreage Landowners Description The primary focus of this management measure is to reduce over stocking on small acreage by altering the property tax exemption requirements. Currently, small acreage landowners apply for agricultural property tax exemptions and must stock their land to meet the tax requirement. Often, this stocking rate is beyond the car-rying capacity of the land. The purpose of this management measure is to outline a path for moving discus-sions forward across the watershed to explore alternatives for property tax exemptions that would encourage the adoption of water quality mitigation practic-es. Responsible parties in the watershed have identified and realize the issues with managing small acreage lands. A need identified is the ability to properly manage these lands to improve water quality; however, an effective framework must be in place prior, to describe management requirements at various levels. To initiate this process, representatives from responsible parties will convene and discuss the feasibility of using existing tax exemptions and/or developing a new (or altering existing) tax exemption framework that can be used for county standards that promote improved water quality on small acreage lands. If feasible, discus-sions will be continued to collectively develop this framework. Realizing that each entity has its own specific needs and circumstances to address, the framework will remain flexible so that language for entity specific standards can be adapted from this general framework to meet these individual needs. It should be noted that standard development and adoption are two completely separate items. Language for a proposed standard is developed and presented to the appropriate entities for consideration and possible adoption. As a result, adoption directly depends on par-ties involved and is not guaranteed. The motive of this management measure is for the entities tasked with providing agricultural exemptions across the watershed work together to collectively develop local solutions to address the water quality needs. Within this overarching man-agement goal, more specific needs can be addressed as they are identified. These may include needs such as evaluating the benefit of not overstocking small acreage lands for a future agricultural tax exemption status. Education Component Education is also viewed as a critical need to effectively implement this manage-ment measure. Elected officials ultimately decide the fate of such exemption statuses and if it will be adopted. As such, ensuring that all responsible parties un-derstand the need for improved water quality and the intention of the proposed changes is critical for their adoption. Education should be targeted toward these elected officials to deliver materials and messages about small acreage impacts on



water quality. In addition, and education program is needed that focuses on small acreage landowners to educate them on the impacts of overstocking in addition to the importance of adopting a conservation plan outlined in Management Measure 1. Priority Areas There are no geographic priorities for this management measure other than focus-ing on responsible parties within the counties of the watershed. Measurable Milestones Measurable milestones for this management measure will consist of:

the number of times that responsible parties convene to discuss the availa-ble alternatives for property tax exemptions

a developed framework for altering these tax exemptions a proposal for changes submitted changes implemented

Progress Indicators Progress indicators for this management measure will consist of the following: Year 1: responsible parties convene to discuss alternatives, submitted proposal for funding of educational activities Year 2: number of meetings to discuss alternatives, secured funding for education-al activities and initiated educational campaign Year 3 – 4: development of a framework for altering property tax exemptions, number of individuals (both elected officials and landowners) educated Year 5: proposed changes submitted for consideration to appropriate entity, pro-posed changes adopted, number of individuals educated, number of educational events held Monitoring Component Monitoring for this management measure will consist of continuing TCEQ CRP monitoring at existing sites and an expanded monitoring program, if needed, will be developed under Management Measure 8 of this I-Plan. Responsible Parties Governmental (local, regional, state, and federal) and Non-Governmental Programs / Agencies will be responsible for evaluating alternatives for property tax exemp-tions favorable to water quality improvement and presenting them to local tax authorities

Bee County Appraisal District will be responsible for evaluating alternatives for property tax exemptions favorable to water quality improvement



Goliad County Appraisal District will be responsible for evaluating alternatives for property tax exemptions favorable to water quality improvement

San Patricio County Appraisal District will be responsible for evaluating alternatives for property tax exemptions favorable to water quality improvement

Refugio County Appraisal District will be responsible for evaluating alternatives for property tax exemptions favorable to water quality improvement

Aransas County Appraisal District will be responsible for evaluating alternatives for property tax exemptions favorable to water quality improvement

Coastal Bend Council of Governments will be responsible for evaluating alternatives for property tax exemptions favorable to water quality improvement

Golden Crescent Regional Planning Commission will be responsible for evaluating alternatives for property tax exemptions favorable to water quality improvement

Landowners will provide input regarding their concerns and comments about the alternatives for property tax exemptions.

Technical Assistance Technical assistance may be needed from the Texas Comptroller of Public Ac-counts office to ensure that all requirements of the tax code have been met. Also, other technical assistance may be needed and will be pursued as necessary. The V.G. Young Institute of County Government is a part of Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service and The Texas A&M University System. Located in College Sta-tion, the Institute works to meet the educational needs of county officials and the public by anticipating, identifying and addressing the challenges and opportunities faced by Texas county government. The Institute fulfills this charge by offering var-ious educational programs, published reference materials and counsel to county officials, community organizations, and citizens across the state. The Institute is dedicated to the Extension mission: “improving lives of people, businesses, and communities across Texas and beyond through high-quality, relevant education” according to Texas A&M AgriLife (2013). Financial Assistance Funds will be pursued through TSSWCB or TCEQ 319 grants Estimated Costs Table 19. Estimated Costs of Assistance Needed Entity Activities Needed Estimated Costs

Educational Entities Education for elected officials and other responsible parties

$115,000



Implementation Schedule Year 1 – 2: Responsible parties will, as funding allows:

convene to discuss the alternatives of property tax exemptions record the number of meetings, used to measure progress successfully submit an education proposal to fulfill the requirements of the

education component in this management measure Year 3 – 4: Responsible parties will, as funding allows:

develop a framework for altering the property tax exemptions measured by the number of meetings held but primary milestone will be the progress of the framework

successfully securing funding for educational activities begin educational activities where the number of individuals educated (both

elected officials and landowners) will be measured Year 5: Responsible parties will, as funding allows:

Successfully submit the proposed changes for tax exemptions to the appro-priate entities

Measure the adoption rate of those proposed changes that can be measured. It should be noted that the number of tax exemptions changed to the alter-native structure should be measured if the structure is adopted and in time to be implemented under this plan.

Measure the number of individuals educated and programs delivered Estimated Loading Reductions Potential load reductions from establishing new tax exemption requirements can-not be quantified



Table 20. Management Measure 2.0: Explore Feasibility of Altering Tax Exemption Requirements for Small Acreage Landowners



Needed Education


Implementation



Monitor-ing

Compo-nent

Responsible Entity

N/A Technical Assistance

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts office to ensure that all require-ments of the tax code have been met

Develop materi-als and deliver messages about small acreage impacts on water quality to elected officials. Education pro-gram focused on small acreage landowners relat-ed to the impacts of overstocking

Year 1 – 2: Convene to discuss the al-ternatives of property tax exemptions; record the number of meetings to be used to measure progress; successfully submit an edu-cation proposal to fulfill the requirements of the educa-tion component in this management measure Year 3 – 4: Develop framework for alter-ing the property tax exemptions measured by no. meetings; successfully secur-ing funding for educational activities; begin educational activities where the number of individuals (both elected officials and landowners) will be measured. Year 5: Successfully submit the pro-posed changes for tax exemptions to the appropri-ate entities; measure the adoption rate of those pro-posed changes that can be measured; Measure the number of individuals edu-cated & programs delivered

The number of times that responsible par-ties convene to discuss the available alternatives for property tax exemp-tions A developed frame-work for altering these tax exemptions A proposal for changes submitted Changes implement-ed

Year 1: discuss alternatives, pursuit of funding for edu-cational activities Year 2: number of meetings to discuss alternatives, secured funding for educa-tional activities and initiated educational campaign Year 3 – 4: devel-opment of a framework for alter-ing property tax exemptions, number of individuals (both elected officials and landowners) educat-ed Year 5: proposed changes submitted for consideration to appropriate entity, proposed changes adopted, number of individuals educat-ed, number of educational events held

TCEQ CRP and additional monitor-ing developed under manage-ment measure 8

Governmental and NGO organi-zations responsible for evaluating prop-erty tax exemptions Bee County Appraisal District Goliad County Appraisal District San Patricio County Appraisal District Refugio County Appraisal District Aransas County Appraisal District Coastal Bend Council of Gov-ernments Golden Crescent Regional Plan-ning Commission Landowners


TSSWCB or TECQ 319 grants



Management Measure 3.0 Promote the Management of and Control Feral Hog Populations Description Feral hogs have been identified as significant contributors of pollutants to water bodies. As feral hogs congregate around water resources to drink and wallow, this concentration of high numbers of feral hogs in riparian areas poses a threat to wa-ter quality. Fecal matter deposited directly in streams by feral hogs contributes bacteria and nutrients, polluting the state’s water bodies. In addition, extensive rooting activities of groups of feral hogs can cause extreme erosion and soil loss. The destructive habits of feral hogs cause an estimated $52 million worth of agri-cultural crop and property damage each year in Texas. Also, it has been estimated that 60 to 70 percent would need to be removed annually to hold the population stable with no increase (Burns, 2011). Stakeholders in watersheds across the state, including the Mission and Aransas River watersheds, have recommended that ef-forts to control feral hogs be undertaken to reduce the population, limit the spread of these animals, and minimize their effects on water quality and the surrounding environment. The purpose of this management measure is to manage the feral hog population such that the current population does not increase, especially to a level that is un-manageable. Without a significant number of hogs removed from the watershed on an annual basis and sustained efforts to keep the population at a manageable level, water quality improvements may not be realized. Various control efforts are cur-rently employed such as live trapping, shooting, hunting with dogs, aerial hunting, exclusion, and habitat management. The continuation and increased intensity of these practices, especially in priority areas, along with technical and financial assis-tance is needed to reach the overall goal of this Implementation Plan. Activities will be targeted towards priority areas where landowners should be contacted to dis-cuss the economic savings of removing feral hogs, specific methods for doing so, and available programs that assist in feral hog removal. In an effort to track progress of this management measure, the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, Feral Hog Reporting tool will be utilized in addition to other tracking techniques. Also, sightings of feral hogs should be a notable indicator of a significant reduction in the feral hog population. The reporting tool can be found at http://feralhogreports.tamu.edu/. Implementation for much of this management measure is dependent on available funding. Funding assistance will be needed for personnel, materials, supplies for feral hog management activities and education. Education Component Education and outreach for this management measure is needed to ensure that stakeholders understand the importance of feral hog removal and the economic savings that result from such removal. Some educational programs exist through



Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, discussed in the responsible parties of this man-agement measure, but funding for personnel is limited as these programs are delivered across the state. Stakeholders would benefit greatly in receiving educa-tional materials; therefore, a campaign needs to consist of multiple educational opportunities for stakeholders, the development and update of materials, and the dissemination of materials. Additionally, an evaluation to get an overall under-standing of the amount of economic loss that landowners face and what their needs are in addition to existing resources to better control the population should be conducted. Priority Areas Priority areas for this management measure are found where feral hogs have the highest potential for congregating based on land use. Specific subwatersheds are:

Aransas River Watershed – 1, 2 ,3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 11 Mission River Watershed – 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 14

Measureable Milestones Measurable milestones for this management measure will consist of:

the number of feral hogs removed from the watershed on an annual basis the number of sightings the number of educational programs delivered number of materials developed and disseminated number of individuals reached

Progress Indicators Progress indicators will consist of the following: Year 1: a successful submission of an educational proposal for feral hog manage-ment, a successful submission of a proposal for local assistance, and 540 feral hogs removed from the watershed (300 from the Mission River Watershed and 240 from the Aransas River Watershed) Year 2: funding secured for education, funding secured for local assistance, educa-tion program initiated, 540 feral hogs removed from the watershed (300 from the Mission River Watershed and 240 from the Aransas River Watershed) Year 3 – 4: number of materials developed and disseminated, number of persons reached through education, and 1,080 feral hogs removed from the watershed (600 from the Mission River Watershed and 480 from the Aransas River Water-shed) Year 5: number of materials developed and disseminated, number of persons reached through education, and 540 (300 from the Mission River Watershed and 240 from the Aransas River Watershed) feral hogs removed from the watershed



Monitoring Component Monitoring for this management measure will consist of continuing TCEQ CRP monitoring at existing sites and an expanded monitoring program, if needed, will be developed under Management Measure 8 of this I-Plan. Responsible Parties Stakeholders: The Mission and Aransas River watershed stakeholders will take advantage of ser-vices provided by the Texas Wildlife Services and AgriLife Extension by requesting feral hog management workshops for landowners, local governments, and other interested individuals as appropriate. Workshops will be heavily promoted in the AgriLife Extension Service newsletter, local newspapers, and radio stations. Man-agement activities, as described, can also be implemented by local governments as appropriate. If interest in workshops remains strong after the life of this I-Plan, Ex-tension will continue to arrange workshops throughout the area covered by this I-Plan. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service: Funded with TSSWCB CWA §319(h) nonpoint source grants, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service and the Texas Water Resources Institute developed the Lone Star Healthy Streams – Feral Hog curriculum. This education program is delivered statewide and serves as the foundation for landowners’ understanding of the ef-fects of feral hogs on bacteria loading to streams and control techniques designed to abate feral hogs and reduce their bacteria loading. Concurrent with curriculum development, and with TSSWCB funding, Extension has developed

A series of publications addressing management strategies and techniques for feral hog control, and

An on-line feral hog activity reporting system to support identification of target areas for implementation of feral hog control activities, as mentioned above

While both series of publications and the on-line reporting tool are being piloted in the Plum Creek watershed, they have statewide applicability to watersheds impact-ed by feral hogs, including the Mission and Aransas River watersheds. The project workplan and more information can be found at http://www.tsswcb.texas.gov/managementprogram/lonestar2 and http://plumcreek.tamu.edu/FeralHogs. Texas Wildlife Services, Feral Hog Abatement Program: With continuous efforts, feral hogs can be managed. Texas Wildlife Services, through cooperative agreements between Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service and USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, provide statewide leader-ship in the science, education, and practice of wildlife and invasive species (including feral hogs) management to protect the state’s agricultural, industrial



and natural resources, as well as the public’s health, safety, and property (Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 825). Technical Assistance Texas Wildlife Services, in addition to the assistance described above, anticipates that additional cooperative funding will be necessary to continue the focused feral hog control activities. Financial Assistance Texas Wildlife Services has been available to provide assistance with addressing feral hogs and will remain available to all citizens of the state. While direct control will be limited to availability of personnel in cooperative associate areas, technical assistance can be provided to individuals on how to best resolve feral hog prob-lems. Since 2008, the Texas Department of Agriculture has awarded grants to Texas Wildlife Services for a feral hog abatement program. The grants are used to carry out a number of specifically identified direct control projects where control efforts can be measured. Certain areas of the state have been targeted due to the contributions from feral hogs to impaired water quality and bacteria loading. The Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) is administers a County Hog Abate-ment Matching Program (CHAMP). CHAMP is designed to encourage counties across the State of Texas to create partnerships with other counties, local gov-ernments, businesses, landowners, and associations to reduce the feral hog population and the damage caused by these animals in Texas Financial assistance can be pursued through TSSWCB 319 grants or other available opportunities. Table 21. Estimated Costs Entity Activities Needed Estimated Costs

Responsible Parties Purchase additional feral hog con-trol equipment

$5,000

Formulate, maintain and imple-ment online tracking data management

$10,000

Hunting and trapping $15,000

Regional Trapper $350,000

Landowner voluntary aerial gun-ning events ($2,000 per event at 2 per year per county)

$100,000

Educational Entities Feral Hog Workshops ($7,500 each at 1 annually)

$37,500



Implementation Schedule Year 1 Responsible parties will, as funding allows,

contact landowners in priority areas to discuss the economic savings of feral hog removal, specific methods for doing so, and available programs that as-sist in feral hog removal

submit a proposal for both educational programs and local assistance existing methods of feral hog removal shall be continued and reported as

appropriate. Year 2 Responsible parties will, as funding allows,

secure funding for education and local assistance begin developing and disseminating materials begin providing assistance to landowners locally continue contacting landowners in priority areas to discuss the economic

savings of feral hog removal, specific methods for doing so, and available programs that assist in feral hog removal

continue to remove feral hogs and report activity Year 3 – 4 Responsible parties will, as funding allows,

continue contacting landowners in priority areas to discuss the economic savings of feral hog removal, specific methods for doing so, and available programs that assist in feral hog removal

continue to disseminate educational materials hold educational programs continue providing local assistance continue to remove feral hogs report feral hog removal and activity

Year 5 Responsible parties will, as funding allows,

continue contacting landowners in priority areas to discuss the economic savings of feral hog removal, specific methods for doing so, and available programs that assist in feral hog removal

continue to disseminate educational materials continue educational programs continue providing local assistance continue to remove feral hogs and report activity assess strategy for the next phase of implementation

Estimated Loading Reductions Mission River Watershed – 1.36E+14 Aransas River Watershed – 1.09E+14



Table 22. Management Measure 3.0: Promote the Management of and Control Feral Hog Populations



Needed Education

ComponentSchedule of

Implementation




Responsible Entity

Mission River Watershed – 1.36E+14 Aransas River Watershed – 1.09E+14


Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

Texas Wildlife Services

AgriLife Extension Feral Hog education program

Year 1 Contact landowners in priority areas to discuss the economic savings of feral hog removal; submit a proposal for both edu-cational programs and local assistance; existing methods of feral hog removal shall be con-tinued and reported as appropriate. Year 2 Secure funding for education and local assistance; begin develop-ing and disseminating materials; begin providing assistance to landowners locally; continue contacting landowners; continue feral hog removal Year 3 – 4 Same as Year 2 but with addition of holding educational programs and end of securing educational funding. Year 5 Same as previous years, but will assess strategy for the next phase of implementation

The number of feral hogs re-moved from the watershed on an annual basis Number of sightings Number of edu-cational programs deliv-ered Number of ma-terials developed and disseminated Number of in-dividuals reached

Year 1: a successful sub-mission of an educational proposal for feral hog man-agement, a successful submission of a proposal for local assistance, and 540 feral hogs removed from the watersheds Year2: funding secured for education, funding secured for local assistance, educa-tion program initiated, 540 feral hogs removed from the watersheds Year 3 – 4: number of materials developed and disseminated, number of persons reached through education, 1,080 feral hogs removed from the water-sheds Year 5: number of materi-als developed and disseminated, number of persons reached through education, 540 feral hogs removed from the water-sheds, and an assessment of efforts to date

TCEQ CRP and addition-al monitoring developed under man-agement measure 8

Texas Wildlife Services, Feral Hog Abatement Program Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service Stakeholders


TSSWCB 319 grants or other available opportu-nities.

Texas Wildlife Services

TDA



Management Measure 4.0 Promote the Reduction of Illicit Dumping and Proper Disposal of Animal Car-casses Description Due to the increase of Eagle Ford Shale oil and gas activity, the population in the area has increased substantially. A portion of the population that has moved into the area, have moved into small communities with recreational vehicles. These ve-hicles contain portable bathrooms and as with any portable bathroom, there is a need to periodically dispose of the waste. Scattered throughout the area are dispos-al sites; however, there is often a fee for using these disposal facilities and as a result, owners of the recreational vehicles sometimes decide to dispose of their waste near or in local water bodies. Illicit dumping has also been identified as a concern to the stakeholders. Trash, household items, waste, and animal carcasses have been known to be dumped into some local creeks and then during a rain event, wash downstream onto neighbor-ing lands. This has been a concern for stakeholders all over the watershed. Additionally, the Mission and Aransas River watersheds are a destination for many outdoor sportsmen. The prime habitat, large tracts of well managed land, and abundance of game animals make the area very attractive for hunters. A fairly common practice for those that harvest game species is to dispose of the carcasses in low lying areas that are away from traveled roads and prime recreational areas. Typically, these areas are near water bodies. Education on the proper disposal of animal carcasses is needed to reduce disposal near those local water bodies. Challenges in enforcing illicit dumping include the lack of available personnel for education and enforcement, lack of equipment necessary to reduce the ease of dumping, lack of equipment available to monitor sites for enforcement, and other challenges unique to each area. It is the purpose of this management measure to reduce the amount of “dumping” in and near the local water bodies. Through vari-ous types of efforts including education (for both local officials and residents), signage at water bodies, enforcement, and other measures, illicit dumping in water bodies can be reduced. Responsible parties will develop a strategy on how to re-duce illicit dumping and implement their respective strategies. Education Component Education for both residents and local officials is important as local officials need to understand the implications of pollution and also what some strategies are to reduce illicit dumping. A source of potential educational opportunities for local of-ficials is the Texas Illegal Dumping Resource Center (http://www.tidrc.com/index.html) that provides Continuing Education Units to individuals who need them. Also, residents must be educated so that they under-stand that dumping into water bodies can have harmful effects. Some possible methods of education could include, but are not limited to, signage at bridge cross-



ings, educational inserts with water bills and any others that would reach the popu-lation of interest. Additionally, there is a need for an educational campaign that will consist of edu-cating recreational hunters and landowners on the proper disposal of animal carcasses as well as the proper disposal of recreational vehicle waste. Through this program, educational materials should be developed and disseminated through a variety of avenues including, but not limited to, feed stores, direct mailing, news-paper articles, magazine articles, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Outdoor Annual: Hunting and Fishing Regulations. Priority Areas Specific priority areas for this management measure consist of bridge crossings within the respective jurisdictions of responsible parties. Bridges tend to be a site of common illicit dumping. Further, education of proper animal disposal of ani-mals and the dumping of waste from recreational vehicles should focus on areas where there is a high demand for hunting, and high density of recreational vehi-cles. Measureable Milestones Measurable milestones for this management measure will consist of:

number of citations issued number of complaints made to responsible parties amount of pollution removed from bridge crossings number of educational materials developed number of materials disseminated

Progress Indicators Progress indicators for this management measure consist of the following Year 1: successful submission of a grant proposal for additional personnel and/or educational programs, a 5% reduction in both the number of fines written for illicit dumping and number of reports/complaints to responsible parties Year 2: an awarded grant proposal for additional personnel and/or education pro-grams, a 5% reduction in both the number of fines written for illicit dumping and number of reports/complaints to responsible parties from the previous year Year 3 – 4: number of materials developed and disseminated, number of education programs delivered, a 5% reduction in both the number of fines written for illicit dumping and number of reports/complaints to responsible parties from the previ-ous year Year 5: number of materials developed and disseminated, number of education programs delivered, a 5% reduction in both the number of fines written for illicit dumping and number of reports/complaints to responsible parties from the previ-ous year



Monitoring Component Monitoring for this management measure will consist of continuing TCEQ CRP monitoring at existing sites and an expanded monitoring program, if needed, will be developed under Management Measure 8 of this I-Plan. Responsible Parties Goliad County and CCNs in the county that fall within the watershed will be respon-sible for enforcing illicit dumping activities within its respective jurisdiction and deliver education programs, as appropriate

Refugio County and CCNs in the county that fall within the watershed will be re-sponsible for enforcing illicit dumping activities within its respective jurisdiction and deliver education programs, as appropriate

Bee County and CCNs in the county that fall within the watershed will be responsi-ble for enforcing illicit dumping activities within its respective jurisdiction and deliver education programs, as appropriate

San Patricio and CCNs in the county that fall within the watershed will be responsi-ble for enforcing illicit dumping activities within its respective jurisdiction and deliver education programs, as appropriate

Aransas and CCNs in the county that fall within the watershed will be responsible for enforcing illicit dumping activities within its respective jurisdiction and deliver education programs, as appropriate Technical Assistance Texas A&M AgriLife County Extension Agents will assist in educational activities related to illicit dumping and proper disposal of animal carcasses TCEQ Region 14 will, as resources are available, provide local governments with support and/or assistance in enforcing illicit dumping activities TCEQ Department of Small Business and Local Government Assistance will pro-vide, as resources are available, technical support to local governments as the best approach in reducing illicit dumping is determined. Financial Assistance USDA Rural Utilities Service Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants - The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is amending its regulations related to the Section 306C Water and Waste Disposal (WWD) Loans and Grants Program, which pro-vides water and waste disposal facilities and services to low-income rural communities whose residents face significant health risks. Specifically, RUS is modifying the priority points system in order to give additional priority points to the colonias that lack access to water or waste disposal systems and face significant health problems. The intent is to ensure that the neediest areas receive funding.



CWA 319(h) grant funds from TCEQ and/or TSSWCB Table 23. Estimated Costs Entity Activities Needed Estimated Costs

Responsible Parties Postage of signs at bridge warn-ings of fines for improper disposal

$48,000

Educational Entities Outreach and Education $115,000

Implementation Schedule Year 1: Responsible parties will, as funding allows,

Submit a grant proposal in pursuit of funding for educational programs, il-licit dumping mitigation activities, and/or additional personnel

Develop a strategy on how to best reduce illicit dumping Implement activities as resources allow Reduce the number of fines written and number of reports of illicit dumping

by 5% Year 2 -5: Responsible parties will, as funding allows,

Secure funding for additional personnel, education programs, and or illicit dumping implementation activities

Initiate and implement educational programs Reduce the amount of fines written and reports of illicit dumping to respon-

sible parties by 5% annually Estimated Loading Reductions Potential load reductions from reducing illicit dumping and properly disposing of animal carcasses cannot be quantified as it is uncertain how much pollution will be removed and how much sources of interest actually contribute.



Table 24. Management Measure 4.0: Promote the Reduction of Illicit Dumping and Proper Disposal of Animal Carcasses



Needed Education


Implementation



Monitor-ing

Compo-nent

Responsible Entity

N/A Technical Assis-tance

Texas A&M AgriLife County Extension Agents

TCEQ Region 14

TCEQ Department of Small Business and Local Government Assistance

Educate water-shed residents and elected offi-cials on illegal dumping via the Texas Illegal Dumping Re-source Center but also possibly signage. Educate local hunters on prop-er carcass disposal through pamphlets at local businesses.

Year 1: Submit a grant proposal in pursuit of funding for education-al programs, illicit dumping mitigation activities, and/or addi-tional personnel; Develop a strategy on how to best reduce illicit dumping; Im-plement activities as resources allow; Re-duce the number of fines written and number of reports of illicit dumping by 5% Year 2 -5: Secure funding for additional personnel, education programs, and or illicit dumping implementation activi-ties; Initiate and implement education-al programs; Reduce the amount of fines written and reports of illicit dumping to re-sponsible parties by 5% annually

Citations issued Number of complaints made to responsible parties Amount of pollution removed from bridge crossings Number of educational materials developed Number of materials disseminat-ed

Year 1: successful submission of a grant proposal for additional person-nel and/or educational programs, a 5% reduction in both the number of fines written for illicit dumping and number of reports/complaints to re-sponsible parties Year 2: an awarded grant proposal for additional personnel and/or edu-cation programs, a 5% reduction in both the number of fines written for illicit dumping and number of re-ports/complaints to responsible parties from the previous year Year 3 – 4: number of materials de-veloped and disseminated, number of education programs delivered, a 5% reduction in both the number of fines written for illicit dumping and number of reports/complaints to responsible parties from the previous year Year 5: number of materials devel-oped and disseminated, number of education programs delivered, a 5% reduction in both the number of fines written for illicit dumping and number of reports/complaints to responsible parties from the previous year


Goliad County and CCNs that fall within the county Refugio County and CCNs that fall within the county Bee County and CCNs that fall within the county San Patricio and CCNs that fall within the county Aransas and CCNs that fall within the county

Financial Assis-tance


CWA 319 funds from TCEQ and/or TSSWCB



Management Measure 5.0 Identify OSSFs, Prioritize Problem Areas, and Systematically Work to Bring Sys-tems into Compliance Description Failing on-site sewage facilities have been known to contribute to bacteria impair-ments all over the state. These watersheds are not any different with roughly 10,000 septic systems scattered throughout the area. Stakeholders in these water-sheds have also identified OSSFs as contributing factor; therefore, it is the purpose of this management measure to improve the identification, inspection, pre-installation planning, education, operation, maintenance and tracking of all OSSFs in the watershed and minimize potential negative water quality impacts from mal-functioning systems. Identifying OSSFs in the Mission and Aransas River watersheds is the first step in this process. Knowing the location of systems will aid in implementation efforts and goals of reducing E. coli and Enterococcus loading to the Mission and Aransas Rivers. The initial step will be for Responsible Parties to collect geographic infor-mation system (GIS) information of known OSSFs in the watershed as well as known sewerage extent information if possible. This can be initiated using 911 ad-dress point files, certificates of convenience and necessity (CCN) layers and 2010 Census block data. From there, dwellings and other facilities not served by known systems can be identified. As OSSFs are identified, they will be tracked using GIS to document pertinent information related to the installation, operation, mainte-nance, and performance history of the system. This tracking system will set the basis for identifying potential problem areas and aiding in prioritizing these areas for action. Once identified and prioritized, OSSFs will be inspected as time and funding allow. Current staff available for inspections also typically have many other obligations; therefore, they have little if any time to perform systematic inspections. Additional funding is necessary to produce labor to conduct these inspections. Physical in-spections are necessary to properly identify problematic OSSFs or clusters of OSSFs and will provide critical input to the process of identifying priority areas of the watershed where repairs and replacements will be conducted first. OSSF owners should be contacted to request permission to conduct an inspection and also to provide the owner with information regarding maintenance and re-placements. These contacts will begin first in priority areas that have been identified (below) and then continue throughout the rest of the watersheds. Upon receiving permission to conduct an inspection, responsible parties, as funding al-lows, will conduct on-site inspections and consult with the owner on methods for maintenance and replacements if the system has been found to be failing. This pro-cess should continue throughout implementation of this plan. It is estimated that funds will be needed to support additional personnel and to assist/incentivize sep-tic system owners.



Educational Component General knowledge and understanding of operation and maintenance require-ments for OSSFs can be viewed as being deficit throughout the watershed. This educational deficiency lies not only with the homeowner, but with local officials as well. Education and outreach for OSSFs is a must and will be targeted to these offi-cials as they have the ability to establish mechanisms that will mitigate pollution problems from OSSFs at community, county, watershed and regional scales. Ef-forts must also be made to deliver educational materials on proper OSSF operation and maintenance needs to homeowners. Priority Areas Priority areas for this management measure consist of the following subwater-sheds:

Aransas River Watershed – 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11 Mission River Watershed – 2 and 3

Measurable Milestones Measurable milestones for this management measure will consist of:

The number of OSSF owners contacted for inspections and/or outreach The number of OSSF inspections made The number of OSSFs replaced The number of educational materials developed and distributed

Progress Indicators Progress indicators for this management measure will consist of: Year 1: Successful submission of a proposal in pursuit of funds for OSSF assis-tance/incentives and/or education, development of a tracking system for OSSFs Year 2: 2% of OSSF owners contacted, inspect 1% of OSSFs, secured funding for personnel and OSSF assistance/incentives and/or education, initiation of educa-tion program, maintenance of tracking system Year 3 – 5: 6% of OSSF owners contacted, inspect 3% of OSSFs in addition to year 1, 140 (or 10%) of failing OSSFs replaced/updated (19 in the Mission River Water-shed and 121 in the Aransas River Watershed). Monitoring Component Monitoring for this management measure will consist of utilizing TCEQ CRP moni-toring and measuring bacteria loadings, especially in critical areas. Additional monitoring may be needed and should be developed under Management Measure 8 of this document. Responsible Parties OSSF owners will be responsible for making sure needed repairs or replacements are made on malfunctioning OSSFs as funding allows.



Goliad County offices have the authority over OSSFs and will be responsible for ac-tivities associated with this management measure within its respective jurisdiction. Refugio County offices have the authority over OSSFs and will be responsible for activities associated with this management measure within its respective jurisdic-tion.

Bee County offices have the authority over OSSFs and will be responsible for activi-ties associated with this management measure within its respective jurisdiction.

San Patricio County offices have the authority over OSSFs and will be responsible for activities associated with this management measure within its respective juris-diction.

Aransas County offices have the authority over OSSFs and will be responsible for activities associated with this management measure within its respective jurisdic-tion. TCEQ Region 14, as resources are available, will work to identify specific educa-tional needs and will seek the needed technical and financial assistance to deliver these education programs locally Technical Assistance TCEQ Region 14 will, as resources are available, provide local governments with support and/or assistance in implementing activities covered in this management measure.

TCEQ, Department of Small Business and Local Government Assistance will pro-vide, as resources are available, technical support to local governments as to the best approach for addressing OSSF issues. Financial Assistance Funding should be pursued through TCEQ 319(h) grants for both replacements and education.

USFWS/TGLO Coastal Impact Assistance Program - The Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) provides federal grant funds derived from federal offshore lease revenues to oil producing states for conservation, protection, or restoration of coastal areas including wetlands; mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural resources; planning assistance and the administrative costs of complying with these objectives; implementation of a federally-approved marine, coastal, or comprehen-sive conservation management plan; and mitigation of the impact of outer Continental Shelf activities through funding of onshore infrastructure projects and public service needs.



NOAA/TGLO Coastal Management Program and National Coastal Zone Manage-ment Program - The National Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program is a voluntary partnership between the federal government and U.S. coastal and Great Lake states and territories (states) authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 to address national coastal issues. The Act provides the basis for protecting, restoring, and responsibly developing our nation’s diverse coastal com-munities and resources. To meet the goals of the CZMA, the National CZM Program takes a comprehensive approach to coastal resource management—balancing the often competing and occasionally conflicting demands of coastal resource use, eco-nomic development, and conservation. Some of the key elements of the National CZM Program include: Protecting natural resources; Managing development in high hazard areas; Giving development priority to coastal-dependent uses; Providing public access for recreation; and Coordinating state and federal actions.

Table 25. Estimated Funding Needs Entity Activities Needed Estimated Costs

Responsible Parties OSSF repair and replacement ($8,000 per system)

$9,120,000

Educational Entities Education and outreach events to 1) homeowners and 2) to install-ers/maintenance providers

$75,000

OSSF online training modules $10,000

Implementation Schedule Year 1: Responsible parties will, as funding allows,

Pursue funds for additional personnel, education, and OSSF replace-ments/upgrades

Identify priority areas for OSSF inspections Develop a tracking tool/ update existing tracking tools for OSSFs Begin contacting OSSF owners

Years 2 - 5: Responsible parties will, as funding allows,

Secure funding for additional personnel, education, and OSSF replace-ments/upgrades

Initiate and continue educational programs Begin replacements/upgrades Continue tracking OSSFS Continue contacting OSSF owners Inspect 1.5% of estimated OSSFs each year



Estimated Loading Reductions Mission River Watershed – 2.87E+12 Aransas River Watershed – 1.83E+13



Table 26. Management Measure 5.0: Identify OSSFs, Prioritize Problem Areas, and Systematically Work to Bring Systems into Compli-ance



Needed Education


Implementation




Responsible Entity



TCEQ Region 14

TCEQ, Department of Small Business and Lo-cal Government Assistance

OSSF opera-tion and maintenance education for homeowners and elected officials

Year 1: Pursue funds for additional personnel, education, and OSSF replacements/ upgrades. Identify priority areas for OSSF inspec-tions. Develop a tracking tool for OSSFs. Begin contacting OSSF owners Years 2 - 5: Secure funding for additional personnel, education, and OSSF replacements /upgrades. Initiate educational programs. Begin replacements/upgrades. Contin-ue tracking OSSFS. Continue contacting OSSF owners. Inspect 1.5% of estimated OSSFs each year

The number of OSSF owners contacted for inspections and outreach The number of OSSF inspec-tions made The number of OSSFs replaced The number of educational ma-terials developed and distributed

Year 1: Successful submission of a proposal in pur-suit of funds for OSSF assis-tance/incentives and/or education, development of a tracking system for OSSFs Year 2: 2% of OSSF owners con-tacted, inspect 1% of OSSFs, secured funding for per-sonnel and OSSF assis-tance/incentives and/or education, initiation of educa-tion program, maintenance of tracking system Year 3 – 5: 6% of OSSF owners con-tacted, inspect 3% of OSSFs in addi-tion to year 2, 140 of OSSFs re-placed/updated

TCEQ CRP and addition-al monitoring developed under man-agement measure 8

OSSF owners Goliad County Refugio County Bee County San Patricio County Aransas County


TCEQ 319(h) grants

USFWS/TGLO Coastal Impact Assistance Pro-gram

NOAA/TGLO Coastal Management Program and National Coastal Zone Management Pro-gram



Management Measure 6.0 Promote the Improved Quality of and Management of Urban Storm water Description Bacteria sources, such as waste from pets, wildlife, and even humans, can be washed into storm drains and then discharged into local waterways. Because storm water systems are designed to quickly and efficiently remove storm water from de-velopments, storm water often bypasses the natural vegetative barriers that filter sheet flow over the land. Thus, bacteria loading may be more concentrated. In the Mission and Aransas River watersheds, there are no MS4 permits; therefore, urban storm water is not regulated. Structural BMPs, such as modifications to storm water outfalls that may reduce bacteria aeration, treatment by sunlight, or physical removal of contaminants, have the potential to reduce bacteria loading into waterways. Because there is limited data regarding how well such BMPs might reduce bacteria loading, education on strategies to reduce bacteria loading is a key focus of this management measure; however, the adoption of urban BMPs could result in potential loading reductions. The goal of this management measure is to decrease nonpoint source pollution from storm water runoff in urban areas through the adoption of urban BMPs (number of acres for each watershed can be found in Appendix B) and raise aware-ness amongst residents of how unregulated sources of pollution impact water quality. Educational Component Targeting both homeowners and elected officials, educational and outreach pro-grams will be delivered that highlight various practices on treating bacteria in storm water and strategies on reducing potential loadings. These programs will be conducted through a variety of methods including, but not limited to, public ser-vice announcements, utility bill inserts, other direct mailing, educational kiosks at parks, pet waste stations, public environmental events (ex. Earth Day) etc. Part of these educational events can be the use of Low Impact Development (LID) strate-gies that can be adopted for existing structures or incorporated into new structures. Priority Areas Priority areas for this management measure consist of urban areas within the Mis-sion and Aransas River watersheds. Focus should be given in areas that discharge near or into impaired segments but not limited to those areas. Measurable Milestones Measurable milestones for this management measure will consist of:

The number of urban storm water BMPs adopted The number of educational materials developed The number of individuals reached through educational activities



Progress Indicators Progress indicators for this management measure will consist of: Year 1: Successful submission of a proposal in pursuit of funds for urban storm wa-ter education, identified locations for urban BMP installation if found feasible Year 2: Successfully secured funding for storm water education activities, initiation of education program for storm water, development of educational materials, initi-ation of BMP installation if feasible Year 3 – 5: Continuation of educational activities, number of contacts made through educational activities, completion of urban BMP installation Monitoring Component Monitoring for this management measure will consist of continuing TCEQ CRP monitoring at existing sites and an expanded monitoring program, if needed, will be developed under Management Measure 8 of this I-Plan. Responsible Parties City of Beeville is responsible for pursuing funds to support educational activities and once funds have been secured, educational activities will be conducted to raise water quality awareness. Also, identify locations for urban BMPs and if found feasi-ble, install practices.

City of Sinton is responsible for pursuing funds to support educational activities and once funds have been secured, educational activities will be conducted to raise wa-ter quality awareness. Also, identify locations for urban BMPs and if found feasible, install practices. Town of Woodsboro is responsible for pursuing funds to support educational activi-ties and once funds have been secured, educational activities will be conducted to raise water quality awareness. Also, identify locations for urban BMPs and if found feasible, install practices. Town of Refugio is responsible for pursuing funds to support educational activities and once funds have been secured, educational activities will be conducted to raise water quality awareness. Also, identify locations for urban BMPs and if found feasi-ble, install practices. City of Taft is responsible for pursuing funds to support educational activities and once funds have been secured, educational activities will be conducted to raise wa-ter quality awareness. Also, identify locations for urban BMPs and if found feasible, install practices. Pettus MUD is responsible for pursuing funds to support educational activities and once funds have been secured, educational activities will be conducted to raise wa-



ter quality awareness. Also, identify locations for urban BMPs and if found feasible, install practices. Town of Skidmore is responsible for pursuing funds to support educational activi-ties and once funds have been secured, educational activities will be conducted to raise water quality awareness. Also, identify locations for urban BMPs and if found feasible, install practices. Town of St. Paul is responsible for pursuing funds to support educational activities and once funds have been secured, educational activities will be conducted to raise water quality awareness. Also, identify locations for urban BMPs and if found feasi-ble, install practices. Town of Odem is responsible for pursuing funds to support educational activities and once funds have been secured, educational activities will be conducted to raise water quality awareness. Also, identify locations for urban BMPs and if found feasi-ble, install practices. Technical Assistance TCEQ Region 14 will, as resources are available, provide local governments with support and/or assistance in implementing activities covered in this management measure. Financial Assistance EPA/TWDB Clean Water State Revolving Fund - The CWSRF program provides very attractive low-interest loans that spread project costs over a repayment period of up to twenty years. Repayments are cycled back into the fund and used to pay for additional Funding should be pursued through TCEQ 319(h) grants for both education and urban BMP instillation EPA Environmental Education Grants - Under the EE Grant Program, EPA seeks grant proposals from eligible applicants to support environmental education pro-jects that promote environmental stewardship and help develop knowledgeable and responsible students, teachers, and citizens. This grant program provides fi-nancial support for projects that design, demonstrate, and/or disseminate environmental education practices, methods, or techniques as described in the so-licitation notices. EPA expects to award two rounds of environmental education grants from the ten EPA Regional offices. EPA Urban Water Small Grants - The objective of the Urban Waters Small Grants is to fund projects that will foster a comprehensive understanding of local urban water issues, identify and address these issues at the local level, and educate and empower the community. In particular, the Urban Waters Small Grants seek to help restore and protect urban water quality and revitalize adjacent neighborhoods



by engaging communities in activities that increase their connection to, under-standing of, and stewardship of local urban waterways. Table 27. Estimated Funding Needs Entity Activities Needed Estimated Costs

Responsible Parties Pet Waste Programs ($3,500 per program 1 per CCN annually)

$157,500

Comprehensive Urban Storm-water Assessment ($35,000 per assessment at 1 per county)

$175,000

Enhance Stormwater Manage-ment Practices

$75,000

Educational Entities Urban pollution workshops ($2,500 per workshop at 1 per CCN annually)

$112,500


Submit a proposal in pursuit of funds for urban storm water education Identify the locations of urban BMP installation locations

Year 2

Successfully secure funding for storm water education activities Initiate education programs for stormwater Develop educational materials Initiate the installation of BMPs, if feasible and as funds allow

Year 3 – 5

Continuation of educational activities Completion of urban BMP installation, if feasible and as funds allow

Estimated Loading Reductions Estimated loading reductions for this management measure consist of: Mission River Watershed – 7.64E+09 Aransas River Watershed – 5.19E+10



Table 28. Management Measure 6.0: Promote the Improved Quality of and Management of Urban Storm water



Needed Education


Implementation




Responsible Entity



TCEQ Region 14

Education of storm water bacteria loading to homeowners and elected officials via PSAs, mail-ings, information-al kiosks, and public events

Year 1 Submit a proposal in pursuit of funds for urban storm water education. Identify the locations of urban BMP installation locations. Year 2 Successfully secure funding for storm water education activities. Initi-ate education programs for stormwater. Develop educational materials. Initiate the installation of BMPs, if feasible Year 3 – 5 Continuation of educa-tional activities. Completion of urban BMP installation, if feasible.

The number of urban storm water BMPs adopted The number of educa-tional materials developed The number of indi-viduals reached through educational activities

Year 1: Successful submission of a pro-posal in pursuit of funds for urban storm water education, identified locations for urban BMP instal-lation if found feasible Year 2: Successfully secured funding for storm water educa-tion activities, initiation of education program for storm water, development of educational mate-rials, initiation of BMP installation if feasible Year 3 – 5: Continu-ation of educational activities, number of contacts made through educational activities, completion of urban BMP instal-lation

TCEQ CRP and addi-tional monitoring developed under man-agement measure 8

City of Beeville City of Sinton Town of Woods-boro Town of Refugio City of Taft Pettus MUD Skidmore WSC St. Paul WSC Tynan WSC Town of Odem


TCEQ 319(h) grants

State Revolving Funds

EPA Environmental Ed-ucation Grants

EPA Urban Water Small Grants



Management Measure 7.0 Coordinate Efforts for Reducing Unauthorized Discharges Description This implementation strategy focuses on the underground infrastructure (pipes), ancillary support processes (lift stations), and the management of the network of infrastructure that is connected to the wastewater treatment facility itself. Activi-ties in the wastewater treatment facilities are previously discussed. Plans to reduce unauthorized discharges include a host of activities that each city will carry out in efforts to reduce the number of unauthorized discharges that occur within their re-spective service areas, fixed within portions of the Mission and Aransas River watersheds. The purpose of this management measure is to continue the implementation of ac-tivities that reduce the amount of unauthorized discharges. To reduce unauthorized discharges, CCN holders will conduct routine sewer pipe inspections, using inflow and infiltration studies and methods, to prioritize needed system re-pairs and/or replacements, undergo visual inspections of manholes to prioritize needed repairs, and other activities identified by each entity. Tracking unauthor-ized discharge mitigation activities using GIS, when feasible, and documenting the sources of the unauthorized discharges will serve to prioritize future repairs. Re-pairs and replacements will be tracked annually. Also, responsible parties may develop an annual plan for improvements that will be made during the upcoming year to assist in prioritizing areas for improvements. It is understood that failures may occur at a random time and will need immediate attention; therefore, the an-nual plan is simply meant to be a guide for prioritizing where these improvements may be needed. Education Component Education is needed for both city personnel and citizens that reside within the CCN boundary. First, it is important for city personnel to know how to inspect infra-structure for needed repairs and to be able to identify areas that may fail in the near future. It is also important for those inspecting to report needed repairs to de-cision makers within the respective party so that prioritization of repairs can be made for the system as a whole. Secondly, residents of the respective area need to be educated to be able to identify where failures may occur and be able to report these failures to the appropriate personnel. Citizens also must be educated on how they can potentially reduce their contribution to failing infrastructure. Priority Areas Priority areas for this management measure simply fall within CCN boundaries within the Mission and Aransas River watersheds. Focus should be given to those that fall near the impaired water bodies but should not be limited to just those.



Measureable Milestones Measurable milestones for this management measure will consist of:

Number of documented replacements and repairs The number of educational materials developed and delivered Number of failures occurring The number of failures reported to appropriate personnel by both citizens

and city personnel. Progress Indicators Progress indicators for this management measure consist of: Year 1 – 5% fewer unauthorized discharges than previously occurring Year 2 – 10% fewer unauthorized discharges than previous year Year 3 – 10% fewer unauthorized discharges than previous year Year 4 – 10% fewer unauthorized discharges than previous year Year 5 – 10% fewer unauthorized discharges than previous year Monitoring Component Monitoring for this management measure will occur at an existing station that is downstream of the CCN during TCEQ CRP monitoring. Additional monitoring may be needed and should be developed under Management Measure 8 of this docu-ment. Responsible Parties City of Beeville will conduct routine inspections of infrastructure to identify repairs that are needed and reduce the contributions of unauthorized discharges. Repairs will be tracked to help CCN holders prioritize areas that need more immediate at-tention in the near future. An annual plan, to serve as a guide, will be developed to help personnel prioritize improvements / repairs needed for the upcoming year. Both city personnel and residents need to be educated to identify failures that are occurring and know where to report such failures. Finally, unauthorized discharges will be reported to TCEQ. City of Sinton will conduct routine inspections of infrastructure to identify repairs that are needed and reduce the contributions of unauthorized discharges. Repairs will be tracked to help CCN holders prioritize areas that need more immediate at-tention in the near future. An annual plan, to serve as a guide, will be developed to help personnel prioritize improvements / repairs needed for the upcoming year. Both city personnel and residents need to be educated to identify failures that are occurring and know where to report such failures. Finally, unauthorized discharges will be reported to TCEQ. Town of Refugio will conduct routine inspections of infrastructure to identify re-pairs that are needed and reduce the contributions of unauthorized discharges. Repairs will be tracked to help CCN holders prioritize areas that need more imme-diate attention in the near future. An annual plan, to serve as a guide, will be developed to help personnel prioritize improvements / repairs needed for the up-coming year. Both city personnel and residents need to be educated to identify



failures that are occurring and know where to report such failures. Finally, unau-thorized discharges will be reported to TCEQ. City of Taft will conduct routine inspections of infrastructure to identify repairs that are needed and reduce the contributions of unauthorized discharges. Repairs will be tracked to help CCN holders prioritize areas that need more immediate attention in the near future. An annual plan, to serve as a guide, will be developed to help per-sonnel prioritize improvements / repairs needed for the upcoming year. Both city personnel and residents need to be educated to identify failures that are occurring and know where to report such failures. Finally, unauthorized discharges will be re-ported to TCEQ. Pettus MUD will conduct routine inspections of infrastructure to identify repairs that are needed and reduce the contributions of unauthorized discharges. Repairs will be tracked to help CCN holders prioritize areas that need more immediate at-tention in the near future. An annual plan, to serve as a guide, will be developed to help personnel prioritize improvements / repairs needed for the upcoming year. Both city personnel and residents need to be educated to identify failures that are occurring and know where to report such failures. Finally, unauthorized discharges will be reported to TCEQ. Town of Skidmore will conduct routine inspections of infrastructure to identify re-pairs that are needed and reduce the contributions of unauthorized discharges. Repairs will be tracked to help CCN holders prioritize areas that need more imme-diate attention in the near future. An annual plan, to serve as a guide, will be developed to help personnel prioritize improvements / repairs needed for the up-coming year. Both city personnel and residents need to be educated to identify failures that are occurring and know where to report such failures. Finally, unau-thorized discharges will be reported to TCEQ. Town of St. Paul will conduct routine inspections of infrastructure to identify re-pairs that are needed and reduce the contributions of unauthorized discharges. Repairs will be tracked to help CCN holders prioritize areas that need more imme-diate attention in the near future. An annual plan, to serve as a guide, will be developed to help personnel prioritize improvements / repairs needed for the up-coming year. Both city personnel and residents need to be educated to identify failures that are occurring and know where to report such failures. Finally, unau-thorized discharges will be reported to TCEQ.

Town of Tynan will conduct routine inspections of infrastructure to identify repairs that are needed and reduce the contributions of unauthorized discharges. Repairs will be tracked to help CCN holders prioritize areas that need more immediate at-tention in the near future. An annual plan, to serve as a guide, will be developed to help personnel prioritize improvements / repairs needed for the upcoming year. Both city personnel and residents need to be educated to identify failures that are occurring and know where to report such failures. Finally, unauthorized discharges will be reported to TCEQ.



Technical Assistance TCEQ Region 14 will receive unauthorized discharge information from respective CCN holders and assist cities according to TCEQ rules and regulations. Financial Assistance EPA/TWDB Clean Water State Revolving Fund - The CWSRF program provides very attractive, low-interest loans that spread project costs over a repayment period of up to twenty years. Repayments are cycled back into the fund and used to pay for additional clean water projects. CWSRF programs are currently funding projects that address agriculture runoff, leaking on-site septic systems, and urban non-point source pollution, including stormwater runoff and brownfield contamination. TWDB Economically Distressed Areas Program - The Economically Distressed Are-as Program (EDAP) provides financial assistance to provide water and wastewater services to economically distressed areas where services do not exist or systems do not meet minimum state standards.

USDA Rural Utilities Service Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants- The Ru-ral Utilities Service (RUS) is amending its regulations related to the Section 306C Water and Waste Disposal (WWD) Loans and Grants Program, which provides wa-ter and waste disposal facilities and services to low-income rural communities whose residents face significant health risks. Specifically, RUS is modifying the pri-ority points system in order to give additional priority points to the colonias that lack access to water or waste disposal systems and face significant health problems. The intent is to ensure that the neediest areas receive funding. Table 29. Estimated Funding Needs Entity Activities Needed Estimated Costs

City of Taft Upgrading Infrastructure 2.7 million

Other Responsible Parties Upgrading Infrastructure N/A


conduct visual inspections of existing infrastructure and make needed re-pairs as necessary

document repairs and if possible, map in GIS develop a plan for the upcoming year to help prioritize efforts pursue funds for educational activities

Year 2 – 5 Responsible parties will, as funding allows,

continue to conduct visual inspections of infrastructure plan for upcoming year repairs



continue to document all repairs in a method already utilized by CCN hold-ers

continue to pursue and secure funding for education and outreach pro-grams

initiate education and outreach programs if funding has been secured Estimated Loading Reductions Estimated loading reductions for this management measure consist of: Mission River Watershed – 3.31E+09 Aransas River Watershed – 6.62E+09



Table 30. Management Measure 7.0: Coordinate Efforts for Reducing Unauthorized Discharges



Needed Education


Implementation




Responsible Entity



TCEQ Region 14

City personal and citi-zens need to be educated on identifying and minimizing unau-thorized discharges.

Year 1 Conduct visual inspections of existing infrastructure and make needed repairs as necessary. Docu-ment repairs and if possible, map in GIS. Develop a plan for the upcoming year to help prioritize efforts. Initi-ate education programs, if possible. Pursue funds for edu-cational activities Year 2 – 5 Continue to conduct visual inspections of infrastructure. Plan for upcoming year repairs. Continue to document all repairs in a method already utilized by CCN holders. Continue to pursue and secure funding for education and outreach pro-grams. Initiate educa-tion and outreach programs if funding has been secured

Documenting re-placements made on an annual basis The number of edu-cational materials developed and deliv-ered The number of re-pairs made Number of failures occurring The number of fail-ures reported to appropriate person-nel by both citizens and city personnel

Year 1 – 5% fewer unau-thorized discharges than previous-ly occurring Years 2 – 5 Annual 10% reduction in unauthorized discharges from previous year

TCEQ CRP and additional monitoring developed under man-agement measure 8

City of Beeville City of Sinton Town of Refugio City of Taft Pettus MUD Town of Skidmore Town of St. Paul Town of Tynan







Management Measure 8.0 Coordinate and Expand Existing Water Quality Monitoring in the Watershed Description Expanding the monitoring in the watershed has been a primary goal for stakehold-er workgroups. Quarterly monitoring collected at one site is not sufficient to accurately determine the quality of a water body, nor is it sufficient to aid water-shed managers in identifying and addressing instream water quality. An expanded monitoring network that collects data at strategic locations on a refined time scale will aid entities involved in the management of their watershed in identifying where problems areas for bacteria loading may be and when they are most prob-lematic. Monitoring is needed in the watershed to accomplish two primary goals:

1) Better define where the problem areas are in the watershed 2) Monitor long-term trends in water quality prior to and post BMP imple-

mentation Further evaluation of potential sources in the watershed is also needed. Some in-formation exists across the watershed regarding potential sources of pollution. A physical survey of the stream network in the watershed should be conducted and paired with a GIS source survey to further understand potential sources of bacteria in the watershed. To fulfill these needs, stakeholders will work together to facilitate development of proposals that define desired water quality monitoring goals, objectives, tasks, and expected outcomes of a special monitoring and source assessment project. Funding will be sought through various sources including, but not limited to, the TCEQ and TSSWCB Nonpoint Source Program through the annual 319(h) Grant funding pro-gram as well as the GLO Coastal Management Program to implement this measure. A volunteer monitoring program should be utilized, when funds are available, to conduct supplemental monitoring in the watershed to help target future BMP im-plementation. Data produced through monitoring projects will provide needed water quality data to watershed stakeholders, thus aiding them in better managing their local water resources and future improvements in water quality. All additional monitoring needs identified in the future will be conducted contingent upon the receipt of funding specifically for additional water quality monitoring. Further, stakeholders have expressed concerns of the declining population of Dung beetles (Phanaeus vindex MacLachlan; Onthophagus gazella Fabricius) that break down fecal matter. Research should be conducted to better understand the popula-tion dynamics and potential methods of mitigating human and invasive species



impacts to the insects in an effort to increase populations. Possible introduction of additional dung beetles may be needed in some areas to reestablish populations. More information about the beetles can be found at https://insects.tamu.edu/fieldguide/bimg146.html. Overall, it is the purpose of this management measure is to develop a more refined understanding of the spatial and temporal dynamics of bacteria loading in the Mis-sion and Aransas tidal segments. The water quality impairments in the two segments are based on quarterly data collected at a total of 3 sampling locations (TCEQ stations 12943, 12947, and 12948). To accurately identify and address the sources of water quality impairments in the watershed, an intensified monitoring campaign is needed. Education Component Educating stakeholders about ongoing monitoring and how to access results would be beneficial so that stakeholders can track water quality throughout the imple-mentation process. Websites containing monitoring results that can be located easily and contains multiple components such as land use, hydrology, soils, water quality data and many other layers (ex. http://arroyocolorado.org/map/ and http://www.nueces-ra.org/CP/CRP/SWQM/index.php) would be a beneficial learning tool for stakeholders as monitoring results can be accessed and tracked. Further, stakeholders should be educated on the various types of monitoring, benefits of different monitoring frequencies, identification of sites etc. so that an appropriate monitoring regime could be developed that would capture the effec-tiveness of implementation. NRAs coordinated monitoring meeting is an example of when such input could be provided. Finally, stakeholders should be engaged by learning through experience utilizing a voluntary monitoring program. Priority Areas Priority areas for this management measure will be identified by the stakeholders as data quality objectives are identified Measureable Milestones Measurable milestones for this management measure will consist of:

Number of education meetings for stakeholders on various types of moni-toring projects

Developed website where data can be easily accessed Developed monitoring proposal in pursuit of funding Establishment of a volunteer monitoring program

Progress Indicators Progress indicators for this management measure consist of: Year 1: Delivery of education programs about monitoring, establishment of data objectives for a monitoring project, submission of a monitoring project, develop-ment/enhancement of a website containing data, and establishment of a volunteer monitoring program



Year 2 – 5: initiation and continuation of both volunteer monitoring and monitor-ing conducted under a Quality Assurance Project Plan, and continued education with monitoring results Monitoring Component Monitoring for this management measure will occur at existing TCEQ CRP sta-tions; however, a monitoring project should be developed under this management measure. Responsible Parties Nueces River Authority – Clean Rivers Program will continue to monitor Mission and Aransas River watersheds as funding allows TCEQ – Clean Rivers Program will continue to support monitoring of the Mission and Aransas River watersheds TCEQ – Regional Office will continue to support monitoring efforts in the water-shed through their involvement in coordinated monitoring efforts Stakeholders will assist in determining data objectives for future monitoring pro-grams so that activities can be targeted to priority areas. Technical Assistance Nueces River Authority – can provide monitoring through TCEQ’s Clean Rivers Program, as funding allows, and provide technical assistance to other responsible parties TCEQ Clean Rivers Program can provide further technical assistance about moni-toring frequency and locations Financial Assistance TCEQ and TSSWCB – CWA §319(h) and State GR funds may be used to fund mon-itoring efforts in addition to the ongoing Clean Rivers Program GLO – Coastal Management Program may be a source of funds to contin-ue/enhance monitoring efforts. TWRI will assist, as funding allows, in coordinating monitoring efforts in the wa-tershed, will assist watershed stakeholders in the development of monitoring proposals, and will manage the project to ensure that it is completed as described. Table 31. Estimated Funding Needs Entity Activities Needed Estimated Costs

Responsible Parties Data collection and assessment of data

$370,000

Volunteer monitoring activities ($5,000 annually)

$25,000



Implementation Schedule Year 1 Responsible parties will, as funding allows:

Establish data quality objectives for monitoring and submit a grant proposal Development of website containing data Establishment of volunteer monitoring program

Year 2 – 5 Responsible parties will, as funding allows:

Initiate and continue both volunteer monitoring and monitoring conducted under a Quality Assurance Project Plan

Continued education using monitoring results Estimated Loading Reductions Loading reductions from additional water quality monitoring cannot be quantified.



Table 32. Management Measure 8.0: Coordinate and Expand Existing Water Quality Monitoring in the Watershed



Needed Education


Implementation



Monitor-ing

Compo-nent

Responsible Entity

N/A Technical Assistance

Texas Water Resources Institute

TCEQ

TSSWCB

Local Stakeholders

Educating stakeholders about ongoing moni-toring and how to access results. Placing results on a website that can be located easily and contains multiple components such as land use, hy-drology, soils, water quality data and many other layers would be a beneficial learning tool for stakeholders. Voluntary monitoring program

Year 1 Establish data quality objectives for monitor-ing and submit a grant proposal. Develop-ment of website containing data. Estab-lishment of volunteer monitoring program Year 2 – 5 Initiate and continue both volunteer moni-toring and monitoring conducted under a Quality Assurance Pro-ject Plan. Continued education using moni-toring results

Educating stake-holders on various types of monitoring projects Developing a website where data can be easily accessed Development of a monitoring proposal in pursuit of funding Establishment of a volunteer monitor-ing program

Year 1: Delivery of education programs about monitoring, establishment of data objectives for a moni-toring project, submission of a moni-toring project, development of a web-site containing data, and establishment of a volunteer monitoring program Year 2 – 5: initiation and continuation of both volunteer moni-toring and monitoring conducted under a Quality Assurance Project Plan, and con-tinued education with monitoring results


Nueces River Authority TCEQ – Clean Rivers Program TCEQ – Regional Office Stakeholders


TCEQ and TSSWCB – CWA §319(h) and State GR funds

GLO – Coastal Manage-ment Program

Texas Water Resources Institute



Sustainability The TCEQ and stakeholders in TMDL implementation projects periodically assess the results of the planned activities and other sources of information to evaluate the efficiency of the I-Plan. Stakeholders evaluate several factors, such as the pace of implementation, the effectiveness of BMPs, load reductions, and progress to-ward meeting water quality standards. The TCEQ will document the results of these evaluations and the rationale for maintaining or revising elements of the I-Plan. The TCEQ and stakeholders will track the progress of the I-Plan using both imple-mentation milestones and water quality indicators. These terms are defined as: Water Quality Indicator – A measure of water quality conditions for

comparison to pre-existing conditions, constituent loadings, and water quality standards.

Implementation Milestones – A measure of administrative actions un-dertaken to effect an improvement in water quality.

Water Quality Indicators Water quality monitoring staff of the NRA and/or TCEQ Region 14 will monitor the status of water quality during implementation and additional funding will be sought to conduct supplemental monitoring in the watersheds at various locations. The NRA currently monitors the Tidal segments of the Mission and Aransas Riv-ers. The following summary describes routine water-quality monitoring activities for each of the AUs in the Mission and Aransas River watersheds. The purpose of this monitoring is to ensure that adequate Enterococcus data is collected in each of the AUs to determine water quality standards attainment throughout the water-shed. Mission River Tidal (2001_01): Site 12943, near south bank immediately downstream of the FM 2678 bridge between Refugio and Bayside. This site is cur-rently being monitored quarterly by NRA and is both a current and historic water quality site with Enterococcus data dating back to 1999. Aransas River Tidal (2003_01): Site 12947, boat ramp FM 629 Terminus South of Bonnie View, has been monitored for Enterococcus since 2004 and is still being monitored on a quarterly basis Site 12948, immediately upstream of US 77 bridge between Woodsboro and Sin-ton, is a site that is no longer monitored but contains data ranging from 1999 – 2011.

Implementation Milestones Implementation tracking provides information that can be used to determine if progress is being made toward meeting goals of the TMDL. Tracking also allows stakeholders to evaluate actions taken, identify those which may not be working,



and make any changes that may be necessary to get the plan back on target. Schedules of implementation activities and milestones for this I-Plan are included in Appendix A.

Communication Strategy Communication is necessary to ensure stakeholders understand the I-Plan and its progress in restoring water quality conditions. The TCEQ will disseminate the in-formation derived from tracking I-Plan activities to interested parties, including watershed stakeholders, state leadership, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and individuals. The TCEQ will report results and evaluations from implementation tracking to stakeholders as needed. The TMDL Program will summarize all actions taken to address the impairment and will report trends observed in the water quality data collected to track the progress of implementation as needed. Responsible parties are committed to providing appropriate information to the TCEQ to update these progress assessments and communicating information at annual meetings. In accordance with the Clean Water Act §319, the state must annually report to USEPA on success in achieving the goals and objectives of the Texas Nonpoint Source Management Program, including progress in implementing the NPS por-tion of TMDLs. The TCEQ and TSSWCB jointly publish Managing Nonpoint Source Water Pollution in Texas: Annual Report, which highlights the state’s ef-forts during each fiscal year to collect data, assess water quality, implement projects that reduce or prevent NPS pollution, and educate and involve the public to improve the quality of water resources. Information derived from tracking and review activities of this I-Plan will be reported in each annual report. Previously published annual reports are available at <www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/ nonpoint-source/mgmt-plan/annual-reports.html>.

The TCEQ will host annual meetings for up to five years so stakeholders may eval-uate their progress. Stakeholders and responsible parties will continue to take part in annual meetings over the five-year period to evaluate implementation efforts. At the completion of the scheduled I-Plan activities, stakeholders will assemble and evaluate the actions, overall impacts, and results of their implementation efforts.



References Burns, R. (2011). Like the critters themselves, myths abound about feral hogs. AgriLife

Today, Texas A&M. Clealand, B. (2013). "TMDL Development From the “Bottom Up” - Part III: Duration

Curves and Wet-Weather Assessments." Retrieved 5/23/2013, from engineering.purdue.edu/~ldc/JG/duration/PDF/TMDL_Development_from_the_Bottom_UP_PartIII.pdf.

Painter, S., L. Hauck and D. Pendergrass (2013). Allocation Support Document for Total Maximum Daily Loads for Indicator Bacteria in the Watersheds of the Mission and Aransas Rivers. Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas, Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research.

Texas A&M AgriLife. (2013). "V.G. Young Institute of County Government." Retrieved 8/16/2013, from http://vgyi.tamu.edu/.

Texas Agriculture Code (2007). Nonpoint Source Pollution. §201.026, State of Texas. TWDB. (2013). "Draft Population and Municipal Water Demand Projections." 2016

Regional and 2017 State Water Plan Projections Data, from www.twdb.state.tx.us/waterplanning/data/projections/2017/demandproj.asp.



Appendix A. I-Plan Matrix



Table A-1. Control Acton 1: Monitoring WWTF Effluent to Ensure Permit Compliance — Implementation Schedule and Tasks

Plan Year Responsible Parties Implementation Measure Implementation Milestones

All Years

All WWTFs Monitoring effluent to ensure permit compliance Reduction in the number of noncompliant samples

Table A-2. Control Action 2: Improve and Upgrade WWTFs — Implementation Schedule and Tasks


All Years

All WWTFs Begin treating for bacteria at WWTFs that currently do not treat for bacteria

Number of upgraded WWTFs that do not currently treat for bacteria to treat bacteria as required by an up-dated permit

All WWTFs Identify when WWTF capacity is reached Expanded capacity when WWTFs reach threshold out-lined in permit

All WWTFs Pursue funds to expand capacity as appropriate Successfully secure funds for improvements as appro-priate



Table A-3. Management Measure 1: Develop and implement conservation plans in priority areas of the watershed — Implementa-tion Schedule and Tasks


Year 1

NRCS, TSSWCB, TPWD Contact landowners Number of landowners contacted

Stakeholders, NRCS, TSSWCB, TPWD

Develop conservation plans 3 conservation plans developed in the Mission River watershed

Educational Entities Pursue funding for educational programs Successfully secure funding for education programs

Year 2

NRCS, TSSWCB, TPWD Continue contacting landowners Number of landowners contacted


Develop conservation plans 13 conservation plans in each watershed

Educational Entities Begin education activities Secure funding and initiate education campaign

Year 3 – 5

NRCS, TSSWCB, TPWD Continue contacting landowners Number of landowners contacted


Develop conservation plans 13 conservation plans in each watershed annually

Educational Entities Deliver education programs Deliver 6 education programs annually

All Responsible Parties Assess overall efforts and revise strategy as appropriate Assess progress and develop or continue implementa-tion utilizing the same strategy



Table A-4. Management Measure 2: Explore Feasibility of Altering Tax Exemption Requirements for Small Acreage Landowners — Implementation Schedule and Tasks


Year 1 – 2

All Responsible Parties Convene to discuss alternative property tax exemptions Number of meetings will be used to measure progress

Educational Entities Pursue funding for education successfully submit proposal for funding educational programs

Year 3 – 4

All Responsible Parties Develop framework for altering property tax exemp-tions

Number of meetings will be used to measure progress Developed framework for altering property tax exemp-

tions

Educational Entities Secured funding for education and delivery of educa-tion programs

Number of individuals educated

Year 5

All Responsible Parties Framework for altering property tax exemptions Submitted proposed changes for property tax exemp-tions

Measured adoption rate of changes

Educational Entities Secured funding for education and delivery of educa-tion programs

Number of individuals educated



Table A-5. Management Measure 3: Promote the Management of and Control Feral Hog Populations — Implementation Schedule and Tasks


Year 1

All Responsible Parties Contact landowners in priority areas Number of landowners contacted

Educational Entities Pursue funding for educational programs Successfully submit proposal to fund educational pro-grams

All Responsible Parties Removal of feral hogs and pursue funds for local assis-tance

Successfully submit proposals for funding feral hog removal activities

Remove 540 hogs (300 from Mission River Watershed and 240 from Aransas River Watershed)

Year 2

All Responsible Parties Continue contacting landowners in priority areas Number of landowners contacted

Educational Entities Secure funding for educational programs and host ed-ucational programs

Successfully secured funding and number of educa-tional programs held

All Responsible Parties Continue to removed feral hogs from watersheds and secured funding for local assistance

Remove 540 hogs (300 from Mission River Watershed and 240 from Aransas River Watershed)

Successfully secured funding for local feral hog remov-al assistance

Year 3 – 4

Educational Entities Continue education programs Number of materials developed and disseminated Number of educational programs held Number of persons reached through educational pro-

grams

All Responsible Parties Continue to remove feral hogs Remove 1,080 feral hogs (600 from Mission River Wa-tershed and 480 from Aransas River Watershed)




Year 5

Educational Entities Continue education programs Number of materials developed and disseminated Number of educational programs held Number of persons reached through educational pro-

grams

All Responsible Parties Continue to remove feral hogs Remove 540feral hogs (300 from Mission River Wa-tershed and 240 from Aransas River Watershed)

All Responsible Parties Assess overall efforts and revise strategy as appropriate Assess progress and develop or continue implementa-tion utilizing the same strategy



Table A-6. Management Measure 4: Promote the Reduction of Illicit Dumping and Proper Disposal of Animal Carcasses — Im-plementation Schedule and Tasks


Year 1

Educational Entities Submit a grant proposal in pursuit of funding for edu-cational programs, illicit dumping mitigation activities and/or personnel

Successfully submitted grant proposal in pursuit of funding

All Responsible Parties Develop a strategy on how to best reduce illicit dump-ing

Completed strategy on how to reduce illicit dumping

All Responsible Parties Reduce the number of fines written and the number of reports of illicit dumping

Reduction of 5% in the number of fines written and number of reports of illicit dumping

Year 2 – 5

Educational Entities Implement education programs Number of educational materials developed, programs delivered, and individuals educated

All Responsible Parties Reduce the number of fines written and the number of reports of illicit dumping

Reduction of 5% in the number of fines written and number of reports of illicit dumping in addition to the previous year



Table A-7. Management Measure 5 Identify OSSFs, Prioritize Problem Areas, and Systematically Work to Bring Systems into Compliance — Implementation Schedule and Tasks


Year 1

All Responsible Parties Pursue funds for additional personnel, education, and OSSF replacements/upgrades

Successfully submit grant proposals in pursuit of funds for all activities

All Responsible Parties Identify priority areas for OSSF inspections Identify the subwatersheds where individuals should be contacted and OSSF owners should be contacted

All Responsible Parties Develop a tracking tool/update existing tracking tools Successfully develop a tracking tool to identify age and other relevant information for OSSFs

All Responsible Parties Begin contacting OSSF owners Number of OSSF owners contacted

Years 2 – 5

Educational Entities Initiate education programs Number of materials developed, number of education programs held, and number of individuals contacted

All Responsible Parties Begin replacements/upgrades Replace 140 failing OSSFs (19 in Mission River Water-shed and 121 in Aransas River Watershed)

All Responsible Parties Continue tracking OSSFs Contact 2% of OSSF owners annually

All Responsible Parties Continue inspecting OSSFs Inspect 1% of OSSFs annually



Table A-8. Management Measure 6: Promote the Improved Quality of and Management of Urban Storm water — Implementation Schedule and Tasks


Year 1

All Responsible Parties Pursue funding for storm water education Successfully submit grant proposals in pursuit of funds for educational activities

All Responsible Parties Identify feasible locations of urban BMP instillation Number of sites identified for storm water BMP instil-lation

Year 2

All Responsible Parties Initiate education programs for storm water Number of materials developed, number of education programs held, and number of individuals contacted

All Responsible Parties Initiate instillation of storm water BMPs, as funding al-lows

Number of storm water BMP instillations initiated

Year 3 – 5

All Responsible Parties Continuation of educational activities Number of materials developed, number of education programs held, and number of individuals contacted

All Responsible Parties Completion of urban storm water BMP instillation, as funding allows

Number of urban storm water BMPs installed



Table A-9. Management Measure 7: Coordinate Efforts for Reducing Unauthorized Discharges — Implementation Schedule and Tasks


Year 1

All Responsible Parties Conduct visual inspections and make repairs as neces-sary

Number of repairs made and a reduction of 5% in un-authorized discharges identified

All Responsible Parties Develop a plan for the upcoming year to help prioritize efforts

Development of a plan for the upcoming year that pri-oritizes efforts

All Responsible Parties Initiate education programs, if possible and pursue funds as needed

Number of materials developed, distributed, and indi-viduals contacted. If needed, successful submission of grant proposal

Years 2 – 5

All Responsible Parties Continue conducting visual inspections of infrastruc-ture and making repairs as necessary

Number of repairs made and a reduction of 10% in un-authorized discharges identified annually

All Responsible Parties Continue planning for upcoming year repairs Continue the development of an annual plan for the upcoming year that prioritizes efforts

All Responsible Parties Continue to pursue and secure funds for education programs

Successfully secured funding for education programs as needed

All Responsible Parties Continue education and outreach programs as appro-priate

Number of materials developed, distributed, and indi-viduals contacted.



Table A-10. Management Measure 8: Coordinate and Expand Existing Water Quality Monitoring in the Watershed — Implementa-tion Schedule and Tasks


Year 1

All Responsible Parties Establish data quality objectives for monitoring and pursue funding for monitoring

Successful identification of data quality objectives and successful submission of a proposal for monitoring programs

Nueces River Authority, Texas Water Resources Institute

Enhanced/updated website with water quality moni-toring data

Enhanced/updated website

All Responsible Parties Establish a volunteer monitoring program Initiated volunteer monitoring program

Year 2 – 5

All Responsible Parties Initiate and continue both volunteer monitoring and monitoring conducted under Quality Assurance Project Plans

Secure funding for monitoring and initiate/ complete monitoring activities

Educational Entities Continue education using monitoring results Number of educational events held and number of people in attendance



Appendix B. Load Reduction Estimates



Control Actions 2.0: Improve and Upgrade WWTFs Data from the Nueces River Authority and ECHO indicates that wastewater treatment facility dis-charges are generally meeting standards. However, most plants have periodic exceedences and the geomean from three WWTFs were found to exceed current water quality standards. Thus, the goal is to get all of the WWTF geomeans compliant with water quality standards and to reduce the number and severity of periodic exceedences observed. Reductions from WWTFs were conservatively calculated using existing flows (ECHO geomeans) and Enterococcus measurements assessed by the Nueces River Authority and assessing reduc-tions from getting the geomeans of the three plants exceeding standards into compliance. This yielded annual reductions of 5.60E+11 at Sinton, 1.75E+11 at St. Paul, and 7.62E+07 at Tynan based on achieving a geomean concentration for the TWQS for Enterococcus (35) in the effluent at each plant (Table 1). Because all three of these WWTFs are in the Aransas River watershed, all reductions from Control Action 2.0 (7.35E+11) were applied to the Aransas and no reductions are reflected for the Mission. Table B-1. Estimated loading reductions from compliance of all WWTFs with TWQS geomean for Entero.

Final Permitted Flow (MGD)

ECHO Flow Geomean (MGD)

Measured Entero by NRA (mpn/100 mL)

Allowable Current Daily Entero Loading

Current Daily Entero Loading

Daily Entero Reduction Needed

Annual Entero

Reduction Needed

City of Sinton*

0.80000 0.39010 138.84 5.17E+08 2.05E+09 1.53E+09 5.60E+11

St. Paul WSC

0.05000 0.02883 474.81 3.82E+07 5.18E+08 4.80E+08 1.75E+11

Tynan WSC

0.04500 0.01198 35.46 1.59E+07 1.61E+07 2.09E+05 7.62E+07

Total 2.01E+09 7.35E+11

Additional, yet unknown reductions in WWTF discharges are expected as a result of the increased frequency of monitoring proposed at each plant as described in Control Action 1.0. Finally, opera-tors indicated that very little wastewater reuse was occurring in the watershed and provides a significant opportunity for further reductions in discharges in the future. Management Measures 1.0: Develop and implement conservation plans in priority areas of the watershed



Landowners participating on the Ag Workgroup indicated that approximately one-third of the 2,295 landowners would be willing to get a conservation plan if riparian fencing was not included as a practice. If riparian fencing was required, less than 5% participation was expected. Thus, as many as 700-800 conservation plans could be expected to be implemented in the watershed if needed if fencing wasn’t required and sufficient resources were available to develop and imple-ment these plans. This level of implementation is not required however. To achieve needed loading reductions in the watershed, a long-term goal of 421 conservation plans was established (213 in the Mission and 208 in the Aransas). During the first 5 years of implementation, a goal of 107 conservation plans developed (55 from the Mission and 52 from the Aransas) was considered achievable with the remaining conservation plans being implemented in subsequent phases of implementation efforts. In the Aransas watershed, subbasins 4, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 are of highest priority due to their proximity to the impaired segment and estimated loadings from live-stock (from I-Plan TSD). Similarly, in the Mission watershed, subbasins 2, 5, 7-9, 14, 17, 19-22, and 24-25 are of highest priority. Potential load reductions that could be achieved by implementing conservation plans through the TSSWCB WQMP Program, NRCS EQIP Program, and other conservation programs will depend specifically on the particular BMPs implemented by each individual land owner, the location and characteristics of the land to which the BMPs are applied, and the number of livestock in each landowner’s operation. Landowners indicated that the practices most feasible for inclusion in conservation plans for the area included, but were not limited to, brush management, cross fenc-ing, prescribed burning, and water wells. Other practices considered highly feasible for the area included grazing land mechanical treatment (aeration), ponds, prescribed grazing, supplemental feeding locations, watering facilities, conservation cover, early successional habitat development, restore and manage declining habitats, wetland wildlife habitat management, and wildlife water-ing facility. To calculate potential load reductions from conservation plan implementation, reductions utilized by prior watershed planning efforts were evaluated. Reductions reported in the Plum Creek, Leon River, Lampasas River, Buck Creek, and Geronimo Creek watershed plans were compiled. E. coli reductions from conservation plan implementation reported ranged from 1.40E+09 to 5.12E+14 cfu annually and had a median value of 1.25E+13 cfu/year. Of the watersheds assessed, Geronimo Creek was in the closest proximity to the Mission and Aransas Rivers, the most recently published plan, exhibited median values for other management measures evaluated (OSSFs and feral hogs), and utilized a reduction per conservation plan of 2.92E+13 cfu per year, very close to the median concentration of reported for WQMPs. As a result, this estimated reduction was utilized to assess loading reductions from conservation plans in the Mission and Aransas Rivers. Annual reductions from conservation plans were calculated from E. coli reductions utilized by Geronimo converted to Enterococcus using a conversion of 0.278 (i.e. 35/126) and resulted in an 8.11E+12 annual En-terococcus load reduction per plan. Long-term reductions from conservation plan implementation are 1.73E+15 cfu annually in the Mission and 1.69E+15 cfu annually in the Aransas (3.41E+15 cfu/yr reduction from implementing 421 conservation plans). During the first 5 years of implementation, the implementation of 107 conservation plans is estimated to result in an 8.68E+14 cfu/yr reduction in Enterococcus (4.46E+14 cfu/yr in the Mission and 4.22E+14 cfu/yr in the Aransas).



Management Measures 3.0: Promote the Management of and Control Feral Hog Populations The number of feral hogs reduced was calculated based on landowner estimation that with finan-cial assistance, a 32% reduction in the current feral hog population (33,573) could be achieved. This gave a long-term goal of 10,743 hogs removed (5,986 from the Mission and 4,758 from the Aransas). During the first 5 years of implementation, a goal of 2,700 hogs removed (1500 from the Mission and 1200 from the Aransas) was considered achievable with the remaining hogs be-ing removed in subsequent phases of implementation efforts. In the Aransas watershed, subbasins 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 11 are of highest priority due to their proximity to the impaired segment and estimated feral hog populations (from I-Plan TSD). Similarly, in the Mission watershed, sub-basins 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 14 are of highest priority. To calculate potential load reductions from feral hog control, reductions utilized by prior water-shed planning efforts were evaluated. Reductions reported in the Plum Creek, Leon River, Lampasas River, Buck Creek, and Geronimo Creek watershed plans were compiled. E. coli reduc-tions from feral hog removal reported ranged from 1.40E+09 to 2.03E+12 cfu annually and had a median value of 3.26E+11 cfu/year. Of the watersheds assessed, Geronimo Creek was in the clos-est proximity to the Mission and Aransas Rivers, was the most recently published plan, and exhibited median values for feral hogs and other management measures evaluated (OSSFs). As a result, this estimated reduction was utilized to assess loading reductions from feral hog control in the Mission and Aransas Rivers. Annual reductions from feral hog control were calculated from E. coli reductions utilized by Geronimo converted to Enterococcus using a conversion of 0.278 (i.e. 35/126) and resulted in a 9.06E+10 cfu/year Enterococcus load reduction per hog. Long-term reductions from feral hog control are 5.42E+14 cfu annually in the Mission and 4.31E+14 cfu annually in the Aransas (9.73E+14 cfu annually from removing 10,743 feral hogs). During the first 5 years of implementation, the removal of 2,700 feral hogs is estimated to result in a 2.45E+14 cfu reduction in Enterococcus (1.36E+14 cfu/yr in Mission and 1.09E+14 cfu/yr in Aransas). Management Measures 5.0: Identify OSSFs, Prioritize Problem Areas, and Systematically Work to Bring Sys-tems into Compliance OSSF reductions were based on targeting failing OSSFs for remediation in high priority subwater-sheds of the lower Mission and Aransas Rivers, predominately in San Patricio and Refugio Counties where the impaired segments are located. Analysis conducted by Borel and Karthikeyan (2013) identified Subbasins 1-3, 5-7, and 10-11 of the lower Aransas and Subbasins 2-3 of the low-er Mission as the highest priority subwatersheds for implementation. In these subbasins, there are a total of 3,237 OSSFs. These OSSFs are associated with “Very Limited” Soil Classes. Based on a 15% failure rate in very limited soils, it was estimated that 562 OSSFs were failing, 76 in the Mission watershed and 486 in the Aransas. This target was established as the long-term goal. In



the first 5 years of implementation, remediation of 140 OSSFs (19 from the Mission and 121 from the Aransas) was considered achievable with the remaining OSSFs being remediated in subse-quent phases of implementation efforts. To calculate potential load reductions from OSSFs, reductions utilized by prior watershed plan-ning efforts were evaluated. Reductions reported in the Plum Creek, Leon River, Lampasas River, Buck Creek, and Geronimo Creek watershed plans were compiled. E. coli reductions from OSSFs reported ranged from 4.00E+09 to 1.86E+12 cfu annually and had a median value of 4.13E+11 cfu/year. Of the watersheds assessed, Geronimo Creek was in the closest proximity to the Mission and Aransas Rivers, was the most recently published plan, and exhibited median values for OSSFs and other management measures evaluated (feral hog control). As a result, this estimated reduc-tion was utilized to assess loading reductions from OSSFs in the Mission and Aransas Rivers. Annual reductions from OSSFs were calculated from E. coli reductions utilized by Geronimo con-verted to Enterococcus using a conversion of 0.278 (i.e. 35/126) and resulted in a 1.51E+11 annual Enterococcus load reduction per OSSF.

Long-term reductions from OSSF remediation are 1.15E+13 cfu annually in the Mission and 7.33E+13 cfu annually in the Aransas (8.48E+13 cfu/yr reduction from remediating 562 failing OSSFs). During the first 5 years of implementation, the remediation of 140 failing OSSFs is esti-mated to result in an 2.11E+13 cfu/yr reduction in Enterococcus (2.87E+12 cfu/yr in Mission and 1.83E+13 cfu/yr in Aransas). Management Measures 6.0: Promote the Improved Quality of and Management of Urban Storm water In both the Mission and Aransas River watersheds, stakeholders indicated that there is very little storm water management implemented in the towns and communities within the watershed. This is primarily a factor of the size of these communities. MS4 standards generally do not apply to these predominantly small, rural communities. Further, these communities lack the funding to implement storm water management BMPs. However, this is an area of significant opportunity. If funding is available, these communities indicated they would be willing to adopt and implement BMPs to better manage their storm water. LULC indicates that there are 25,698 acres developed in the Mission River watershed and 32,661 acres developed in the Aransas River watershed. Of these, there are 74 high intensity developed acres in the Mission watershed and 517 acres in the Aransas watershed. Implementation of urban storm water BMPs on these 591 high intensity developed acres was targeted for long-term man-agement. Implementation of storm water BMPs during the first 5 years of implementation will target a total of 148 acres (19 acres in the Mission watershed and 129 acres in the Aransas), with implementation of storm water BMPs on remaining acres occurring in subsequent phases of im-plementation. According to Horner (1992), runoff from single family high density developments was 1.66E+07 fecal coliform per acre per day while runoff from single family low density was 1.03E+07 fecal col-iform per acre per day. As a conservative estimate, the difference in the fecal coliform runoff



between high and low density was used to calculate the estimated reductions resulting in imple-mentation of urban BMPs on the high density areas of the watershed (i.e. 0.63E+07 fecal coliform per acre per day). This was converted to an annual Enterococcus reduction of 4.02E+08/ac by multiplying 0.63E+07 fecal coliform per day by 365 days/year and converting it to Enterococcus using the 0.175 conversion factor and resulted in an 4.02E+08 annual Enterococcus load reduc-tion per acre of urban runoff controlled through storm water BMPs. Long-term reductions from storm water BMP implementation are 2.97E+10 cfu annually in the Mission and 2.08E+11 cfu annually in the Aransas (2.38E+11 cfu/yr reduction from implementing storm water BMPs to address runoff from 591 acres). During the first 5 years of implementation, the implementation of storm water BMPs to address runoff from 148 acres is estimated to result in a 5.94E+10 cfu/yr reduction in Enterococcus (7.64E+09 cfu/yr in the Mission and 5.19E+10 cfu/yr in the Aransas). Management Measures 7.0: Coordinate Efforts for Reducing Unauthorized Discharges Based on discussions with wastewater treatment facility operators in the watershed, only minor reductions in unauthorized discharges were achievable due to the small number and volume of these discharges currently occurring. It was estimated that 2 small unauthorized discharges (50-60 gallons/discharge) per year occurred in each community in the watershed. The cities felt that a 15% reduction (17 gallons) was achievable through better management and infrastructure im-provement. Based on this, a reduction of raw sewage spillage of 50 gallons per year for the 3 communities in the Mission River and 100 gallons per year for the 6 communities in the Aransas River were felt to be achievable through better management. Fecal coliform concentrations (1.00E+07) per gallon of raw sewage were converted to Enterococ-cus using a conversion factor of 0.175 (i.e. 35/200) to give an Enterococcus quantity per gallon of 6.62E+07. Based on this, annual Enterococcus reductions of 3.31E+09 cfu/yr for the Mission wa-tershed and 6.62E+09 cfu/yr for the Aransas were estimated from reductions in unauthorized discharges (9.93E+09 cfu/yr Enterococcus reductions total) expected to be achieved the first 5 years of implementation. Summary of Implementation and Reductions Short and long term reductions have been established. Annual evaluations of implementation progress in conjunction with five year reviews and updates of the I-Plan will allow adaptive man-agement needed to result in the ultimate remediation of water quality conditions in the Aransas and Mission River watersheds. The tables below summarize the short term (Table 2) and long term (Table 3) implementation and the expected reductions resulting from these efforts.



Table B-2. Summary of Short Term (Years 1-5) Implementation and Enterococcus Reductions

Implementation Total Entero reductions

Mission Entero. reductions

Aransas Entero reductions

OSSFs (#) 140 2.11E+13 2.87E+12 1.83E+13

Feral Hogs (#) 2700 2.45E+14 1.36E+14 1.09E+14

Conservation Plans (#)

107 8.68E+14 4.46E+14 4.22E+14

WWTFs (#) 3 7.35E+11 7.35E+11

SSO (gal.) 150 9.93E+09 3.31E+09 6.62E+09

Urban NPS (ac) 148 5.94E+10 7.64E+09 5.19E+10

Table B-3. Summary of Long Term Implementation and Enterococcus Reductions. Mission Watershed Aransas Watershed Copano Watershed

Practice

Targeted # of each practice

Load Re-duction

Targeted # of each prac-tice

Load Re-duction

Total practices

Total re-duction

OSSFs 76 1.15E+13 486 7.33E+13 562 8.48E+13

Feral Hogs 5,986 5.42E+14 4758 4.31E+14 10,743 9.73E+14

WQMPs 213 1.73E+15 208 1.69E+15 421 3.41E+15

WWTFs - 0.00E+00 3 7.35E+11 3 7.35E+11

SSO (gal.) 50 3.31E+09 100 6.62E+09 150 9.93E+09 Urban NPS (ac) 74 2.97E+10 517 2.08E+11 591 2.38E+11

Total 2.28E+15 2.19E+15 4.47E+15 TMDL for Wa-ter bodies

Mission River Tidal 2.28E+15

Aransas River Tidal 2.19E+15

Date post:	29-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangquynh
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Implementation Plan for Two Total Maximum Daily...

Documents