2015 north central texas water quality management plan ... · pdf file2015 north central texas...

2015 North Central Texas Water Quality Management Plan Update

North Central Texas Council of Governments May 2015 www.nctcog.org/waterquality

This document has been prepared by the North Central Texas Council of Governments Environment and Development Department on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Contract 582-15-50106. The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under an award with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statement and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the view of the State.

2

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... 4

What is NCTCOG? ............................................................................................ 7

List of Acronyms ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Executive Summary.............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Section 1: Wastewater ................................................................................ 21

Section 2: Water Quality ............................................................................. 37

Section 3: Water Supply ............................................................................. 45

Appendices ....................................................................................................... 46

3

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

NCTCOG Executive Board 2014 – 2015

President Kathryn Wilemon Mayor Pro Tem City of Arlington Vice-President John Horn County Judge Hunt County Secretary-Treasurer Daniel Scarth Councilmember City of Fort Worth Past President Steve Terrell Mayor City of Allen

Clay Jenkins County Judge Dallas County Vonciel Jones Hill Councilmember City of Dallas Tom Lombard Councilmember City of North Richland Hills Laura Maczka Mayor City of Richardson Dr. Larry Marshall Councilmember City of Benbrook

Keith Self County Judge Collin County Kevin Strength Mayor City of Waxahachie Laura Wheat Mayor Town of Westlake B. Glen Whitley County Judge Tarrant County Ex Officio, Nonvoting Member

Representative Toni Rose

Member of the Texas Legislature

4

2014 – 2015 Water Resources Council

ChairRon McCuller Public Works Director City of Grand Prairie Vice Chair Wayne Owen Planning Director Tarrant Regional Water District Fiona Allen Northern Regional Manager Trinity River Authority John Baker Managing Director of Public Works City of Garland Glenn Clingenpeel Manager, Planning and Environmental Services Trinity River Authority Andy Cronberg Interim Director, Water Department City of Fort Worth

Mike Curtis Managing Director of Development Services City of North Richland Hills David Fain Director of Public Works City of Aledo Elizabeth Fernandez Director, Trinity Watershed Management City of Dallas Tim Fisher Assistant Director of Water Utilities City of Denton Gabe Johnson Director of Engineering and Public Works City of Celina Terry Kelley General Manager Johnson County Special Utility District

Donald Magner Assistant City Manager, Director of Community Services City of Richardson Robert McCarthy Permit Manager North Texas Municipal Water District Larry McDaniel General Manager Dallas County Park Cities MUD Kevin Mercer General Manager Denton County Fresh Water Supply District 6 & 7 Michael Nieswiadomy Professor of Economics UNT Larry Patterson Deputy Executive Director Upper Trinity Regional Water District

5

Zachary Peoples Assistant Director-Wastewater Operations City of Dallas Walter Pishkur Director of Water Utilities City of Arlington Greg Porter Deputy City Manager City of Cedar Hill

Jody Puckett Director, Water Utilities City of Dallas Todd Reck Water Utilities Director City of Irving Craig Schkade Senior Development Manager Hillwood Properties

Robert Scott TCEA Stacy Walters Acting Regulatory/Environmental Coordinator City of Fort Worth James Whitt Assistant Director of Public Works City of Euless

6

What is NCTCOG? The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) was created by state enabling legislation in 1966, comprising a service area that included the local governments in 10 counties. Through action of the Governor’s office, the service area has expanded to include the local governments in 16 counties.

NCTCOG is a political subdivision of the state and a voluntary association of local governments with a membership of 235 political jurisdictions. It is not a government as it cannot levy taxes or enact laws.

Its primary purposes are to perform long-range, comprehensive plans for matters that transcend jurisdictional boundaries, promote the sound development of the 16-county region, and facilitate cooperation and coordination among its member governments. These responsibilities will continue to increase in importance as the region’s population is forecast to grow from 6.8 million people to 10.6 million by 2040.

An Executive Board serves as the policy body for NCTCOG and is composed of local elected officials. The Board approves and oversees the plans, projects and programs that NCTCOG undertakes to serve its member governments.

Each of these programs and projects also has an advisory committee that guides their development and delivery systems. These committees have local government members who are

subject matter experts and often have seats for business interests and citizens of the region. This ensures that those who will administer or be affected by one of these programs or projects have a strong voice in how they are crafted. NCTCOG is grateful for their involvement and endorsement of its efforts to recognize, address and resolve regional issues and opportunities. Their service ensures that NCTCOG actively practices its Mission Statement, which reads as follows:

“We are an association of, for, and by local governments. We assist our members in planning for common needs, cooperating for mutual benefit, and recognizing regional opportunities for improving the quality of life in North Central Texas. “

The Department of Environment and Development has many specific programs focused around Sustainable Environmental Excellence (SEE) and include: SEE Less Trash; SEE Safe, Clean, and Green Waters; and SEE Development Excellence. In addition, the department provides technical assistance to the local governments of North Central Texas in planning, coordinating, and implementing community development and environmental policies, programs, and projects.

For more information about NCTCOG, visit www.nctcog.org.

7

1 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN BACKGROUND

The provision of clean water for daily consumption and recreation is important to North Central Texans and the environment and ecosystems that rely on clean water. Many statewide and regional efforts are underway to maintain or improve water quality from point and non-point sources of pollution.

The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), as the designated Water Quality Planning agency for the North Central Texas area, is responsible for developing the regional Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The purpose of the WQMP is to support current and future planning decisions concerning water quality efforts, wastewater infrastructure development, watershed management, and related issues on both a regional and state level. The WQMP provides a framework and strategies for drinking water, wastewater, and water quality management issues that contribute to protecting or improving water quality in North Central Texas. The water quality management program also facilitates the review of infrastructure projects to ensure that they are consistent with the regional WQMP.

The North Central Texas WQMP is developed and updated in accordance with the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act, as amended. Furthermore, it is referenced in the State of Texas Water Quality Management Plan, which is a waste treatment plan required under the Texas Water Code and the federal Clean Water Act. The State’s WQMP identifies priority water quality problems and is used to direct planning for implementation measures that control and/or prevent water quality problems. The State WQMP is an important part of the State’s program for accomplishing its clean water goals and includes several elements such as effluent limitations of wastewater facilities, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), nonpoint source management controls, identification of designated management agencies, and ground water and source water protection planning.1

The North Central Texas WQMP serves as a summary report of the current state of water quality, water quantity, and wastewater service in North Central Texas. An assessment of water quality priorities, proposed strategies for solving water quality challenges, the conservation of natural resources, and protection of water resources is included in the 2015 WQMP.

1 http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/assess/WQMP/july_12_final.pdf

8

2 2015 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

WQMP PLANNING PROCESS In 1975, the NCTCOG was designated by the Governor of Texas as the water quality management planning agency for the North Central Texas region. Protection of water resources and the provision of wastewater services are overseen on a statewide basis by the TCEQ, who relies on NCTCOG for oversight, conformity review, and evaluation of capacity for wastewater services in the DFW region. The water quality management planning process is mandated by the Section 208(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the purpose of encouraging and facilitating the development and implementation of area-wide waste treatment management plans. Implementation of the act is the responsibility of state and local planning agencies.

For the 2015 WQMP, several goals were identified with the Water Resources Council, a committee that advises NCTCOG’s Executive Board on both technical and policy issues related to water resources matters. The committee reviews day-to-day technical issue, oversees the water resources planning process, and performs technical review of water-related grant applications. Additionally, goals and outcomes were provided by TCEQ’s Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Team, which are also reflected in this planning document.

Each WQMP is reviewed by the Water Resources Council, followed by regional review by municipalities and any other interested entities through a public comment process and public hearing. After the public hearing, final modifications are made to produce a final plan which is then presented to NCTCOG’s Executive Board for adoption. The adopted plan is submitted to TCEQ and to the U.S. EPA for review and approval.

WQMP PLAN GOALS

The 2015 WQMP plan goals are provided below as a guide for the development of the WQMP. The WQMP goals should be evaluated on an annual basis by interested parties and TCEQ to ensure they meet the needs of individual stakeholders and the State’s nonpoint source program goals.

• Identify emerging water quality issues that will impact wastewater treatment strategies or that require adjustments to treatment processes.

• Facilitate wastewater treatment facility planning that ensures that capacities are sufficient to meet future wastewater needs.

• Track and summarize wastewater treatment performance for regional joint system and community plants.

9

• Ensure that critical infrastructure is considered in emerging regional emergency response and coordination activities.

• Identify water quality programs or projects of significance that contribute to watershed management and water quality improvements

• Identify water reuse or water conservation programs or projects of significance in the DFW region.

10

3 POPULATION GROWTH AND FORECASTS

Regional population and employment trends and forecasts determine where residents live, work, and carry out activities both currently and in the future. Evaluating population trends is an important part of the wastewater and water quality planning process, as future development and population shifts impact the wastewater service levels and capacity needs in the DFW region. Furthermore, population growth in areas that were once agricultural or rural can lead to water quality challenges that could be countered with proper planning and proactive implementation measures.

DALLAS-FORT WORTH EXISTING POPULATION The region continues to experience high levels of population growth and forecasts project this trend will continue through 2040. The continued growth in this region is important to agencies tasked with providing sufficient drinking water supplies, maintaining or improving water quality, and adequate capacity for treatment of wastewater. Several methods of growth analysis are used to demonstrate past, existing, and forecasted growth trends in the DFW region. Additionally, NCTCOG is not the only organization that produces population estimates for the region. The Census Bureau and Texas State Data Center also have estimate programs.

The Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was one of the fastest growing areas in the United States during the 2000s.2 The MSA had the second largest increase in population after the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown MSA. From 2000 to 2010, the 16-county NCTCOG region’s population increased by 23.2 percent, an addition of 1.2 million residents (from 5,309,277 in 2000 to 6,539,950 in 2010). As of January 1, 2015, NCTCOG estimates the regional population to be 6,939,250. Since the 2010 US Census, the region has added about 400,000 new residents as shown in Table 1.

2The Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA consists of Collin, Dallas, Delta, Denton, Ellis, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise counties.

11

Table 1. Population by Planning Area for DFW Region (Source: NCTCOG, 2015)

Figure 1 is a graph of the regional population change from 2001 to 2014. In 2014, the DFW 16-county region added 96,910 residents, up from a low period in 2010 of 62,623. This graph indicates that the region’s growth is beginning to bounce back from the recession time frame and growth is trending upwards. Further analysis of where this growth is occurring is included in this section.

Figure 1. Regional Population Change 2001 – 2014 (Source: NCTCOG, 2015)

0

50

100

150

200

250

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 *2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Thou

sand

s of P

eopl

e

12

Figure 2 displays the top 11 cities in the DFW region that contributed to just over half of the entire regional population growth in 2014. The cities of Allen and Burleson tied for tenth. While the region grew by almost 100,000 residents in 2014 and many new residents settled in these communities, data over a wider span of time highlight additional trends in regional growth.

Table 2 displays the top 10 cities for absolute change in growth from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2015. The City of Fort Worth led the region in growth followed by the cities of Dallas and Frisco. Many of the top 10 cities that experienced the greatest population growth in

Figure 2. 2014 Population Growth – Top 11 Cities (Source: NCTCOG, 2015)

13

absolute change represent large municipalities in the DFW region. Others, such as Little Elm, are traditionally small communities that are now experiencing tremendous growth. Table 2. Top 10 Cities Experiencing Highest Absolute Population Change from 2010 – 2015 (Source: NCTCOG, 2015)

City Population Growth 1. Fort Worth 51,514 2. Dallas 46,454 3. Frisco 28,521 4. McKinney 23,723 5. Arlington 13,932 6. Irving 12,320 7. Plano 11,299 8. Denton 9,817 9. Little Elm 7,812 10. Grand Prairie 7,214

Table 3 shows the top 10 cities experiencing the largest percent change growth from 2010 - 2015. This table demonstrates a trend of small, once-rural communities experiencing significant percent changes in growth over a short period of time. Many communities in the DFW region, such as these smaller communities, are facing growth that will impact their need to expand and increase infrastructure and services to their residents.

14

Table 3. Top 10 Cities Experiences Highest Population Percent Change from 2010–2015 (Source: NCTCOG, 2015)

City Population Growth 1. Annetta 107.3% 2. Prosper 69.5% 3. Fate 50.8% 4. McLendon-Chisholm 49.3% 5. Melissa 46.8% 6. Lavon 33.8% 7. Trophy Club 33.2% 8. Anna 33.1% 9. Talty 30.9% 10. Little Elm 30.2%

DALLAS-FORT WORTH FORECASTED POPULATION GROWTH Agencies such as the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and other state and regional agencies in DFW rely on population forecasts to aid in their planning and projection of water demands, drinking water supplies, and wastewater treatment capacity needs. The TWDB 2016 Regional Water Plan now has population projections for 2020 – 2070 for cities and counties throughout the Region C planning area. Table 4 shows the TWDB 2016 Regional Water Plan Population Projections for Region C – the region that includes a portion of counties in the NCTCOG 16-county region. Those counties within the Region C Planning Area that are not part of the NCTCOG 16-county region are grayed out in Table 4. In addition to the TWDB, NCTCOG conducts forecasting process for its member governments and to provide planning level information for transportation and other infrastructure and program planning needs. NCTCOG’s 2040 population forecast is the most recent forecast available. Table 5 displays 2040 forecast totals for each county in the NCTCOG 12 county metropolitan planning area. A comparison of the TWDB and NCTCOG 2040 data will show differences in county totals. These differences can be attributed to different forecasting methods employed by the two organizations. Additionally, NCTCOG only has forecasts available for the 12 county metropolitan planning area instead of the full 16 county NCTCOG region.

15

Table 4. 2016 Regional Water Plan – Population Projections for 2020 – 2070 by County3

County 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Region C Totals 7,504,200 8,648,725 9,908,572 11,260,257 12,742,283 14,347,912 Collin Total 956,716 1,116,830 1,363,229 1,646,663 1,853,878 2,053,638 Cooke Total 42,033 45,121 48,079 53,532 64,047 96,463 Dallas Total 2,566,134 2,822,809 3,107,541 3,355,539 3,552,602 3,697,105 Denton Total 901,645 1,135,397 1,348,271 1,576,424 1,846,314 2,090,485 Ellis Total 183,814 224,000 276,931 362,668 488,768 683,974 Fannin Total 38,346 43,391 52,743 69,221 101,915 138,497 Freestone Total 20,437 21,077 22,947 31,142 44,475 73,287 Grayson Total 134,785 148,056 164,524 185,564 250,872 344,127 Henderson Total 60,175 64,059 69,737 76,204 101,827 136,269 Jack Total 9,751 10,409 10,817 11,033 11,190 11,291 Kaufman Total 146,623 191,707 239,940 309,619 428,577 571,840 Navarro Total 52,544 57,032 61,667 71,452 86,952 107,814 Parker Total 199,955 255,133 291,007 366,596 480,530 629,277 Rockwall Total 104,887 137,304 160,918 198,279 249,594 301,970 Tarrant Total 2,006,473 2,281,666 2,579,553 2,797,060 2,991,972 3,184,348 Wise Total 79,882 94,734 110,668 149,261 188,770 227,527

As shown in Table 5, the four core counties of Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant will still constitute the majority of population growth and urbanized area into the year 2040. However, population concentrations are shifting between these counties. For example, in 1990, Dallas County’s population was 45% of the overall 12-county population; it is forecasted to only make up 30% in 2040. Collin County, however, will make up 14% of the 12-county population in 2040 as opposed to 6% of the population in 1990. Additionally, the counties of Collin, Denton, and Rockwall have experienced a greater than 50% growth from 1990 to 2010 and are expected to double again by 2040 as shown in Table 5.

3 Texas Water Development Board, http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/data/projections/2017/popproj.asp, accessed May 1, 2015

16

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/data/projections/2017/popproj.asp

While forecasts on a county-level scale are essential to evaluate growth patterns, understanding individual city growth is important as well. NCTCOG has produced annual population estimates for cities and counties in the 16-county North Central Texas region every year since 1974. The population of all cities and unincorporated areas is included, but only cities with a population of 1,000 or more are listed individually in Appendix 1. Table 5. Population Change from 1990 – 2040 for 12-County Metropolitan Planning Area4

1990 Census 2000 Census 2010 Census 2020 Forecast 2030 Forecast 2040 Forecast

Collin 264,036 491,675 782,341 1,007,638 1,264,006 1,526,634 Dallas 1,852,810 2,218,899 2,368,139 2,666,344 2,976,809 3,265,190 Denton 273,525 432,976 662,614 787,294 962,223 1,147,493 Ellis 85,167 111,360 149,610 193,918 234,353 271,538 Hood 28,981 41,100 51,182 74,016 86,717 121,852 Hunt 64,343 76,596 86,129 116,834 135,548 161,136 Johnson 97,165 126,811 150,934 209,293 247,968 295,364 Kaufman 52,220 71,313 103,350 147,878 176,989 210,377 Parker 64,785 88,495 116,927 148,002 178,521 208,141 Rockwall 25,604 43,080 78,337 117,580 154,859 189,091 Tarrant 1,170,103 1,446,219 1,809,034 2,151,696 2,604,119 3,046,531 Wise 34,679 48,793 59,127 80,726 90,853 99,989 Total 4,111,750 5,309,277 6,539,950 7,852,728 9,267,173 10,543,336

While the NCTCOG forecast cannot be compared to the TWDB population forecast due to differences in methodology, the common theme is that the DFW region will continue to grow. Understanding current and future growth patterns and trends is vital for regional water suppliers and wastewater providers so that proper planning can be done to ensure that future water and wastewater needs will be met.

4 US Census, www.census.gov and 2040 Population Forecast, NCTCOG Research and Information Services

17

http://www.census.gov/

POPULATION BY SUBWATERSHED Figure 3 provides the 2014 DFW region population by 12-digit Hydrologic Units (HUC) watersheds. These images demonstrate the existing population by watershed and can assist in defining priority areas to focus water quality, supply, and conservation efforts by regional parties involved in responding to the water resources needs. Likewise, Figure 4 displays the 2040 forecasted population by subwatershed. Table 6 provides the most densely populated watersheds in the NCTCOG 16-county region in the year 2014 and for 2040.

Figure 3. 2014 DFW Regional Population by 12-Digit HUC Watersheds (Source: NCTCOG, 2014*)

*2014 data is displayed. 2015 Data is now available and this map will be updated to reflect 2015 population information.

18

Figure 4. 2040 Forecasted Population by 12-Digit HUC Watersheds (Source: NCTCOG, 2015)

19

Table 6: Most Densely Populated Subwatersheds for 2014 and 2040 (Source: NCTCOG, 2014)

County Watershed Name 2014 Population 2040 Population Percentage Change

Dallas White Rock Creek-White Rock Lake 179,505 277,846 35%

Dallas Duck Creek 156,925 195,001 20%

Collin/Dallas Floyd Branch-White Rock Creek 150,641 230,561 35%

Tarrant Rush Creek-Village Creek 148,982 232,352 36%

Tarrant Whites Branch-Big Fossil Creek 148,673 170,933 13%

Dallas Headwaters Turtle Creek 148,650 239,247 38%

Dallas Turtle Creek-Trinity River 147,682 138,571 7%

Tarrant Headwaters Sycamore Creek 144,998 146,138 0.7%

Dallas City of Dallas-White Rock Creek 144,462 190,478 24%

Collin/Dallas Pittman Creek-Spring Creek 137,735 177,646 22%

Dallas Bachman Branch-Elm Fork Trinity River 131,907 203,942 35%

Dallas/Tarrant Fish Creek-Mountain Creek Lake 128,508 160,032 20%

Dallas Headwaters Fivemile Creek 124,438 125,027 0.5%

Tarrant Lake Como-Clear Fork Trinity River 121,674 193,118 37%

Collin/Dallas Headwaters White Rock Creek 121,634 179,501 32%

20

4 NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS WATER RESOURCES AND WATER PLANNING Trinity River Basin and Trinity River System

While most of the North Texas region is in the Trinity River Basin, the region includes parts of three other river basins as shown in Figure 5. Parts of Johnson, Hood, and Parker counties are in the Brazos River Basin and there are parts of Hunt, Kaufman, and Rockwall counties in both the Sabine and the Sulphur River Basins.

North Texas is located in a region of temperate mean climatological conditions, experiencing occasional extremes of temperature and rainfall of relatively short duration. The water in the lakes and streams that feed these major rivers is important for human use and for the benefit of ecosystems along the rivers. Additionally, the need for drinking water is of vital importance to the State’s and region’s long-term economic viability. Federal and state agencies are responsible for establishing and enforcing water quality standards and for allocating water rights in these basins. Within the region, each of the major rivers has segments that do not meet water quality standards. In addition, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) identified many parts of these river basins for which water rights are limited. Water resources are regulated and managed by multiple federal, state, and region agencies. Water laws, regulations, and management is usually centered on three major categories including:

• Water Supply – Having water for daily consumption and hygienic needs • Water Quality – Addressing the whether drinking or wastewater meets appropriate Federal and State standards for health and

safety • Wastewater Treatment – Treating water that goes down the sink, shower, or toilet and into the sewer system

The forecasted growth throughout the State of Texas and specifically in the DFW region reinforces the need for planning to ensure water supply and water resources are available to meet future population needs. According to the state water plan, demand for water in Texas is expected to increase by 27 percent between 2000 and 2060.

21

Figure 5. North Central Texas River Basins

22

Figure 6: North Central Texas Water Resources and Trinity River System

23

Water Districts

There are fifteen types of districts: drainage districts; fresh water supply; irrigation; levee improvement; municipal management; municipal utility; navigation; river authorities; regional; storm water control; special utility; soil and water conservation; water control and improvement; water improvement; and other. Figure 7 provides a map of the water districts in North Central Texas. These water districts serve the North Texas area in multiple capacities and represent a diverse set of water needs and services.

Figure 7. North Central Texas Water Districts (Source: TCEQ, 2015)

24

5 WASTEWATER SERVICE AREAS AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Wastewater service is an integral part of the infrastructure support for the DFW region. As the region matures, communities now on the perimeter and beyond may become more interdependent as they integrate into the urban metropolitan area and assume new roles in protecting water quality. For such a densely populated and growing area, the provision of adequate treatment services is important. The 2015 WQMP accounts for treatment capacity and service area changes since the prior year’s report. In addition, this report details upgrades in wastewater infrastructure funded either through grants and loans from the State Revolving Fund established for that purpose, or financed by individual municipalities, utility districts, or other entities. Wastewater treatment plants are regulated by the TCEQ and are required to acquire permits that dictate their discharges to waterbodies. The permit limits are set by the state to avoid pollutant overload to surface waters. Wastewater overflow due to insufficient treatment capacity causes surface water contamination from bacteria, solids, and other pollutants normally removed in treatment processes. Joint and Community Wastewater Systems

In the DFW region, there are seven joint system wastewater treatment providers and many community wastewater treatment systems that serve a large population in the DFW region. These treatment systems are made up of at least one wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and sometimes several WWTP and many miles of sewer pipes that carry wastewater from homes and businesses to the treatment facility. The City of Dallas, the City of Denton, the City of Fort Worth, the City of Garland, the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD), Trinity River Authority (TRA), and the Upper Trinity River Water District (UTRWD) provide wastewater services to a combined 4 million population. A summary of each joint system wastewater service provider is below: • City of Dallas Water Utilities – Dallas Water Utilities was founded in 1881 and currently provides water and wastewater services to

about 2.4 million people in Dallas and 27 nearby communities over a 699 square mile service area. DWU uses two wastewater treatment plants (Central and Southside) to treat wastewater. In 2013 to 2014, DFW treated 55 billion gallons of wastewater.5

5 Dallas Water Utilities, Fact Sheet. Accessed May 2015. http://dallascityhall.com/departments/waterutilities/DCH%20Documents/pdf/DWU-FactSheet.pdf

25

• City of Denton: The City of Denton Wastewater Collection Division is responsible for providing wastewater service to the City of Denton and receives flows from the cities of Argyle, Corinth, and Krum. The Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant treats about 15 million gallons per day of wastewater.6

• City of Fort Worth: The City of Fort Worth Water Department provides wastewater services for a service area including most of Tarrant County and parts of Johnson County, including the City of Fort Worth and 22 other communities. The Village Creek Water Reclamation Facility is owned and operated by the City of Fort Worth Water Department and serves as its wastewater treatment plant.7

• City of Garland: The City of Garland Wastewater Treatment Utilities owns and operates two biological wastewater treatment facilities, the Duck Creek and Rowlett Creek Wastewater Treatment Centers. The City of Garland provides services to the City of Garland, City of Rowlett, City of Sachse, City of Sunnyvale, and portions of the Cities of Dallas and Richardson.8

• North Texas Municipal Water District: The NTMWD provides wastewater and/or sewer system services to 23 communities and one utility district. NTMWD owns and operates four regional treatment facilities that provide secondary and/or tertiary level wastewater treatment services. In addition to the regional facilities, NTMWD operates an additional thirteen smaller treatment plants that are included in NTMWD’s Sewer System. NTMWD’s Regional Wastewater System and Sewer System treated over 32 billion gallons of wastewater during the 2013-2014 Operations Year (October 2013 - September 2014).9

• Trinity River Authority: TRA’s jurisdiction is approximately 18,000 square miles within the urbanized area between Dallas and Fort Worth wastewater systems. TRA’s system includes six wastewater treatment facilities: the Central, Denton Creek, Mountain Creek, Red Oak Creek, and Ten Mile Creek Regional Wastewater Systems and Walker-Calloway Branches Outfall Line. The Central Regional Wastewater System provides service to 21 contracting parties and approximately 1.2 million people in the DFW region.10

• Upper Trinity Regional Water District: The UTRWD is a conservation district that is authorized to provide water, wastewater, solid waste, and stormwater services on a wholesale basis to customers in Denton County and limited portions of Collin and Dallas Counties. UTRWD currently provides treated water, non-potable water, wastewater treatment, and collection of household hazardous

6 City of Denton Wastewater Collection. Accessed May 2015. http://www.cityofdenton.com/departments-services/departments-q-z/water-utilities/wastewater/wastewater-collection 7 City of Fort Worth Water Department. Accessed May 2015. http://fortworthtexas.gov/water/info/default.aspx?id=6110&ekmensel=73b29971_1308_2370_6110_1 8 City of Garland. Accessed May 2015. 9 North Texas Municipal Water District. Accessed May 2015. https://ntmwd.com/wastewatersystem.html 10 Trinity River Authority. Accessed May 2015. http://www.trinityra.org/

26

http://www.cityofdenton.com/departments-services/departments-q-z/water-utilities/wastewater/wastewater-collection

http://www.cityofdenton.com/departments-services/departments-q-z/water-utilities/wastewater/wastewater-collection

http://fortworthtexas.gov/water/info/default.aspx?id=6110&ekmensel=73b29971_1308_2370_6110_1

https://ntmwd.com/wastewatersystem.html

http://www.trinityra.org/

wastes to its customers. UTRWD owns and operates three regional wastewater treatment plants and is currently designing a new Doe Branch Plant, which is expected to start operating later in 2015.11

The service areas of the seven major wastewater joint system providers are shown in Figure 8. These providers serve many communities throughout the DFW region, as shown in Table 7. Table 7. Regional Joint System Wastewater Treatment Provider Customers (Source: Wastewater Providers, As of May 2015)

Regional Wastewater Treatment Provider

Participating Cities/Towns

City of Dallas Dallas, Addison, Cockrell Hill, Back Springs, Duncanville, Highland Park, Wilmer, Hutchins, Mesquite, Richardson, Seagoville, University Park

City of Denton Denton, Argyle, Corinth, Krum City of Fort Worth Benbrook, Bethesda, Blue Mound, Burleson, Crowley, Edgecliff Village, Everman, Forest Hill, Haltom City, Hurst, Kennedale, Lake Worth,

North Richland Hills, Pantego, Richland Hills, River Oaks, Saginaw, Sansom Park, Watauga, Westover Hills, Westworth Village, White Settlement

City of Garland Garland, Rowlett, Sachse, portions of Dallas and Richardson, Sunnyvale North Texas Municipal Water District

Allen, Anna, Fairview, Farmersville, Fate, Forney, Frisco, Heath, Lavon, Lucas, McKinney, Melissa, Mesquite, Murphy, Parker, Plano, Princeton, Prosper, Richardson, Rockwall, Royse City, Seagoville, Seis Lagos U.D., Wylie

Trinity River Authority Northlake, Haslet, Roanoke, Bedford, Euless, Southlake, Dalworthington Gardens, Mansfield, Kennedale, Arlington, Westlake, Keller, Colleyville, Duncanville, DeSoto, Coppell, Carrollton, Cedar Hill, Farmers Branch, Addison, Grand Prairie, Irving, Midlothian, Lancaster, Ferris, Glenn Heights, Ovilla, Venus, Corral City

Upper Trinity River Water District

Bartonville WSC, Celina, Corinth, DCFWSD #7 – Lantana, DCFWSD #8A – Paloma Creek North, DCFWSD #9 – Providence, DCFWSD #10 – DCFWSD #11 – Paloma Creek South, Double Oak, Highland Village, Lake Cities MUA, Lincoln Park, Mustang SUD (Cross Oak)

Many individual community wastewater treatment systems are not part of a regional wastewater treatment provider. These community systems provide wastewater treatment services to residents and businesses and span a wide range of sizes and treatment capacities. Figure 9 displays the known wastewater treatment systems provided by local governments, including water control, improvement, and fresh water supply.

11 Upper Trinity Regional Water District. Accessed May 2015. http://www.utrwd.com/Water_Reclamation.html

27

http://www.utrwd.com/Water_Reclamation.html

Figure 8. Wastewater Joint System Service Areas (Source: NCTCOG, 2015)

28

Figure 9. Community Wastewater Systems (Source: NCTCOG)

29

North Central Texas Wastewater Capacity

Supporting sufficient wastewater capacity in the DFW region is important to the long-term growth. Having the capacity to treat wastewater from new residential and commercial development in addition to that from the existing residents and businesses is a long-term planning need. As wastewater in the DFW region is treated through a combination of joint system providers and individual community systems, these joint and community systems together are responsible for ensuring proper wastewater capacity to serve existing and future populations.

The points along water bodies where effluent (treated water) is discharged from a wastewater treatment plant are called outfalls. TCEQ provides wastewater outfall data to identify geographic locations of wastewater outfalls in the state. There are 334 outfalls for permitted municipal and industrial wastewater quality outfalls in the DFW region, as shown in Figure 10. Outfalls can be defined as any point source discharge from a domestic or industrial facility, and some outfalls shown in the map represent stormwater discharge points.

There are a great number of domestic wastewater outfalls that treat less than one million gallons per day of domestic sewage. Most of these smaller WWTP and outfalls fall in the non-urbanized area of the DFW region and in smaller communities. The outfalls where larger amounts of wastewater are treated – greater or equal to one million gallons per day domestic sewage are found in the urbanized area and in some of the larger rural communities.

30

Figure 10. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Outfalls by Discharge Type (Source: TCEQ, 2015)

31

Of the 300 wastewater outfalls in operation today only a few have permits pending. Figure 11 demonstrates the permit status of wastewater outfalls and WWTP in the DFW region as of May 2015.

The Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) can be used to assess the monthly and yearly wastewater effluent discharges of individual WWTPs and compare those to the overall permitted wastewater capacity of each WWTP. There are 70 minor and 40 major wastewater facilities in the DFW region. For most minor WWTP facilities, the volume of wastewater treated is significantly less than the volume of wastewater treated in a day by most major facilities. Appendix 3 provides the 2014 DMR reporting data for minor and major wastewater facilities in the 16-county region.

Wastewater Pretreatment and Water Quality

Local, state, and federal regulations require pretreatment programs as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES), which is administered at the state level by TCEQ’s TPDES program. The TPDES program has federal regulatory authority over

discharges of pollutants to Texas surface water, with the exception of discharges associated with oil, gas, and geothermal exploration.

Pretreatment is defined as the treatment of wastewater by commercial and industrial facilities to remove harmful pollutants before being

discharged to a sewer system under the control of a publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).12 Pretreatment programs are designed

to protect wastewater collection systems and treatment plants and protect or maintain water quality of the water bodies that effluent and

pollutants from homes, businesses, and industrial facilities is being discharged to.

Examples of pollutants that are important to remove during pretreatment processes include heavy metals and organic chemicals. These types of pollutants cannot be treated by the biological treatment processes at wastewater treatment plants. Wastewater from restaurants can also contain pollutants such as grease, organic matter, and solids. Cooking grease can cause clogs in the sewer system and create sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). In addition to causing clogs, pollutants in the wastewater stream that cannot easily be removed at a wastewater treatment plants adds costs to the overall treatment process to remove and dispose of them safely.

12TCEQ. What is “Wastewater Pretreatment” http://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/wastewater/pretreatment/pretreatment_definition.html

32

Figure 11. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Outfalls by Permit Status (Source: TCEQ, 2015)

33

The focus of many local government and wastewater provider pretreatment programs include minimizing pollutants at the source and reducing pollutants before they enter the sewer system. Partnerships between local governments, residents, and the business community are important in reaching this goal. Regional efforts to address common pretreatment challenges such as grease are important to reducing costs, preventing SSOs, and maintaining water quality. Descriptions of regional efforts and initiatives are expanded upon below.

Wastewater And Treatment Education Roundtable The Wastewater And Treatment Education Roundtable (WATER), formerly known as the North Texas Grease Abatement Council, is an educational partnership between the North Central Texas Council of Government (NCTCOG), municipalities, and water utilities in the North Texas region. The group educates the public about problems associated with fats, oils, and grease (FOG) that can cause property damage, health hazards, and environmental problems, and is currently expanding its mission to include other issues, such as those related to disposables (for example, flushable wipes and paper towels) as well as pharmaceuticals. The group has also decided to not limit its scope to pretreatment. WATER is in the process of formalizing its work program, which includes support related to proper FOG disposal (including educational outreach), hosting an annual Holiday Grease Roundup collection event, and developing regional training. It is also updating its “Grease Interceptors: A Comprehensive Guide” brochure, which will be handed out at the Texas Restaurant Association’s southwest food expo, TRA Marketplace. To support its expanded mission, the group will also be developing a new website and additional outreach campaigns. Cease the Grease Regional Efforts The Dallas Water Utilities’ Cease the Grease program is a city-wide public education and awareness program that encourages residents and businesses to “Cease the Grease” and properly dispose of FOG. The City’s goals are to increase awareness of the consequences and damages caused by improper grease disposal and to provide educational tools and information to help alleviate grease problems. The Cities of Denton, Fort Worth, Grand Prairie, Irving, Lancaster, Mansfield, and Plano also have programs to collect used cooking oil and grease. (See www.nctcog.org/envir/SEEclean/stormwater/program-areas/public_education/grease.asp for more information.)

A larger discussion of the water quality status of water bodies in the DFW region is presented in Section X: Water Quality.

34

http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEEclean/stormwater/program-areas/public_education/grease.asp

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Reviews

Since 1987, the TWDB has administered the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). The CWSRF provides low-cost financial

assistance for planning, design, and construction of wastewater infrastructure including wastewater treatment facilities, collection

systems, wastewater recycling and reuse improvements, stormwater pollution control, non-point source pollution control, estuary

management projects, and eligible green project reserve components.

As the designated water quality management planning agency, the NCTCOG is required to undertake 208/201 coordination with the

TCEQ. The NCTCOG evaluates and facilitates the development and implementation of wastewater treatment management plans and

practices to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act, and to coordinate with the state agency to ensure that plans developed under Section

208 are consistent with companion requirements under Section 201, which relates to facility planning and funding of treatment facilities

or infrastructure. The 208/201 coordination activities typically involve examination of facility plans submitted as part of funding

applications. NCTCOG compares the facility planning information with regional goals and plans included as part of the current amended

Area-wide Water Quality Management Plan.

Additionally, NCTCOG fulfills the Section 208/201 coordination role by reviewing and recommending entities for designation as

management agencies, for either wastewater collection, treatment, or both. For entities to become designated management agencies

(DMAs) for wastewater collection or treatment, they must demonstrate the legal, institutional, managerial, and financial capability

necessary to carry out the responsibilities in accordance with Section 208(c) of the Clean Water Act. An entity must be recommended for

the appropriate designation before it can apply for state revolving loan funds. Designation does not require the entity to provide

wastewater services, but it does enable the designated management agency to apply for grant and loan funds to provide those services.

Formal designation requires that the entity be recommended by the water quality management planning agency, and that it submit DMA

resolutions to the TCEQ. Whether recommended by the TCEQ or a designated management planning agency such as NCTCOG, the

DMA information is transmitted as part of the appropriate planning document to the EPA for approval as an update to the water quality

management plan.

As part of this ongoing process, the NCTCOG prepares a response to TCEQ regarding facility planning proposals, and conformance with

elements of the Water Quality Management Plan for North Central Texas. The NCTCOG may make specific recommendations regarding

35

proposals on an as-needed basis, and in some circumstances the planning information for specific facilities may be revised in the

subsequent amendment of the regional WQMP.

Only one CWSRF project from the City of Euless was submitted for review during 2014. NCTCOG evaluated the City of Euless’s submitted project and responded to TCEQ, acknowledging the project is consistent with the WQMP. Additional details about this CWSRF review is provided in Appendix 4.

36

6 WATER QUALITY

The quality of water in North Texas water bodies is important to the health, safety, and welfare of residents, ecosystems, and long-term economic growth. Sources of pollution that impact the health of a water body can be either point or non-point sources. Point sources include specific, discernible locations or sources such as pipes, channels, industrial facilities, or wastewater treatment plants. Non-point source pollution comes from many sources such as land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, drainage, seepage, or hydrologic modification13 .As rainwater runoff moves along the ground, it picks up and carries pollutants into streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and groundwater.

The Trinity River has a long history of water quality challenges tied to industrialization and population growth; however, the water quality in the Trinity River has improved tremendously over the last century. Much of this improvement can be attributed to better technology, processes, and treatment of wastewater from point sources. Yet, while pollution from point sources has been reduced, there are stream segments and water bodies in the DFW region that do not meet water quality standards. Figure 12 displays the Draft 2014 Texas Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality listed water bodies and river segments that do not meet water quality standards. The Texas Integrated Report describes

13 Environmental Protection Agency. http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/whatis.cfm

the status of Texas’ natural waters based on historical data and categorizes water bodies based on whether they attain the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards for designated uses including aquatic life use, contact recreation, general use, fish consumption, and public water supply use.14 Many initiatives are underway in the DFW region to improve water quality in areas that do not meet state water quality standards. Local governments, water districts, and many partners and stakeholders are working to improve or maintain water quality. NCTCOG continues to facilitate stakeholder-driven efforts to address regional water quality concerns in areas that have water bodies included on the Texas Integrated Report. Several of these regional and local programs are expanded upon in this section.

14 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Texas Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality. 2014. Accessed May 2015. http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/assessment/305_303.html

37

Figure 12. Draft 2014 Texas Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality Listed Water Bodies and Associated Impairments (Source: TCEQ, 2015)

Clean Rivers Program

The Clean Rivers Program operates under the Clean Rivers Act, which was passed by the Texas Legislature in 1991. Through a partnership with regional water authorities and TCEQ, the program aims to conduct water quality monitoring and assessment and to involve stakeholders in improving the surface water within each river basin in Texas. The Clean Rivers Program

conducts special studies within the Trinity River Basin at the request and guidance of a Clean Rivers Program Steering Committee. The Trinity River Authority produces an annual Basin Highlights Report that is intended to characterize the watersheds of the Trinity River basin. Features such as land use, soil and vegetation types, and watershed activities are reviewed; potential sources of impairments and concerns based on the latest TCEQ Integrated Report are identified; and recommendations to improve water quality are suggested. The 2014 Basin Highlights Report can be viewed at http://serv.trinityra.org/2014%20TRA%20BHR.pdf. More information about the Clean Rivers Program in the Trinity River Basin can be found at http://www.trinityra.org/clean-rivers-program.htm.

Municipal Stormwater Runoff

Municipal stormwater refers to the runoff that occurs whenever rain falls on an urbanized area and does not soak into the ground. Regulation to promote water quality improvements began with industry, and industrial water discharges have been cleaned up significantly since the promulgation of the Clean Water Act in 1975. It became apparent that the industrial and commercial sources of water pollution that had been the focus of environmental regulation were not the only contributors of toxins to our waters, and greater attention needed to be paid to “non-point” sources of contamination: contaminants that are not

38

http://serv.trinityra.org/2014%20TRA%20BHR.pdf

http://www.trinityra.org/clean-rivers-program.htm

http://www.trinityra.org/clean-rivers-program.htm

easily traced to any particular source. Most of these contaminants are picked up as rain falls to the ground and is carried into nearby creeks, rivers, and streams. One important part of the effort to protect water quality is the Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permitting program mandated by the EPA, which is administered in Texas by the TCEQ. MS4 permits make municipalities (and some other entities) responsible for the stormwater runoff in their jurisdiction. Most of the cities in the Urbanized Area (UA) are covered under Texas Pollutant Discharge System (TPDES) Phase I and II MS4 Permits. Phase I permits are required for cities in the UA that had a population above 100,000 in the 1990 U.S. Census, and require, among other things, sampling and testing of stormwater flow. The Phase II permits for smaller cities are focused on attaining water quality improvements by implementing best management practices. The six minimum measures are Public Education and Outreach, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination, Pollution Prevention, Monitoring, Construction, and Post-Construction. The local governments within the urbanized areas of North Central Texas are committed to implementing a cooperative and comprehensive Regional Stormwater Management Program to manage stormwater quality issues affecting the region. NCTCOG administers the Regional Stormwater Management Program and the

Regional Stormwater Management Coordinating Council, which provides guidance and oversight to the regional program. More information about the Regional Stormwater Management Program can be found at www.dfwstormwater.com.

Bacteria Impairments in the Trinity River

The Implementation Plan (I-Plan) for 17 Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria in the Greater Trinity River Region was approved by the TCEQ Commissioners in 2013. The I-Plan describes strategies that can be taken to reduce the levels of bacteria in the portions of the Trinity River and its tributaries that are listed as impaired for bacteria on the state’s 303(d) list. Figure 13 shows the cities within the boundary of this I-Plan. The overall population in the greater bacteria TMDL watershed is 1.33 million people (according to 2010 U.S. Census data) and is fairly densely populated with urban and suburban clusters. A group of diverse stakeholders make up the TMDL Coordination Committee, which meets yearly to monitor the status of recommended strategies and actions and to recommend priority implementation actions to focus on in order to improve water quality. NCTCOG continues to support regional efforts to implement strategies identified in the I-Plan and work with stakeholders to make progress in meeting TCEQ’s and the

39

http://www.dfwstormwater.com/

region’s goal of reducing bacteria concentrations to within acceptable risk levels for contact recreation.

Other Pollutants

Bacteria is not the only impairment impacting the Trinity River. In 1996, segments of the Trinity were first listed as impaired for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) on the state’s 303(d) list, which references a section of the Clean Water Act mandating the evaluation of a state’s water bodies. In 2002, the Texas Department of State Health Services issued a fish consumption advisory for 150 miles of the Trinity River due to PCBs in fish tissue. In 2010, another fish consumption advisory expanded the area of impairment to cover 12 assessment units. Also in 2010, dioxin was listed as an impairment for the same river segments as those impacted by PCBs. The combined watersheds of all four segments cover 1,540 square miles. PCBs are a challenging contaminant from a water quality perspective because they continue to persist in the environment. PCBs were banned in 1976 but they tend to settle in sediment and can get suspended in water columns when disturbed and transported as silt downstream.

Figure 13. Bacteria TMDL Watersheds and MS4 Permittees

Water Quality Planning and Watershed Protection Initiatives

Many initiatives and planning processes are underway to address water quality from a watershed protection and management perspective. For those streams and water bodies that are impaired, several initiatives are summarized in this section including the 303(d) Vision Watershed Priority Strategy, Greenprinting, and the Regional Ecosystem Framework.

40

303(d) Vision Watershed Priority Strategy

In 2011, the State of Texas and EPA developed a new approach to address impaired water bodies. The 303(d) Vision Watershed Priority Strategy improves on the TMDL approach and provides an opportunity to use different methods to address impairments. The 303(d) Vision replaces the current performance measure of number of TMDLs per year with a performance measure of approved plans for impairments over a seven-year window. Approved plans include an approved TMDL Implementation Plan or a Watershed Protection Plan. In 2014, the Upper Trinity River Basin was selected as a pilot area to implement the 303(d) Vision Watershed Priority Strategy. Figure 14 provides a visual summary of the watershed protection plans and I-Plans currently in place in the Upper Trinity River Basin. This figure also shows a preliminary evaluation by Texas A&M AgriLife of the potential target subbasins in which to concentrate efforts with stakeholders and develop a course of action for future watershed protection plans or TMDLs in order to address contact recreation impairments.

Greenprinting

Greenprinting is a systematic approach for identifying areas that offer the highest conservation benefit for water quality protection and other regional resource priorities. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) has applied the Greenprinting process in over 40 communities and watersheds across the country.

TPL in partnership with NCTCOG and several local government and stakeholder groups has conducted three Greenprints in the North Central Texas region. NCTCOG is supporting the efforts of local governments and stakeholders to Greenprint watersheds to protect the region’s water supply lakes. The three areas that have undergone or are currently undergoing a Greenprint include:

• Lewisville Lake East Study Area • Lake Arlington Study Area • Lake Worth Study Area

The Greenprinting Project Reports for can be found at http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEEscg/REF/Greenprint.asp.

41

http://www.nctcog.org/envir/SEEscg/REF/Greenprint.asp

Figure 14. 303(d) Vision Watershed Priority Strategy (Preliminary as of May 2015)

Regional Ecosystem Framework

The Regional Ecosystem Framework (REF) is a geographic information systems–based tool that can be used during the development of infrastructure projects in North Central Texas. The REF consists of 10 Vital Ecosystem Information Layers (VEILs) focused on three central eco-logical parameters: Green Infrastructure, Water Considerations, and Ecosystem Value. The REF provides a foundation for using the watershed approach when considering the conservation- and ecosystem-based

priorities during the development of infrastructure projects. Figure 15 shows the VEIL Composite map that aggregates the scores of each individual VEIL layer to identify the overall relative importance of ecosystem attributes.

Figure 15. Regional Ecosystem Framework VEIL Composite

During the last update of the REF, subwatersheds were classified based on their overall ecosystem priorities. The method identified subwatersheds based on their ecological value and whether that value has increased or decreased over

42

time. The following classifications designate the conservation priority of each subwatershed:

• Priority to Enhance: These subwatersheds have valuable ecosystem attributes that may be at risk because their overall VEIL composite score is decreasing. Therefore, these areas could be key candidates for mitigation strategies to offset impacts of projects. Priority to Enhance subwatersheds had a “High” rank for a category and a VEIL Composite score that has decreased from 2011 to 2014.

• Maintain: These subwatersheds have valuable ecosystem attributes that are increasing in value relative to other parts of the region. Therefore, these areas should be maintained to preserve their ecosystem value. Maintain subwatersheds had a “High” rank for a category and a VEIL Composite score that has increased or remained the same from 2011 to 2014.

• Future Opportunity: These subwatersheds have a relatively low ecosystem value compared to the rest of the region but the overall VEIL Composite score has increased. Therefore, these areas could be the focus for conservation efforts in the future. Future Opportunity watersheds had a “Low” rank for a category and a VEIL Composite score that has increased or remained the same from 2011 to 2014.

• Lower Opportunity: These subwatersheds have a relatively low ecosystem value compared to the rest of the region and the overall VEIL Composite score has decreased. Therefore, these areas are of relatively low concern in terms of conservation efforts; the urbanized areas roughly correspond

with this category. Lower Opportunity watersheds had a “Low” rank for a category and a VEIL Composite score that has decreased from 2011 to 2014.

From this analysis, 12 subwatersheds were classified as “Priority to Enhance” and are superimposed on the VEIL Composite scores for all 282 subwatersheds in the Dallas-Fort Worth MPA and are shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16: REF Subwatersheds Classified as“Priority to Enhance”

43

The most recent update of the REF included a compilation and inventory of existing mitigation sites, mitigation banks, existing conservation sites, parks, local government conservation plans, and other key mitigation and conservation areas that are likely to be maintained in that status in perpetuity. NCTCOG intends for this data to help identify potential opportunity sites that could be conserved or enhanced in the future through innovative partnerships with transportation agencies. These future sites could link existing mitigation sites.

The existing dedicated lands, shown in Figure 17, provide a framework for the known conservation areas in the North Central Texas region that could be evaluated during the development of watershed protection plans or other watershed management initiatives to enhance and link dedicated lands for water quality improvements.

The REF also identifies the known conservation opportunities in the North Central Texas area as shown in Figure 18. This map depicts the existing conservation areas and the known conservation opportunities gathered from multiple sources. The known conservation opportunities include The Nature Conservancy Priority Conservation Areas, Texas Natural Diversity Database Native Prairies and Native Upland Forests, Vision North Texas Natural Policy Area layer, and future parks and flood control from future land use plans. All of the known conservation

Figure 17. REF Identified Existing Dedicated Lands in North Central Texas

opportunities displayed have different goals and objectives for conservation, but the map provides users with a high-level planning tool to assist them in identifying potential areas that the project may want to avoid and in identifying opportunities for unique mitigation and enhancement projects during infrastructure development processes and opportunities for water quality improvement projects.

44

It is important to note that the Conservation Opportunities map for the North Central Texas region focuses on natural environment aspects such as native landscapes, floodplains, riparian corridors of significance, and natural areas (floodplains and vegetated areas). Critical agricultural and impaired water bodies are examples of ecosystem components not included in the Conservation Opportunities map that could provide additional opportunities to enhance these lands or locate mitigation projects near these lands for additional conservation value and/or enhancement of these resources.

Considering the existing and conservation opportunities during watershed planning and management activities could benefit water quality by providing long-term actions that meet water quality interests and serve to protect or enhance priority conservation areas in North Central Texas.

Figure 18. REF Identified Conservation Opportunities in North Central Texas

45

7 APPENDICES Appendix 1. 2015 Population Estimates by City and County

2015 Population Estimates, City by County 2010 Census

Population April 1 2014 Estimate

January 1 2015 Estimate

January 1 2014-2015 Absolute

Change 2014-2015 Percent

Change Collin County 782,341 846,850 868,790 21,940 2.6% Allen 84,246 90,030 91,390 1,360 1.5% Anna 8,249 10,250 10,980 730 7.1% Celina 6,028 6,660 7,320 660 9.9% Fairview 7,248 8,310 8,420 110 1.3% Farmersville 3,301 3,290 3,310 20 0.6% Frisco 116,989 137,310 145,510 8,200 6.0% Lavon 2,219 2,740 2,970 230 8.4% Lowry Crossing 1,711 1,710 1,710 0.0% Lucas 5,166 5,970 6,400 430 7.2% McKinney 131,117 147,910 154,840 6,930 4.7% Melissa 4,695 6,190 6,890 700 11.3% Murphy 17,708 18,830 19,170 340 1.8% Parker 3,811 4,110 4,200 90 2.2% Plano 259,841 269,330 271,140 1,810 0.7% Princeton 6,807 7,840 7,910 70 0.9% Prosper 9,423 14,710 15,970 1,260 8.6% St. Paul 1,066 1,070 1,080 10 0.9% Wylie 41,427 44,280 45,000 720 1.6% Split Cities Adjustment 31,426 23,680 20,030 Remainder of County 39,863 42,630 44,550 1,920 4.5%

46






Change Dallas County 2,368,139 2,435,700 2,454,880 19,180 0.8% Addison 13,056 15,180 15,530 350 2.3% Balch Springs 23,728 24,280 24,280 0.0% Cedar Hill 45,028 45,820 46,350 530 1.2% Cockrell Hill 4,193 4,170 4,160 (10) -0.2% Coppell 38,659 39,550 39,880 330 0.8% Dallas 1,197,816 1,232,360 1,244,270 11,910 1.0% DeSoto 49,047 50,520 50,970 450 0.9% Duncanville 38,524 39,170 39,220 50 0.1% Farmers Branch 28,616 29,660 30,350 690 2.3% Garland 226,876 231,700 232,960 1,260 0.5% Glenn Heights 11,278 11,440 11,440 0.0% Grand Prairie 175,396 181,230 182,610 1,380 0.8% Highland Park 8,564 8,480 8,440 (40) -0.5% Hutchins 5,338 5,350 5,350 0.0% Irving 216,290 227,030 228,610 1,580 0.7% Lancaster 36,361 37,150 37,360 210 0.6% Mesquite 139,824 142,210 142,230 20 0.0% Richardson 99,223 101,820 102,430 610 0.6% Rowlett 56,199 56,450 56,910 460 0.8% Sachse 20,329 21,580 22,460 880 4.1% Seagoville 14,835 15,130 15,390 260 1.7% Sunnyvale 5,130 5,280 5,420 140 2.7% University Park 23,068 22,860 22,840 (20) -0.1% Wilmer 3,682 4,120 4,170 50 1.2% Split Cities Adjustment (120,096) (124,240) (126,150) Remainder of County 7,175 7,400 7,400 0.0%

47






Change Denton County 662,614 713,200 734,940 21,740 3.0% Argyle 3,282 3,510 3,690 180 5.1% Aubrey 2,595 2,670 2,780 110 4.1% Bartonville 1,469 1,630 1,640 10 0.6% Carrollton 119,097 124,400 125,250 850 0.7% Copper Canyon 1,334 1,350 1,370 20 1.5% Corinth 19,935 20,520 20,620 100 0.5% Cross Roads 1,563 1,710 1,840 130 7.6% Denton 113,383 120,820 123,200 2,380 2.0% Double Oak 2,867 2,920 2,930 10 0.3% Flower Mound 64,669 66,130 66,820 690 1.0% Hickory Creek 3,247 3,320 3,620 300 9.0% Highland Village 15,056 15,260 15,290 30 0.2% Justin 3,246 3,250 3,260 10 0.3% Krugerville 1,662 1,670 1,670 - 0.0% Krum 4,157 4,750 4,790 40 0.8% Lake Dallas 7,105 7,220 7,240 20 0.3% Lewisville 95,290 98,330 99,480 1,150 1.2% Little Elm 25,898 31,220 33,710 2,490 8.0% Northlake 1,724 2,150 2,160 10 0.5% Oak Point 2,786 3,040 3,180 140 4.6% Pilot Point 3,856 3,880 3,890 10 0.3% Ponder 1,395 1,460 1,520 60 4.1% Providence 4,786 5,400 5,750 350 6.5% Roanoke 5,962 6,750 7,200 450 6.7% Sanger 6,916 7,490 7,590 100 1.3% Shady Shores 2,612 2,630 2,640 10 0.4% The Colony 36,328 38,730 39,310 580 1.5%

48

Trophy Club 8,024 10,100 10,690 590 5.8% Split Cities Adjustment 35,292 45,950 51,140 Remainder of County 67,078 74,940 80,670 5,730 7.6%



January 1 2015 Estimate January

1 2014-2015 Absolute


Change Ellis County 149,610 157,910 161,010 3,100 2.0% Ennis 18,513 18,670 18,730 60 0.3% Ferris 2,436 2,440 2,450 10 0.4% Italy 1,863 1,870 1,860 (10) -0.5% Midlothian 18,037 20,540 21,610 1,070 5.2% Oak Leaf 1,298 1,310 1,340 30 2.3% Ovilla 3,492 3,550 3,690 140 3.9% Palmer 2,000 2,010 2,020 10 0.5% Red Oak 10,769 11,530 11,980 450 3.9% Waxahachie 29,621 32,070 32,670 600 1.9% Split Cities Adjustment 3,154 3,180 3,210 Remainder of County 58,427 60,740 61,450 710 1.2% Erath County 37,890 41,010 41,170 160 0.4% Dublin 3,654 3,760 3,770 10 0.3% Stephenville 17,123 19,410 19,560 150 0.8% Remainder of County 17,113 17,840 17,840 - 0.0% Hood County 51,182 55,740 56,020 280 0.5% DeCordova 2,683 2,720 2,730 10 0.4% Granbury 7,978 8,670 8,940 270 3.1% Split Cities Adjustment (18) (20) (20) Remainder of County 40,539 44,370 44,370 - 0.0%

49

Hunt County 86,129 88,950 89,090 140 0.2% Caddo Mills 1,338 1,400 1,430 30 2.1% Commerce 8,078 8,150 8,130 (20) -0.2% Greenville 25,557 26,100 26,180 80 0.3% Quinlan 1,394 1,390 1,400 10 0.7% West Tawakoni 1,576 1,600 1,600 - 0.0% Wolfe City 1,412 1,420 1,420 - 0.0% Split Cities Adjustment 356 730 760 Remainder of County 6,418 48,160 48,170 10 0.0% Johnson County 150,934 155,980 158,350 2,370 1.5% Alvarado 3,785 3,910 4,080 170 4.3% Burleson 36,690 39,920 41,280 1,360 3.4% Cleburne 29,337 29,160 29,170 10 0.0% Godley 1,009 1,020 1,030 10 1.0% Grandview 1,561 1,550 1,580 30 1.9% Joshua 5,910 6,040 6,090 50 0.8% Keene 6,106 6,150 6,160 10 0.2% Venus 2,960 3,040 3,110 70 2.3% Split Cities Adjustment (5,608) (6,060) (6,260) Remainder of County 69,184 71,250 72,110 860 1.2% Kaufman County 103,350 108,120 109,300 1,180 1.1% Combine 1,942 1,960 1,960 - 0.0% Crandall 2,858 3,030 3,050 20 0.7% Forney 14,661 16,800 17,480 680 4.0% Kaufman 6,703 6,640 6,610 (30) -0.5% Kemp 1,154 1,170 1,170 - 0.0% Mabank 3,035 3,100 3,140 40 1.3% Talty 1,535 1,890 2,010 120 6.3% Terrell 15,816 16,130 16,220 90 0.6% Split Cities Adjustment (1,281) (1,290) (1,310) Remainder of County 56,927 58,690 58,970 280 0.5%

50

Navarro County 47,735 48,540 48,550 10 0.0% Corsicana 23,770 23,850 23,850 - 0.0% Kerens 1,573 1,630 1,620 (10) -0.6% Remainder of County 22,392 23,060 23,080 20 0.1% Palo Pinto County 28,111 28,590 28,660 70 0.2% Mineral Wells 16,788 16,770 16,790 20 0.1% Split Cities Adjustment (2,144) (2,140) (2,140) Remainder of County 13,467 13,960 14,010 50 0.4% Parker County 116,927 121,810 124,630 2,820 2.3% Aledo 2,716 2,980 3,210 230 7.7% Annetta 1,288 2,630 2,670 40 1.5% Hudson Oaks 1,662 1,860 1,940 80 4.3% Reno 2,494 2,520 2,560 40 1.6% Springtown 2,658 2,660 2,660 - 0.0% Weatherford 25,250 26,200 26,600 400 1.5% Willow Park 3,982 4,490 4,590 100 2.2% Split Cities Adjustment 4,339 4,350 4,360 Remainder of County 72,538 74,120 76,040 1,920 2.6% Rockwall 78,337 84,830 87,290 2,460 2.9% Fate 6,434 8,770 9,700 930 10.6% Heath 6,921 7,440 7,430 (10) -0.1% McLendon-Chisholm 1,373 1,750 2,050 300 17.1% Rockwall 37,490 40,030 40,620 590 1.5% Royse City 9,349 10,000 10,220 220 2.2% Split Cities Adjustment 6,775 6,350 6,220 Remainder of County 9,995 10,490 11,050 560 5.3% Somervell County 8,490 8,800 8,850 50 0.6% Glen Rose 2,444 2,470 2,480 10 0.4% Remainder of County 6,046 6,330 6,370 40 0.6%

51

Tarrant County 1,809,034 1,884,620 1,905,750 21,130 1.1% Arlington 365,438 378,070 379,370 1,300 0.3% Azle 10,947 11,040 11,140 100 0.9% Bedford 46,979 47,950 48,060 110 0.2% Benbrook 21,234 21,850 21,910 60 0.3% Blue Mound 2,394 2,390 2,390 - 0.0% Colleyville 22,807 23,740 23,760 20 0.1% Crowley 12,838 13,900 14,130 230 1.7% Dalworthington Gardens 2,259 2,310 2,320 10 0.4% Edgecliff Village 2,776 2,870 2,870 - 0.0% Euless 51,277 53,780 54,050 270 0.5% Everman 6,108 6,110 6,110 - 0.0% Forest Hill 12,355 12,380 12,380 - 0.0% Fort Worth 741,206 781,100 792,720 11,620 1.5% Grapevine 46,334 48,060 48,520 460 1.0% Haltom City 42,409 42,660 42,640 (20) 0.0% Haslet 1,517 1,630 1,660 30 1.8% Hurst 37,337 38,280 38,340 60 0.2% Keller 39,627 42,040 42,890 850 2.0% Kennedale 6,763 6,870 7,130 260 3.8% Lake Worth 4,584 4,780 5,000 220 4.6% Lakeside 1,307 1,330 1,330 - 0.0% Mansfield 56,368 59,410 60,400 990 1.7% North Richland Hills 63,343 65,690 66,300 610 0.9% Pantego 2,394 2,450 2,460 10 0.4% Pelican Bay 1,547 1,570 1,580 10 0.6% Richland Hills 7,801 7,910 7,920 10 0.1% River Oaks 7,427 7,280 7,270 (10) -0.1% Saginaw 19,806 20,370 20,480 110 0.5%

52

Sansom Park 4,686 4,680 4,680 - 0.0% Southlake 26,575 27,330 27,710 380 1.4% Watauga 23,497 23,560 23,590 30 0.1% Westlake 992 1,050 1,120 70 6.7% Westworth Village 2,472 2,550 2,570 20 0.8% White Settlement 16,116 16,680 16,740 60 0.4% Split Cities Adjustment 43,504 45,220 45,850 Remainder of County 54,010 55,730 58,360 2,630 4.7%

Wise County 59,127 61,690 61,970 280 0.5% Alvord 1,334 1,330 1,340 10 0.8% Aurora 1,220 1,300 1,340 40 3.1% Boyd 1,207 1,260 1,300 40 3.2% Bridgeport 5,976 6,050 6,080 30 0.5% Chico 1,002 1,010 1,010 - 0.0% Decatur 6,042 6,330 6,390 60 0.9% New Fairview 1,258 1,350 1,410 60 4.4% Newark 1,005 1,010 1,010 - 0.0% Rhome 1,522 1,580 1,590 10 0.6% Runaway Bay 1,286 1,310 1,340 30 2.3% Split Cities Adjustment 3,597 3,600 3,600 Remainder of County 33,678 35,560 35,560 - 0.0%

53

Appendix 2: 2040 Demographic Forecast for Selected Cities in DFW Metropolitan Planning Area

Select Cities 2005 Household Population

2035 Household Population

2040 Household Population

2005 Employment 2035 Employment 2040 Employment

Allen 56,852 116,175 122,277 17,483 43,352 47,890

Arlington 360,310 487,849 511,786 174,825 285,864 304,791

Bedford 55,609 68,831 71,632 22,019 35,420 37,578

Burleson 27,543 46,891 49,815 10,587 24,579 27,869

Carrollton 115,801 155,836 160,632 79,944 120,158 125,524

Cedar Hill 29,825 66,657 72,314 15,909 36,608 41,559

Coppell 31,546 38,140 38,399 31,358 44,115 45,627

Dallas 1,307,899 1,652,479 1,713,662 1,044,234 1,547,800 1,614,986

Denton 104,633 149,626 159,246 60,313 99,130 105,944

DeSoto 39,184 60,420 63,983 16,260 30,566 32,609

Duncanville 32,003 38,117 38,745 15,048 19,211 19,636

Euless 57,956 78,038 80,706 21,127 41,523 44,701

Flower Mound 55,300 89,838 94,174 11,045 28,649 31,806

Fort Worth 600,337 1,115,910 1,199,673 454,756 776,428 834,327

Frisco 68,835 157,641 177,061 30,869 58,764 65,476

Garland 196,611 249,509 256,117 98,318 161,135 169,965

Grand Prairie 127,025 231,573 247,005 71,117 126,734 133,913

Grapevine 44,370 80,165 84,913 74,456 95,427 98,572

Haltom City 42,915 55,977 59,497 13,099 27,823 30,132

Hurst 38,860 51,567 53,419 20,389 32,421 34,402

Irving 212,358 280,112 290,120 253,945 341,103 351,666

Keller 26,998 61,740 67,821 9,403 19,644 21,566

Lancaster 25,943 59,821 64,985 12,360 26,728 29,372

Lewisville 94,920 129,451 136,652 44,565 76,794 81,840

54

Mansfield 34,628 113,891 126,681 16,567 40,260 45,392

McKinney 85,825 184,971 203,964 41,744 92,059 101,898

Mesquite 121,333 171,910 182,185 64,292 117,426 126,293

North Richland Hills

61,554 83,327 87,336 24,535 46,261 50,020

Plano 255,410 342,686 351,685 158,324 250,334 264,413

Richardson 103,276 131,775 138,500 116,085 176,122 183,738

Rockwall 29,195 57,243 60,549 12,288 28,849 32,349

Rowlett 38,174 76,664 83,076 7,702 21,553 24,347

The Colony 27,860 40,714 42,931 5,544 11,762 13,006

Wylie 25,641 57,055 61,287 8,237 19,519 22,417

These figures are the result of aggregations of Traffic Survey Zone (TSZ) allocations approximated to city boundaries. None of the models used in the demographic forecasting process consider city boundaries. In addition, TSZs do not cede to city boundaries. To derive the figures shown here, each selected city was assigned a share of a TSZ’s allocation based on proportion of area. The assumption here is that the allocations of household population and employment are dispersed evenly across the TSZ, which might or might not be accurate. All figures are for city boundaries as delineated by the U.S. Census Bureau for tabulation of the 2010 Census data and do not take into account future annexations or extra-territorial jurisdiction. For example, over the last decade the City of Fort Worth has experienced substantial growth, much of which has been in areas annexed over the decade. A similar type of activity occurring in the future is not captured by the figures shown here. “Select cities” include incorporated places with a population of at least 30,000 based on the official count from the 2010 Census. Household population excludes persons living in group quarters such as dormitories, nursing homes, and jails. These city-level aggregations are provided merely as an informational item and are likely to differ from any projections produced by or specifically for an individual city. The North Central Texas Council of Governments makes no warranty, express or implied, including warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Responsibility for the use of these data lies solely with the user.

55

Appendix 3. Discharge Monitoring Report Data for Minor Wastewater Facilities in 16 County NCTCOG Region (Source: TCEQ DMR Flow Data, January 2014 – December 2014)

EPA ID No. TPDES Permit No.

Permittee Name County Outfall Monitoring Location

Daily Average Flow (MGD)15

Daily Max Flow (MGD) 16

TX0020290 13937001 CITY OF MILFORD WWTP Ellis 001A regular monthly flow sampling 0 0 TX0020290 13937001 CITY OF MILFORD WWTP Ellis 002A regular monthly flow sampling 0.0196 0.0293 TX0020567 13981001 AVALON WWTF Ellis 001A regular monthly flow sampling 0.01254 0.01644 TX0021687 10366001 ROYSE CITY WWTF Rockwall 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0 0 TX0022331 13725001 CITY OF QUINLAN WWTP Hunt 001a average regular monthly flow sampling 0.124583333 0.352417 TX0022403 14372001 CITY OF SANGER WWTP Denton 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.575597 0.723161 TX0022420 10444001 CITY OF FROST MWWTF Navarro 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.028325 0.029417 TX0022501 11312001 CITY OF JUSTIN WWTP Denton 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.154167 0.253333 TX0022632 10131001 CITY OF BOYD WWTP Wise 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.1265 0.228417 TX0022659 10361001 CITY OF PILOT POINT WWTP Denton 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.258182 0.470909 TX0023027 10745001 CITY OF KERENS WWTF Navarro 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.115933 0.158822 TX0023272 14246001 CITY OF CELINA WWTP Collin 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.31075 0.49725 TX0023396 10695001 CITY OF KEMP WWTF Kaufman 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.091888 0.189225 TX0023558 10383001 CITY OF WOLFE CITY WWTP Hunt 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.04975 0.132333 TX0023787 10023001 CHICO WWTF Wise 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.087454545 0.124545 TX0024180 10146001 CITY OF CELESTE WWTP Hunt 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.039858 0.139267 TX0024198 10729001 CITY OF KRUM WWTF Denton 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.025213 0.04764 TX0024503 10180001 CITY OF GRANDVIEW WWTF Johnson 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.064083 0.12225 TX0024783 10701001 EASTSIDE WWTF Wise 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.073417 0.13475 TX0024929 10834001 CRANDALL WWTP Kaufman 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.376667 0.60875 TX0024970 10425001 CITY OF CADDO MILLS

WWTP Hunt 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0 0

15An average was taken of the monthly “Daily Average (MGD)” in conduit or thru treatment plant value to produce a yearly “Daily Average Flow” value. Similarly, an average was taken of the monthly “Daily Max Flow (MGD)” in conduit or through treatment plant value to produce a yearly “Daily Max Flow (MGD).” 16An average was taken of the monthly “Daily Max Flow (MGD)” in conduit or through treatment plant value to produce a yearly “Daily Max Flow (MGD).”

56





TX0024988 11451001 SEIS LAGOS WWTP Collin 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.123545 0.235091

TX0026565 10903001 TOWN OF LAKEWOOD VILLAGE WWTF

Denton 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.050916667 0.085833333

TX0026581 13675001 CITY OF BARDWELL WWTP Ellis 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.0145 0.029417 TX0026603 14795001 PALMER WWTF Ellis 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.091358 0.293083 TX0026689 10862001 CITY OF RUNAWAY BAY

WWTP Wise 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.021792

0.04665

TX0026808 10039001 CITY OF BLUE RIDGE WWTP Collin 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.04814 150.0574 TX0027120 10847001 CITY OF ALEDO WWTP Parker 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.1945 0.283833 TX0027502 10887001 CITY OF JOSEPHINE WWTP Collin 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.029736 0.076845 TX0027685 14233001 CITY OF TOLAR WWTP Hood 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.05239725 0.0725 TX0027723 10172002 COTTONWOOD CREEK

WWTP Collin 001A average regular monthly flow sampling

0.183

0.238

TX0032646 10649001 CITY OF SPRINGTOWN - WWTP

Parker 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.318091 0.567727

TX0033316 10177001 CITY OF GLEN ROSE WWTP Somervell 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.070917 0.215167 TX0052949 10579001 CITY OF MABANK WWTF Kaufman 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.197417 0.3495 TX0053449 10026001 CITY OF DAWSON WWTF Navarro 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.039775 0.07625 TX0053571 10431001 CITY OF MAYPEARL WWTP Ellis 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.061417 0.15475 TX0054348 10405001 DUBLIN WWTF Erath 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.161918 0.467091 TX0056588 13647001 AUBREY WWTF Denton 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.152 0.250417 TX0056677 11283001 SLAYTER CREEK WWTP Collin 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0 0 TX0056677 11283001 SLAYTER CREEK WWTP Collin 002A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.491025 98.37642 TX0057231 11626001 CITY OF NEWARK WWTF Wise 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.051833 0.077083 TX0057631 14339001 CITY OF ALVORD WWTP Wise 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.069182 0.154182 TX0064513 14344001 CITY OF WEST TAWAKONI Hunt 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.07304 0.15541 TX0072508 13791001 CITY OF CAMPBELL WWTP Hunt 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.0358 0.041227 TX0073032 11864001 CITY OF ANGUS WWTP Navarro 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.002583 0.004541

57





TX0075418 11606001 BLOOMING GROVE WWTP Navarro 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.032 0.067417

TX0076091 10442001 FARMERSVILLE WWTP Collin 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0 0 TX0092223 12616001 CITY OF GOODLOW WWTP Navarro 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0 0 TX0099732 13834001 WILLOW PARK WWTP Parker 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.204417 0.27175 TX0100021 10760001 CITY OF LONE OAK WWTP Hunt 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.036408 0.073325 TX0101664 11698001 PALO PINTO COUNTY

WWTF Palo Pinto 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.012146 0.017125

TX0103276 13434001 CITY OF HACKBERRY WWTP Denton 001A average regular monthly flow sampling TX0103497 10442002 FARMERSVILLE WWTP UNIT

2 Collin 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.197333 0.262417

TX0104558 14887001 CITY OF GODLEY WWTP Johnson 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.097083 0.141 TX0104752 10722001 CITY OF GRAFORD WWTP Palo Pinto 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.005435 0.02855 TX0105155 14212001 ACTON MUD- PECAN

PLANTATION Hood 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.185401

0.313917

TX0105163 14211001 DECORDOVA BEND ESTATES WWTP

Hood 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.239554 0.376917

TX0106291 10611002 CITY OF KEENE WWTP Johnson 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.279967 0.509992 TX0106640 13546001 CITY OF RIO VISTA WWTP Johnson 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.059874 0.095992 TX0111333 13590001 CITY OF LIPAN WWTP Hood 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.00159 0.002656 TX0118621 10701002 WESTSIDE WWTF Wise 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.051583 0.083833 TX0119849 10027004 ROBSON RANCH WWTP Denton 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.19125 0.250583 TX0123056 14195001 CITY OF ITALY WWTF Ellis 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.200833 0.544042 TX0123862 11287003 TOWN OF PONDER WWTP Denton 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.1315 0.197167 TX0124745 14323001 PENINSULA REG WATER

REC PLANT Denton 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.250417

0.345167

TX0124923 14350001 JOHNSON COUNTY SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT WWTP

Johnson 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.325583

0.455333

TX0126179 10567002 CITY OF ALVARADO WWTP Johnson 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.267111 0.502133

58





TX0126616 13904001 CAMP HOBITZELLE WWTF Ellis 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.0072 0.0164 TX0126691 14522001 CITY OF HAWK COVE WWTP Hunt 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.00854 0.029883 TX0128392 10425002 CITY OF CADDO MILLS

WWTF Hunt 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.07775 0.146667

TX0129640 14805001 CRESSON WWTP 1 Hood 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.011755 0.0183 TX0131911 4877000 SOMERVELL COUNTY WTP Somervell 001A average regular monthly flow sampling 0.047667 0.07

Appendix XX. Discharge Monitoring Report Data for Major Wastewater Facilities in 16 County NCTCOG Region

EPA ID No, TPDES Permit No.

Permittee Name County Outfall Monitoring Location Daily Average Flow (MGD)17

Daily Max Flow (MGD

TX0020354 10698001 LAKEVIEW REG. WATER REC. PLANT Denton 001A average regular monthly flow sampling

3.744166667 4.52

TX0020354 10698001 LAKEVIEW REG. WATER REC. PLANT Denton 001A 2-Hour Peak flow 4,528.33333 TX0020354 10698001 LAKEVIEW REG. WATER REC. PLANT Denton 001A Annual Average Flow 3.931666667 TX0020591 10555001 CITY OF COMMERCE WWTP Hunt average regular monthly flow

sampling

TX0020711 11321001 TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND WWTP Denton 001A average regular monthly flow sampling

4.697 5.849

TX0020711 11321001 TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND WWTP Denton 001A 2 hour peak flow 6404.296 TX0020711 11321001 TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND WWTP Denton 001A Annual Average Flow 4.723636 TX0022241 10262001 SQUABBLE CREEK WWTF Rockwall 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 0.849455 1.251364

TX0022241 10262001 SQUABBLE CREEK WWTF Rockwall 001A 2 hour peak flow 1,353.909

17An average was taken of the monthly “Daily Average (MGD)” in conduit or thru treatment plant value to produce a yearly “Daily Average Flow” value. Similarly, an average was taken of the monthly “Daily Max Flow (MGD)” in conduit or through treatment plant value to produce a yearly “Daily Max Flow (MGD).” 18An average was taken of the monthly “Daily Max Flow (MGD)” in conduit or through treatment plant value to produce a yearly “Daily Max Flow (MGD).”

59



Daily Max Flow (MGD

TX0022241 10262001 SQUABBLE CREEK WWTF Rockwall 001A Annual average flow 0.855818 TX0022527 10747001 KINGS CREEK WWTF Kaufman 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 1.451864 2.911091

TX0022527 10747001 KINGS CREEK WWTF Kaufman 001A 2 hour peak flow 3,373.198 TX0022527 10747001 KINGS CREEK WWTF Kaufman 001A Annual Average Flow 1.316255 TX0022802 10303001 CENTRAL REGIONAL WWTF Dallas 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 124.3212 143.3165

TX0022802 10303001 CENTRAL REGIONAL WWTF Dallas 001A 2 hour Peak flow 117,931.4 TX0022802 10303001 CENTRAL REGIONAL WWTF Dallas 001A Annual Average Flow 123.2814 TX0022811 10984001 TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY OF TX Dallas 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 11.80225 16.24358

TX0022811 10984001 TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY OF TX Dallas 001A 2 hour Peak flow 14,023.83 TX0022811 10984001 TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY OF TX Dallas 001A Annual Average Flow 11.83092 TX0023116 11183003 ASH CREEK WWTP Tarrant 003A average regular monthly flow

sampling 0.9138 1.1768

TX0023116 11183003 ASH CREEK WWTP Tarrant 003A 2 hour Peak 1,298.641 TX0023116 11183003 ASH CREEK WWTP Tarrant 003A Annual Average Flow 0.921 TX0023116 11183003 ASH CREEK WWTP Tarrant 004A Regular Monthly Flow Sampling 0.36025 0.50175 TX0023116 11183003 ASH CREEK WWTP Tarrant 004A 2 hour Peak 714.3461 TX0023116 11183003 ASH CREEK WWTP Tarrant 004A Annual Average Flow 0.477625 TX0023116 11183003 ASH CREEK WWTP Tarrant 101A Regular Monthly Flow Sampling 0.92475 TX0023116 11183003 ASH CREEK WWTP Tarrant 101A 2 hour Peak 1,515.612 TX0023779 10585004 WILLOW CREEK WWTP Parker 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 0.1705 0.439167

TX0023779 10585004 WILLOW CREEK WWTP Parker 001A 2 hour Peak 50.91667 TX0023779 10585004 WILLOW CREEK WWTP Parker 001A Annual Average flow 0.170833 TX0023931 10257001 FLOYD BRANCH REGIONAL WWTP Dallas 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 1.868636 2.339636

60



Daily Max Flow (MGD

TX0023931 10257001 FLOYD BRANCH REGIONAL WWTP Dallas 001A 2 hour Peak Flow 3,202 TX0023931 10257001 FLOYD BRANCH REGIONAL WWTP Dallas 001A 2 hour Peak Flow 2.010182 TX0024228 10290001 STEPHENVILLE WWTP Erath 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 1.236417 1.81375

TX0024228 10290001 STEPHENVILLE WWTP Erath 001A 2 hour peak flow 1,515.112 TX0024228 10290001 STEPHENVILLE WWTP Erath 001A Annual Average Flow 1.274083 TX0024228 10290001 STEPHENVILLE WWTP Erath 002A Regular Monthly Flow Sampling 0.170833 0.230583 TX0024228 10290001 STEPHENVILLE WWTP Erath 002A 2 hour peak flow 273.4167 TX0024228 10290001 STEPHENVILLE WWTP Erath 002A Annual Average Flow 0.179417 TX0024228 10290001 STEPHENVILLE WWTP Erath Annual Average Flow 1.453667 TX0024678 10090001 CITY OF GARLAND Dallas 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 11.14652 18.41348

TX0024678 10090001 CITY OF GARLAND Dallas 001A 2 hour peak Flow 14,979.99 TX0024678 10090001 CITY OF GARLAND Dallas 001A Annual Average Flow 488.8057 TX0024911 10009001 CITY OF DECATUR WWTP Wise 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 0.587 0.856917

TX0024911 10009001 CITY OF DECATUR WWTP Wise 001A 2 hour peak flow 753.5 TX0024911 10009001 CITY OF DECATUR WWTP Wise 001A Annual Average Flow 0.58375 TX0025011 10348001 MOUNTAIN CREEK REG WWTF Ellis 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 0 0

TX0025011 10348001 MOUNTAIN CREEK REG WWTF Ellis 002A average regular monthly flow sampling

1.500416667 2.06166666

TX0025011 10348001 MOUNTAIN CREEK REG WWTF Ellis 002A 2 hour peak flow 3,350.91666 TX0025011 10348001 MOUNTAIN CREEK REG WWTF Ellis 002A Annual Average Flow 1.53723076 TX0025011 10348001 MOUNTAIN CREEK REG WWTF Ellis SUMA Annual Average Flow 1.544 TX0025950 10384001 WYLIE WWTP Collin 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 0 0

TX0025950 10384001 WYLIE WWTP Collin 001A 2 hour peak flow 0

61



Daily Max Flow (MGD

TX0025950 10384001 WYLIE WWTP Collin 001A Annual Average Flow 0 TX0027537 10379001 CITY OF WAXAHACHIE WWTP Ellis 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 3.16075 4.393417

TX0027537 10379001 CITY OF WAXAHACHIE WWTP Ellis 001A 2 hour Peak 5,250.917 TX0027537 10379001 CITY OF WAXAHACHIE WWTP Ellis 001A Annual Average Flow 3.312583 TX0032018 10486002 PEACH STREET WWTP Tarrant 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 2.9025 3.3315

TX0032018 10486002 PEACH STREET WWTP Tarrant 001A 2 hour peak flow 4,137.417

TX0032018 10486002 PEACH STREET WWTP Tarrant 001A Annual Average Flow 2.918667 TX0047155 10006001 CITY OF CLEBURNE WWTF Johnson 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 3.00275 4.192167

TX0047155 10006001 CITY OF CLEBURNE WWTF Johnson 001A 2 hour peak 4,173.478 TX0047155 10006001 CITY OF CLEBURNE WWTF Johnson 001A Annual Average 3.254917 TX0047155 10006001 CITY OF CLEBURNE WWTF Johnson 002A Regular Monthly Flow Sampling 0 0 TX0047155 10006001 CITY OF CLEBURNE WWTF Johnson 002A 2 hour peak 0 TX0047155 10006001 CITY OF CLEBURNE WWTF Johnson 002A Annual Average 0 TX0047155 10006001 CITY OF CLEBURNE WWTF Johnson 101A Annual Average 3.254917 TX0047180 10027003 PECAN CREEK WATER RECLAMATION

PLANT Denton 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 12.83333 15.45833

TX0047180 10027003 PECAN CREEK WATER RECLAMATION PLANT

Denton 001A 2 hour peak 14,955.33

TX0047180 10027003 PECAN CREEK WATER RECLAMATION PLANT

Denton 001A Annual Average 12.99167

TX0047261 10443002 OAK GROVE WWTF Ellis 001A average regular monthly flow sampling

1.553333 2.480833

TX0047261 10443002 OAK GROVE WWTF Ellis 001A 2 hour peak 3414.432

TX0047261 10443002 OAK GROVE WWTF Ellis 001A Annual Average 1.808333

62



Daily Max Flow (MGD

TX0047295 10494013 VILLAGE CREEK WWTF Tarrant 001A average regular monthly flow sampling

90.49583 108.6117

TX0047295 10494013 VILLAGE CREEK WWTF Tarrant 001A 2 hour peak 95,343.17 TX0047295 10494013 VILLAGE CREEK WWTF Tarrant 001A Annual Average 94.3075 TX0047414 10585001 POLLARD CREEK WWTP Palo Pinto 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 1.073167 1.488333

TX0047414 10585001 POLLARD CREEK WWTP Palo Pinto 001A 2 hour peak 1,834.5 TX0047414 10585001 POLLARD CREEK WWTP Palo Pinto 001A Annual Average 1.084083 TX0047431 10221001 SOUTH MESQUITE CREEK WWTP Dallas 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 15.13936 21.00627

TX0047431 10221001 SOUTH MESQUITE CREEK WWTP Dallas 001A 2 hour peak 21,179.36 TX0047431 10221001 SOUTH MESQUITE CREEK WWTP Dallas 001A Annual Average 15.64227

TX0047724 10380002 CITY OF WEATHERFORD WWTP Parker 001A average regular monthly flow sampling

2.085333 2.4675

TX0047724 10380002 CITY OF WEATHERFORD WWTP Parker 001A 2 hour peak 2,803.25 TX0047724 10380002 CITY OF WEATHERFORD WWTP Parker 001A Annual Average 2.139083 TX0047830 10060001 CENTRAL WWTF Dallas 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 82.15917 114.7417

TX0047830 10060001 CENTRAL WWTF Dallas 001A 2 hour peak 105,497.8 TX0047830 10060001 CENTRAL WWTF Dallas 001A Annual Average 88.14167 TX0047848 10060006 SOUTHSIDE WWTR Dallas 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 47.78333 57.54167

TX0047848 10060006 SOUTHSIDE WWTR Dallas 001A 2 hour peak 48,640 TX0047848 10060006 SOUTHSIDE WWTR Dallas 001A Annual Average 48.38333 TX0047911 10363001 NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER D Collin 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 11.12409 14.13445

TX0047911 10363001 NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER D Collin 001A 2 hour peak 12,746.55

63



Daily Max Flow (MGD

TX0047911 10363001 NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER D Collin 001A Annual Average 11.21209 TX0052892 10662001 PRAIRIE CREEK WWTP Denton 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 7.897417 9.84375

TX0052892 10662001 PRAIRIE CREEK WWTP Denton 001A 2 hour peak 10,840.25 TX0052892 10662001 PRAIRIE CREEK WWTP Denton 001A Annual Average 7.464583

TX0053112 11570001 STEWART CREEK WWTP Denton 001A average regular monthly flow sampling

2.88 3.426667

TX0053112 11570001 STEWART CREEK WWTP Denton 001A 2 hour peak 3,680.488 TX0053112 11570001 STEWART CREEK WWTP Denton 001A Annual Average 2.843333 TX0053783 11600001 TOWN OF LITTLE ELM WWTF Denton 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 2.283833 2.76375

TX0053783 11600001 TOWN OF LITTLE ELM WWTF Denton 001A 2 hour peak 2,967.048 TX0053783 11600001 TOWN OF LITTLE ELM WWTF Denton 001A Annual Average 2.242896 TX0055611 10485002 CITY OF GREENVILLE Hunt 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 2.844667 4.495583

TX0055611 10485002 CITY OF GREENVILLE Hunt 001A 2 hour peak 404.3092 TX0055611 10485002 CITY OF GREENVILLE Hunt 001A Annual Average 3.034167 TX0055735 11593001 TROPHY CLUB MUD 1 Denton 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 0.786783 1.0046

TX0055735 11593001 TROPHY CLUB MUD 1 Denton 001A 2 hour peak 808.8333 TX0055735 11593001 TROPHY CLUB MUD 1 Denton 001A Annual Average 0.733917 TX0056731 10402003 CITY OF CORSICANA - WWTP 2 Navarro 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 2.545 4.000167

TX0056731 10402003 CITY OF CORSICANA - WWTP 2 Navarro 001A 2 hour peak 3,773.167 TX0056731 10402003 CITY OF CORSICANA - WWTP 2 Navarro 001A Annual Average 2.536 TX0056731 10402003 CITY OF CORSICANA - WWTP 2 Navarro 002A average regular monthly flow

sampling 0.373917 0.8895

64



Daily Max Flow (MGD

TX0056731 10402003 CITY OF CORSICANA - WWTP 2 Navarro 002A 2 hour peak 1,257.167 TX0056731 10402003 CITY OF CORSICANA - WWTP 2 Navarro 002A Annual Average 0.4065 TX0078565 12047001 BUFFALO CREEK WWTP Rockwall 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 1.040455 1.654545

TX0078565 12047001 BUFFALO CREEK WWTP Rockwall 001A 2 hour peak 1,542.818 TX0078565 12047001 BUFFALO CREEK WWTP Rockwall 001A Annual Average 1.278455 TX0079391 12114001 CITY OF KAUFMAN WWTP Kaufman 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 0.5115 0.911667

TX0079391 12114001 CITY OF KAUFMAN WWTP Kaufman 001A 2 hour peak 961.9167 TX0079391 12114001 CITY OF KAUFMAN WWTP Kaufman 001A Annual Average 0.478417 TX0088633 12446001 WILSON CREEK REGIONAL WWTF Collin 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 0.5115 0.911667

TX0088633 12446001 WILSON CREEK REGIONAL WWTF Collin 001A 2 hour peak 961.9167 TX0088633 12446001 WILSON CREEK REGIONAL WWTF Collin 001A Annual Average 0.478417 TX0103501 14008001 STEWART CREEK WEST WWTP Denton 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 3.302455 4.258455

TX0103501 14008001 STEWART CREEK WEST WWTP Denton 001A 2 hour peak 4,617.909 TX0103501 14008001 STEWART CREEK WEST WWTP Denton 001A Annual Average 3.176273 TX0104345 13415001 RED OAK CREEK REGIONAL WWTP Ellis 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 2.9455 4.249083

TX0104345 13415001 RED OAK CREEK REGIONAL WWTP Ellis 001A 2 hour peak 4,630.833 TX0104345 13415001 RED OAK CREEK REGIONAL WWTP Ellis 001A Annual Average 3.042333 TX0104957 13457001 DENTON CREEK REGIONAL WWTF Denton 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 4.778455 6.780727

TX0104957 13457001 DENTON CREEK REGIONAL WWTF Denton 001A 2 hour peak 6,794.083 TX0104957 13457001 DENTON CREEK REGIONAL WWTF Denton 001A Annual Average 4.841583 TX0104957 13457001 DENTON CREEK REGIONAL WWTF Denton 002A average regular monthly flow

sampling 2.222 6.363

65



Daily Max Flow (MGD

TX0104957 13457001 DENTON CREEK REGIONAL WWTF Denton 002A 2 hour peak 5,958.4 TX0104957 13457001 DENTON CREEK REGIONAL WWTF Denton 002A Annual Average 1.5132 TX0105210 10178002 CITY OF GRANBURY WWTP Hood 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 0.26175 0.794667

TX0105210 10178002 CITY OF GRANBURY WWTP Hood 001A 2 hour peak 1,630.083 TX0105210 10178002 CITY OF GRANBURY WWTP Hood 001A Annual Average 0.294333 TX0123561 14216001 MUDDY CREEK REGIONAL WWTP Dallas 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 5.221273 6.811455

TX0123561 14216001 MUDDY CREEK REGIONAL WWTP Dallas 001B 2 hour peak 7,315.727 TX0123561 14216001 MUDDY CREEK REGIONAL WWTP Dallas 001B Annual Average 5.584364 TX0123781 10698002 RIVERBEND REG WATER RECLAMATION

FACILITY Denton 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 0.412333333

0.50716666

TX0123781 10698002 RIVERBEND REG WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY

Denton 001A 2 hour peak 632




Denton 002A average regular monthly flow sampling

0.911166667 1.1175


Denton 002A 2 hour peak 1,299.5



TX0123901 14245001 PANTHER CREEK WWTP Denton 001B average regular monthly flow sampling

4.215 5.049909

TX0123901 14245001 PANTHER CREEK WWTP Denton 001B 2 hour peak 6,716.636 TX0123901 14245001 PANTHER CREEK WWTP Denton 001B Annual Average 4.212 TX0126110 14469001 SABINE CREEK REGIONAL WWTP Rockwall 001A average regular monthly flow

sampling 0.955364 1.619727

66



Daily Max Flow (MGD

TX0126110 14469001 SABINE CREEK REGIONAL WWTP Rockwall 001A 2 hour peak 2248 TX0126110 14469001 SABINE CREEK REGIONAL WWTP Rockwall 001A Annual Average 1.067364

Appendix 4. Clean Water State Revolving Fund Section 208/201 Coordination Activities

NCTCOG has addressed the following for information on systems that are seeking funding for construction of infrastructure or facilities.

Planning Entity and Service Area

Project Description NCTCOG Evaluation Conclusion and/or WQMP Action

City of Euless Bear Creek Reclaimed Water Project, Phase 2 Project #73701

The Project will extend the existing City reclaimed water system, which currently serves a golf course and athletic fields. The expansion will serve apartment complexes and developments along Bear Creek Parkway. This project would fund Phase 2; phase 1 was completed and began delivering water to customers in July 2014.

The City of Euless, Texas sought designation as a management agency for wastewater collection and treatment within its city limits. NCTCOG evaluated the WQMP for consistency. This project was an extension of a Phase 1 effort the City of Euless had already undertaken.

NCTCOG confirmed that this project conformed to the 2014 Water Quality Management Plan and supported efforts to continue use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposes.

67