Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

Navigation

Questions or Comments:
tmdl@tceq.texas.gov
You are here: Home / Water Quality / Total Maximum Daily Load Program / Summary Table of Completed TMDLs and I-Plans

Summary Table of Completed TMDLs and I-Plans

Completed load allocations and implementation plans, with dates of adoption and approval by the commission and the EPA


back arrow Back to TMDL Projects

Completed TMDLs and I-Plans

(In alphabetical order by name of water body or region)

Project Name, Impairments, and Segments TMDL Allocation Implementation Plan
TMDL Project
(Click on the project for more information.)
Parameter—Segments
Impairments Addressed in Project Water-Quality Segments Addressed in Project TCEQ Date of TMDL Adoption TMDLs Adopted EPA Date
of Action
on TMDLs
TMDLs Approved TCEQ Date
of Approval
for
I-Plans
TMDLs Addressed by I-Plan
Aquilla Reservoir
Atrazine—1254
1 1 Original 3/23/01; Revised 6/14/02 1 10/30/02 1 01/18/02 1
Arroyo Colorado
Legacy Pollutants: DDE, Chlordane, Toxaphene—2202
PCBs—2202A
4 2* 1/17/01 4 6/14/01 4 9/14/01 4
Arroyo Colorado
Legacy Pollutants: DDT, DDD, dieldrin, endrin, lindane, hexachlorobenzene, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide—2202
8 1* 07/25/03 8 05/13/04 8 Same activities as in I-Plan approved 9/14/01
Brays Bayou in the Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria—1007B, 1007C, 1007E, 1007L
5 4# 9/15/10 5 9/27/10 5 1/30/13 5
Brays Bayou—Addendum Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria---1007S, 1007T, 1007U
3 3* submitted via WQMP
04/2013
3 8/28/13 3 Subsumed in BIG I-Plan approved 1/30/13 3
Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayous in the Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria—1013, 1013A, 1013C, 1014, 1014A, 1014B, 1014E, 1014H, 1014K, 1014L, 1014M, 1014N, 1014O, 1017, 1017A, 1017B, 1017D, 1017E
23 18*^ 04/08/09 23 06/11/09 23*^ 1/30/13 23*^
Buffalo Bayou---Addendum
Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria---1017C
1 1 submitted via WQMP
04/2013
1 8/28/13 1 Subsumed in BIG I-Plan approved 1/30/13 1
Carters Creek Watershed
Bacteria—1209C, 1209D, 1209L
3 1 8/22/2012 3 9/27/12 3 8/22/2012 3
Clear Creek Above and Below Tidal
Chlordane—1101, 1102
2 2* 1/17/01 2 6/14/01 2 9/14/01 2
Clear Creek Above and Below Tidal
Trichloroethane, Dichloroethane—1101, 1102
4 2* Original 2/9/01; Revised 6/14/02 4 05/09/03 4 10/12/01 4
Clear Creek Above Tidal
TDS, chloride—1102
2 1* 08/10/05;
Revised 04/12/06
2 06/26/06 2 08/23/06 2
Clear Creek and Tributaries in the Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria—1101, 1101B, 1101D, 1102, 1102A, 1102B, 1102C, 1102D, 1102E
18^ 9*^ 09/10/08 18^ 03/06/09 18*^ 1/30/13 18*^
Clear Creek and Tributaries---Addendum
Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria—1101A, 1101C, 1101E, and 1102G
4 4 Submitted 10/12 4 03/12/13 4 01/30/13 4
Colorado River Below E.V. Spence Reservoir
Chloride, Total Dissolved Solids—1426
2 1 02/07/07 2 04/09/07 2 10/10/07 2

Cottonwood Branch and Grapevine Creek in the Greater Trinity Region
Bacteria—0822A, 0822B

2 2 09/21/11 2 5/30/12 2 12/15/2013 2
Dallas Legacy
Chlordane—805, 841
DDD, DDE, DDT, PCBs, Chlordane, Dieldrin, Heptachlor epoxide - 841A
9 3 12/20/00 9 6/27/01 9 8/10/01 9
Dickinson Bayou
Bacteria—1103, 1103A, 1103B, 1103C, 1104
8 5 02/08/12 8 6/6/12 8 01/15/14 8
Eastern Houston in the Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria—1006F, 1006H, 1007F, 1007G, 1007H, 1007I, 1007K, 1007M, 1007O, 1007R
13 10# 9/15/10 13 9/27/10 13 1/30/13 13
Eastern Houston---Addendum
Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria---1007V
1 1* submitted via WQMP 04/2013 1 8/28/13 1 Subsumed in BIG I-Plan approved 1/30/13 1
E.V. Spence
Sulfate, TDS—1411
2 1 Original 11/17/00; Revised 6/14/02 2 05/09/03 2 8/10/01 2
Fort Worth Legacy
Chlordane—806, 829
DDE, PCBs, Chlordane, Dieldrin—806A
DDE, PCBs, Chlordane, Dieldrin—829A
PCBs—806B
11 5 11/17/00 11 5/24/01 11 7/13/01 11
Gilleland Creek
Bacteria—1428C
1 1 08/08/07 1 04/21/09 1 2/9/11 1
Greater Trinity Region---See entries for Cottonwood Branch & Grapevine Creek, Lower West Fork Trinity River Watersheds, and Upper Trinity River
Greens Bayou in the Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria—1016, 1016A, 1016B, 1016C, and 1016D
8^ 5*^ 06/02/10 8^ 8/12/10 8^ 1/30/13 8^
Guadalupe River Above Canyon Lake
Bacteria—1806
1 1 07/25/07 1 09/25/07 1 8/31/11 1
Halls Bayou in the Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria—1006D, 1006I, 1006J
4 3#* 9/15/10 4 9/27/10 4 1/30/13 4
Houston-Galveston Region Bacteria—See entries for Brays Bayou, Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayous, Clear Creek, Eastern Houston, Greens Bayou, Halls Bayou, Sims Bayou, and Lake Houston Watersheds
Houston Ship Channel Nickel
Nickel—1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1013, 1014, 1016, 1017, 2426, 2427, 2428, 2429, 2430, 2436
14 14 Original 8/11/00; Revised 6/14/02 14 05/09/03 14 7/13/01 14
Lake Austin
DO—1403
1 1 11/17/00 1 12/05/01
EPA declined
to take action
on this TMDL
0 7/13/01 1
Lake Houston Upstream Watersheds in the Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria—1004E, 1008, 1008H, 1009, 1009C, 1009D, 1009E, 1010, and 1011
15 9# 04/06/11 15 06/29/11 15 1/30/13 15
# Lake Houston Watersheds: Addendum 1 in the Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria—1008B, 1008C, 1008E, and 1011
6 4#* submitted via WQMP 10/2013 6 02/14/2014      
Lake O’ the Pines
DO—0403
1 1 04/12/06 1 06/07/06 1 7/9/08 1
Lake Worth
PCBs—0807
1 1 08/10/05 1 10/13/05 1 08/23/06 1
Lower Sabinal River
nitrate-nitrogen—2110
1 1 08/10/05 1 10/13/05 1 08/23/06 1
Lower San Antonio River
Bacteria—1901
1 1 08/20/08 1 10/20/08 1
# Lower West Fork Trinity River Watersheds in the
Greater Trinity Region
Bacteria---0841, 0841B, 0841C, 0841E, 0841G, 0841H, 0841J, 0841L, 0841M, 0841R, 0841T, and 0841U
13 12 09/24/13 13 11/07/13 13 12/15/2013 13
North Bosque River
Phosphorus
(narrative)
—1226, 1255
2 2 2/9/01 2 12/13/01 2 12/13/02 2
Nueces Bay
Zinc in Oyster Tissue—2482
1 1 11/01/06 1 12/15/06 1 10/24/07 1
Orange County Watersheds
Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, pH—0508, 0508A, 0508B, 0508C, 0511, 0511A, 0511B, 0511C, and 0511E
17 9# 06/13/07 17 08/28/07 17
Oso Bay
Bacteria—2485
1 1 08/22/07 1 06/08/08 1
Petronila Creek Above Tidal
Chloride, Sulfate, Total Dissolved Solids—2204
3 1 01/10/07 3 03/14/07 3 10/10/07 3
Salado Creek
DO—1910
1 1* 10/12/01 1 08/08/03 1 Creek is
supporting
the aquatic
life use,
so IP
is not needed.
N/A
Sims Bayou in the Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria—1007D, 1007N
4 2#* 9/15/10 4 9/27/10 4 1/30/13 4
# Sims Bayou---Addendum
Houston-Galveston Region
Bacteria---1007A
1 1 submitted via WQMP 04/2013 4 8/28/13 4 Subsumed in BIG I-Plan approved 1/30/13 4
Upper San Antonio River
Bacteria—1910, 1910A, 1911
3 3* 07/25/07 3 9/25/07 3
Upper Oyster Creek
Bacteria—1245
1 1* 08/08/07 1 09/28/07 1 01/15/14 1
Upper Oyster Creek
Dissolved Oxygen—1245
2 1* 07/28/10 2 9/21/10 2 01/15/14 (bacteria and oxygen in same plan)
Upper Texas Coast Oyster Waters
Bacteria—2421, 2422, 2423, 2424, 2432, 2439
6 6 08/20/08 6 02/04/09 & 4/1/12 6
Upper Texas Coast Oyster Waters—Addendum II
Bacteria—2435OW
Submitted 01/12 03/12
Upper Texas Coast Oyster Waters—Addendum III
Bacteria—2433OW, 2434OW
2 2 Submitted 04/12 2

08/12

 

2
Upper Trinity River in the
Greater Trinity Region
Bacteria—0805
2 1* 05/11/11 2 08/03/11 2 12/15/2013
# of Impairments Addressed in Project # of Segments Addressed in Project # TMDLs Adopted # TMDLs Approved # TMDLs Addressed by I-Plan
Totals 239
Impairments
151
segments
239 TMDLs for 151 segments 238 TMDLs for 150 segments

207 TMDLs for 132 segments
(22 Plans)

Due to administrative considerations, the two TMDLs for segment 2435 were added by amendment, but are not included in the state's overall count of TMDLs.

*More than one project addresses the water-body segment or segments; each segment is counted only once in the total number of segments addressed by TMDLs.

#Since 2008, impairments and TMDLs are counted by the number of assessment units (AUs) addressed. Since AUs are sub-sections of segments, the number of impairments addressed may be greater than the number of segments.

^The number of impairments (TMDLs) reported in the summary table is greater than the number shown in the title of the TMDL report. This is due to a change in EPA reporting requirements that was made after the TCEQ’s report of this project was completed and published (see below under "How TMDLs Are Counted").

return to top Return to top

How TMDLs Are Counted

The EPA requires one TMDL for each impairment listed in a water body. An impairment is the combination of the use that is affected (such as support of aquatic life) with the pollutant or condition of concern (such as mercury or low dissolved oxygen). For example, if Jones Creek was listed as not meeting the aquatic life use because of low dissolved oxygen concentrations, and not meeting the fish consumption use because of mercury in fish tissue, two TMDLs would be required for Jones Creek.

Prior to 2008, the number of impairments was reported by water-quality segment, as required by EPA guidance. During that period, the TCEQ used the term “water body” synonymously with “water-quality segment” when reporting how many segments were addressed by TMDLs.

In 2008, the EPA began requiring the TCEQ to develop and record one impairment (and TMDL) for each assessment unit within a water-body segment. Consequently, the TCEQ reports multiple TMDLs (impairments) where once it would have counted only one. The TCEQ continues to report the number of water bodies addressed through TMDLs by water-quality segment.

A water-quality segment is a geographic portion of a river, lake, or bay that has relatively homogeneous chemical, physical, and hydrological characteristics. A segment is assigned a unique number for the purpose of categorization and provides a basic unit for managing water quality. In some cases, a segment may be the same as the entirety of the water body; for example, a small lake may not be divided into multiple numbered segments.

An assessment unit is a further geographic subdivision of a segment. For example, Segment 0200 may have five assessment units.

Projects Develop Multiple TMDLs

To be most efficient with resources of time and money, the TMDL Program may addresses the same pollutant in multiple water bodies through a single project, or may addresses multiple similar pollutants (such as three different pesticides) in one segment through a single project. Hence, a single project may produce many TMDLs.

Federal law requires that the EPA take formal action to approve or disapprove any TMDLs adopted by the states. So, on any particular date, the number of TMDLs adopted by the Commission may differ from the number approved by the EPA. Similarly, there is a lag time between the completion of a TMDL and the Commission’s approval of the plan to implement the TMDLs. That means that the number of TMDLs and I-Plans will not usually match, since TMDLs and I-Plans are being completed all the time.

return to top Return to top