2013 Basin Summary Report - San Antonio River Authority

Transcription

Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
The preparation of this report was financed through grants from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The San Antonio River Authority would like to acknowledge the time and effort the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) spent contributing,
reviewing and commenting on the 2013 Basin Summary Report.
CO-CHAIRS
COUNTY
PARKS/RECREATION
Dr. Richard Reed
Trinity University
Mr. Peter Bella
Alamo Area Council of Governments
Mr. Wilfred Korth
Superintendent at Coleto Creek Park
Ms. Maggie Hunt
Karnes County Chamber of Commerce
Ms. Maggie Hunt
Karnes County Chamber of Commerce
WATER UTLITIES/WATER
PURVEYORS/FEE PAYERS
ACADEMIA
ENVIRONMENTAL
Dr. John Donahue
Trinity University
Mr. John Garland
Native Plant Society of TexasSan Antonio Chapter
Mr. Gregg Eckhardt
San Antonio Water System
Dr. Richard Reed
Trinity University
Ms. Helen Ballew
Headwaters Coalition Inc.
AGRICULTURE
MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Robert Meeks
Farm to Market Grass-Fed Beef
Commissioner Carl Hummel
Karnes County
BAY & ESTUARY
Dr. Elizabeth Smith
Center for Coastal Studies at
Texas A&M-Corpus Christi
Ms. Lee Ann Hosek
Wilson County Emergency
Management Coordinator
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY
THE PUBLIC
Mr. Landon Yosko
Ashland Inc.
Ms. Ginger Coleman
Wilson County
Truett Hunt
Five O Five Lodging
Mr. John Yochem
Goliad County
2
WATER RIGHT HOLDERS
Mr. Arthur Ray Yanta
Arthur Ray Yanta Farms
SARA BOARD Of DiRECTORS
REpORT CONTRiBuTORS
Názirite Rubén Pérez
Bexar County District 1
Charles J. Lorea, IV
Watershed Monitoring Supervisor,
CRP Project Manager
Roberto G. Rodríguez • Secretary
Bexar County, District 2
Michael W. Lackey, P.E.
Bexar County District 3
Thomas G. Weaver
Bexar County, District 4
Sally Buchanan • Vice-Chair
Bexar County At Large
Hector R. Morales • At Large
Bexar County At Large
John J. Flieller • At Large
Wilson County
Michelle Garza
Environmental Systems Information Specialist
Katherine Peche
Water Quality Planner
Rebecca Reeves
Environmental Sciences
Department Superintendent
Patricia Carvajal
Quality Control & Data Management
Supervisor
Darrell T. Brownlow, Ph.D.
Wilson County
Ernest Moran
Stormwater & Investigations Supervisor
H.B. “Trip” Ruckman III
Karnes County
David Hernandez
Laboratory Supervisor
Gaylon J. Oehlke • Chairman of the Board
Karnes County
Adair R. Sutherland
Goliad County
Terry E. Baiamonte • Treasurer
Goliad County
Suzanne B. Scott
General Manager
Matthew Driffill
Education Specialist
Steve Lusk
Environmental Sciences
Department Manger
Clint Marzec
Graphic Designer
3
Table of Contents:
Medina River
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Summary Report:
Segment 1905 – Upper Medina River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Segment 1904 – Medina Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Segment 1909 – Medina Diversion Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Segment 1903 – Lower Medina River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Leon Creek
Segment 1907 – Upper Leon Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
1.0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.0 Public Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.0 Water Quality Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.1 Water Quality Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2 Water Quality Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3 TCEQ Assessment Methodology Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.4 Texas Drought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.5 Watershed Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
San Antonio River
Segment 1911 – Upper San Antonio River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Segment 1901 – Lower San Antonio River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Cibolo Creek
Segment 1908 – Upper Cibolo Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Segment 1913 – Mid Cibolo Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Segment 1902 – Lower Cibolo Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4
Segment 1906 – Lower Leon Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Salado Creek
Segment 1910 – Salado Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Medio Creek
Segment 1912 – Medio Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.0 Recommendations and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.1 Summary Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.2 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Appendices:
A. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
B. Glossary of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
C. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
D. Trend Analysis Statistics Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Executive Summary
decisions, both programs operate under a
Interlocal Agreement (ILA). The cooperation
Activities and Accomplishments
TCEQ-approved CRP Quality Assurance Project
between SARA and BCRAGD will allow
Plan (QAPP). The QAPP documents quality
BCRAGD to be a sub-participant under SARA’s
assurance and quality control requirements for
CRP QAPP and collect water quality samples in
sample collection, laboratory analyses, and data
Segment 1905. BCRAGD will submit the samples
management. Adherence to the QAPP ensures
to SARA’s Environmental Sciences NELAC-
the water quality data generated is of known and
Accredited Laboratory for analysis. In addition
documented quality.
to taking over routine monitoring in Bandera
Information in the 2013 San Antonio River Basin
Summary Report serves to develop a greater
understanding of water quality conditions,
identify any trends and changes, and aid in
making water quality decisions for each sub-
County, BCRAGD expanded the CRP water
watershed in the San Antonio River Basin. The
With the high expense associated with collecting
Basin Summary Report identifies water quality
water quality data and limited funding, the
impairments and concerns in the San Antonio
The SARA-BCRAGD ILA represents the first
importance of leveraging funds and maximizing
River Basin (SAR) as identified in the Texas
cooperation of this kind under the CRP in the
regional efforts while minimizing duplicative
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
San Antonio River Watershed.
efforts is paramount. To remain adaptable to
2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act
economic and environmental changes, each
The Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC)
Sections 305(b) and 303(d). The Basin Summary
year SARA conducts a coordinated monitoring
is a comprehensive public participation group that
Report is a requirement of the Texas Clean Rivers
meeting with the TCEQ and other basin
advises SARA's departments about environmental
Program (CRP) and was prepared by San Antonio
monitoring partners. During the meeting,
issues within the basin. The EAC also acts as
River Authority (SARA) staff in cooperation
resources are coordinated at the watershed level
with the TCEQ and in accordance with the
to provide monitoring spatially and temporally to
State's guidelines. The Basin Summary Report is
identify water quality issues and changes in the
completed once every five years.
San Antonio River Basin.
quality reports. To ensure different interests,
The CRP and its SARA-funded companion
In early 2012, the Bandera County River
addressed, the EAC CRP Steering Committee
monitoring program, SARA Stream Monitoring,
Authority and Groundwater District (BCRAGD)
membership include volunteers from across
together with the TCEQ monitoring efforts, are
expressed a desire to participate in the 2013
the San Antonio Basin, representation includes
the primary programs for the collection and
CRP activities within Bandera County. In a
academia, agriculture, counties, municipalities,
assessment of routine water quality data in the
collaborative effort to maintain and improve the
environmental, the public, parks and recreation,
San Antonio River Basin. As the data from both
water quality in Segment 1905, Upper Medina
water utilities/water purveyors/fee payers, and
programs are used in stream water compliance
River, SARA and the BCRAGD entered into an
water right holders.
quality sampling from two to six sample sites.
SARA's CRP Steering Committee and provides
guidance and feedback on SARA's annual
coordinated monitoring schedule and water
concerns and priorities of each watershed are
5
Significant Findings
The information below summarizes the 2012
Integrated Report evaluation of water bodies in
the San Antonio River Basin. After all the data
is assessed, those water bodies not meeting their
designated uses as defined in the Texas Surface
Water Quality Standards (TSWQS) are identified
in the 2012 Integrated Report–303(d) List. The
information in the 2012 Integrated Report
represents a snapshot of the levels of bacteria,
nutrients, aquatic life use, and other parameters
at more than 180 sites throughout six watersheds
in the basin, covering the most recent seven
to ten-year period, December 1, 2000 through
November 30, 2010.
mean of the samples collected over the assessment
period exceeds 126 colonies/100mL.
the Upper San Antonio River, Salado Creek and
Walzem Creek Watersheds.
In response to the original 2000 listing for
bacteria impairment, the TCEQ developed Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) to establish the
bacteria loading reductions necessary to bring
the Upper San Antonio River, Salado Creek and
Walzem Creek into compliance with state surface
water quality standards. The TCEQ adopted these
TMDLs on July 25, 2007, and the EPA approved
the TMDLs on September 25, 2007, at which time
they became part of the state's Water Quality
Management Plan.
The TCEQ adopted the Lower San Antonio
River TMDL on August 20, 2008, and the EPA
approved the TMDLs on October 20, 2008. SARA
is working to collect additional data in advance
of the initiation of a TMDL-IP. The intent of the
IP is to foster stewardship of the watershed and
commitment at the local level. Activities in the
TMDL-IP are intended to achieve the E. coli
reductions identified in the TMDL report that
are necessary to bring the Lower San Antonio
back into compliance with contact recreation
use criterion as defined in the Texas Surface
Water Quality Standards. The TMDL-IP will
identify actions, responsible parties, technical and
financial needs, monitoring and outreach efforts,
and a schedule of activities for each management
measure and control action. Tentative plans are to
initiate a stakeholder driven Lower San Antonio
River bacteria TMDL-IP in later part of 2013.
SARA, in cooperation with local partners and
the TCEQ, completed a Watershed Protection
Plan (WPP) for the urban portion of the
Upper San Antonio River (above Loop 410)
in December 2006. The WPP included water
quality monitoring and recommendations
for bacteria control measures. This WPP is
currently being updated to assess the status of
Best Management Practices (BMP) identified
in the 2006 WPP and to identify new BMPs
that can be implemented. The WPP update will
include monitoring activities that will be used to
determine stormwater bacteria loads as well as
nutrient and sediment loads for sub-watersheds
in the Upper San Antonio River. Alazan Creek,
Apache Creek, Martinez Creek and San Pedro
Creek will be monitored as part of the WPP. If
a sub-watershed is contributing a significantly
higher load of bacteria and nutrients, future
BMPs may be prioritized for those sub-basins
where the higher loads are being found. In early
2013, the TCEQ contracted with Texas AgriLife
Research to facilitate the development of the
TMDL Implementation Plan (IP) for bacteria in
The 2012 Integrated Report assessment period
of record for the last seven years is December 1,
2003 through November 30, 2010. Samples from
these seven years are evaluated when available,
and if necessary, the most recent samples
collected in the preceding three years (December
1, 2000 through November 30, 2003) can also be
included to meet the requirements for minimum
sample number. For a listing of all water quality
impairments in the San Antonio River Basin
refer to the Executive Summary Impairment
and Concerns by Segment Tables at the end of
Executive Summary.
Bacteria:
Portions of the San Antonio River, Cibolo Creek,
Medina River and Salado Creek Watersheds
are not meeting the primary contact recreation
standard due to elevated levels of E. coli. The
recreation use is not supported if the geometric
6
In response to bacteria impairment in the Upper
Cibolo Creek Watershed, the City of Boerne
initiated the Upper Cibolo Creek WPP in August
2009. This WPP is one of the first communityinitiated WPPs in Texas. As a result of the WPP,
the Upper Cibolo Creek Watershed Partnership
was formed to promote stakeholder cooperation
and ensure the views of local citizens, special
interest groups, businesses and governing bodies
were represented in the watershed planning
process. By utilizing the watershed approach,
stakeholders worked together in topical focus
groups, stakeholder, steering committee and
technical advisory committee meetings to
understand why local water quality problems
exist. Through these meetings, sources such as
agricultural land management practices, onsite sewer facilities, populations and impacts of
feral hogs, spatial distribution of white-tailed
and axis deer, pet waste, cliff swallow nesting
sites, and seasonal and spatial variations in
waterfowl abundance was identified as potential
contributors to bacteria loads. For modeling
purposes, the identified sources were grouped
into three broad categories: wildlife, agriculture
and urban/residential. Using estimated load
contributions, stakeholders are developing specific
BMPs and strategies to target these sources in
order to achieve pollutant load reductions that
are sustainable and cost-effective. The WPP has
been drafted and the City of Boerne is currently
addressing public comments.
SARA and the TCEQ will continue to collect
water quality data for the Cibolo Creek and Lower
Medina River that can be used in any future
TMDLs for those waterbodies.
Depressed Oxygen Levels:
Portions of the Lower Leon Creek, Salado Creek
and Middle Cibolo Creek are not meeting the
aquatic life use standard due to depressed oxygen
levels.
Depressed oxygen (DO) levels in the Lower Leon
Creek may be attributed to ambient low flow
conditions exacerbated by drought conditions
that have persisted throughout the San Antonio
River Basin and the 2012 Integrated Report
assessment period.
As a result of the varying flow type classifications
within the Salado Creek Watershed, the
TCEQ conducted a Use Attainability Analysis
(UAA) to reevaluate and determine if the flow
classifications, aquatic life uses and associated
water quality standards for the segment were
appropriate. In November 2007, the TCEQ
submitted the Salado Creek UAA findings to the
EPA; the EPA approved the UAA in June 2011.
Information in the documents indicate that the
perennial flow type classification, aquatic life
use designations and associated DO criteria
for portions of Salado Creek would have to be
adjusted as a result of USGS gage station flow
information gathered between 1998 and 2003.
The upper reaches and portions of the middle
Salado Creek could not support a high aquatic
life use due to ephemeral or intermittent low flow
conditions or water levels and physical conditions
related to primary features of the creek. These
included the lack of proper bank stability, channel
sinuosity, riparian buffer vegetation, flow, depth
and riffles unrelated to water quality. Specifically,
the UAA documents indicated the upper 20.6
miles, from Rocking Horse Lane west of Camp
Bullis to Nacogdoches Road had intermittent
flow with a minimal aquatic life use designation
(24-hour DO average/minimum criteria of
2.0/1.5 mg/L). Flow in the middle 2.2 mile of the
middle reach, from Nacogdoches Road to the
mouth of Beitel Creek, was intermittent with
perennial pools with an intermediate aquatic life
use designation (24-hour DO average/minimum
criteria of 4.0/3.0 mg/L). The lower 21.2 miles of
Salado Creek, from the mouth of Beitel Creek
to the confluent with the San Antonio River, are
considered to be perennial and are capable of
supporting the high aquatic life use designation
(24-hour DO average/minimum criteria of 5.0/3.0
mg/L).
After incorporating the Salado Creek UAA
information and reassessing the data, the 2012
Integrated Report (IR) identifies a depressed
DO grab minimum impairment in assessment
unit 1910_04, from the confluence with Walzem
Creek up to the confluence with Beitel Creek,
and a depressed DO grab average concern in
1910_05, from the confluence with Beitel Creek
up to the confluence with Lorence Creek. There
was sufficient 24-hour DO data to indicate that
1910_02, from the confluence with Rosillo Creek
up to the confluence with Pershing Creek, and
1910_03, from the confluence with Pershing Creek
up to the confluence with Walzem Creek were
meeting the 24-hour DO criteria. As a result,
the overall level of support for these assessment
units was changed from nonsupporting to fully
supporting the aquatic life use based on DO. The
2012 IR indicates that a TMDL for depressed DO
has been completed and approved by the EPA; as a
result the impairment in 1910_04 does not appear
on the 2012 Texas Water Quality 303(d) List. To
continue to address the flow type reclassifications
as approved by the EPA, the TCEQ has indicated
that assessment units 1910_05 through 1910_07
(from Beitel Creek to the upper end of the
segment) will be combined into a single new
segment for the 2104 IR.
The Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority (CCMA)
Odo J. Riedel Water Reclamation Center is a
regional provider of wastewater services and
discharges into Segment 1913 Mid Cibolo Creek.
The service area includes the cities of Schertz and
Cibolo, parts of the cities of Live Oak, Universal
City, San Antonio, Selma, and Randolph Air
Force Base. In the summer of 2007, CCMA
completed a renovation of the Odo J. Riedel
Water Reclamation Plant to increase discharge
7
mandated states incorporate numerical nutrient
criteria in their water quality standards. In June
2010, the TCEQ adopted new numerical nutrient
criteria for 75 reservoirs based on chlorophyll-a
concentrations and these new criteria were
submitted to EPA for review. In June 2010, the
TCEQ completed new procedures to evaluate and
control potential nutrient impacts from proposed
wastewater discharge permits.
and maintain compliance with its permit.
Since the 2007 CCMA upgrades, a noticeable
improvement in the level of grab DO in the Mid
Cibolo Creek has been observed. Although grab
DO samples indicate improvement, the 2012 IR
identifies the segment as not meeting the limited
aquatic life use designation based on 24-hour
minimum DO. Change in land use, ambient low
flows and wastewater discharge coupled with
the drought conditions experienced over the
assessment period are possible reasons for the
24-hour minimum DO impairment. The TCEQ
will continue to collect water quality data in this
segment.
Nutrients:
Nutrient concerns have been identified in
portions of the San Antonio River, Cibolo Creek,
Lower Medina River, Lower Leon Creek, Salado
Creek, and Medio Creek.
Historically, the State of Texas has not had
numerical criteria for nutrients in its surface
water quality standards. Nutrient controls have
taken the form of narrative criteria, watershed
rules, and antidegradation considerations
in permitting actions. The TCEQ does have
numerical screening levels for phosphorus, nitrate
nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen and chlorophyll-a
monitoring data as areas of possible concern.
The TCEQ has been developing nutrient criteria
in coordination with an advisory work group and
other public participation. In addition, EPA has
8
Sources for elevated nutrient levels throughout
the San Antonio River Basin include municipal
and industrial wastewater discharge, stormwater
runoff, agricultural and urban application of
fertilizers, and other natural and man-made
sources. SARA continues with efforts to generate
a database of nutrient concentrations discharged
from selected wastewater treatment plants within
the San Antonio River Basin. The data will
continue to build existing SARA water quality
databases and support a continuous simulation
water quality modeling analysis. The data is
available to EPA, TCEQ, United States Geological
Survey (USGS), or other agencies, and public
stakeholders that may be involved with nutrient
criteria development.
Fish Consumption Restrictions:
In 2002, the Texas Department of State Health
Services (TDSHS) issued fish consumption
advisory ADV-26 advising people not to consume
any species of fish from the Lower Leon Creek
as a result of concentrations of polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) in the fish tissue that posed an
unacceptable risk to consumers. Subsequent
TDSHS fish tissue collections and analysis at
stations along Lower Leon Creek resulted in a new
fish consumption advisory, ADV-42, being issued
on June 29, 2010. The new advisory expanded the
geographic extent to the area beginning at the Old
U.S. Highway 90 Bridge and extends downstream
to the Loop 410 Bridge. The 2012 IR also identifies
silver and cadmium concerns in streambed
sediment in the Lower Leon Creek.
The USGS, with support from SARA, has
completed the Occurrence, Distribution, and
Concentrations of Selected Contaminants in
Streambed and Suspended-Sediment Samples
Study. Analyses included major and trace
elements and organic compounds including
PCBs. The final USGS report is located at http://
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3090/FS11-3090.pdf. The
study identified the presence of trace elements,
pesticides and PCBs in Lower Leon Creek at and
below the former Kelly Air Force Base.
In response to the findings, the USGS, with
support from SARA, initiated the 2012 Sources of
Contaminants to Upper Leon Creek Study. This
study is designed to characterize contaminants
of concern between the former Kelly Air Force
Base (AFB) and Interstate Highway 410. The
study approach will include stormwater sediment
sampling. Samples will be analyzed for major and
trace elements, pesticides, and PCBs. The project
should conclude in mid-summer 2015.
Degradation of Biological Communities
and Habitat:
Four classified stream segments appear on the
2012 IR, the Upper and Lower San Antonio River
(fish/habitat), Upper Medina River (fish/habitat),
Salado Creek (fish/macrobenthic) and Lower
Cibolo Creek (fish).
The Upper San Antonio River appears on the 2012
IR due to impaired fish communities; a concern
for habitat has also been identified. The Eagleland
and Mission Reach Ecosystem Restoration and
Recreation Projects are part of the San Antonio
River Improvements Project (SARIP) and are
located along the river just south of downtown
San Antonio. The Eagleland segment, completed
in December 2012, extends from Alamo Street to
Lone Star Boulevard. The Eagleland segment is
the transitional segment between the downtown
River Walk and the Mission Reach. The Mission
Reach is estimated to be complete by August
2013 and extends approximately eight miles from
Lone Star Boulevard Street to Mission Espada
just below Loop 410. Major components of the
projects are to restore aquatic features such
as riffles, runs, pools and embayments. These
features will improve water quality and restore
habitat to make a better home for fish species that
already inhabit the San Antonio River. SARA
will add additional biological monitoring sites in
these reaches once restoration is completed. In the
spring of 2013, SARA partnered with the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation to reintroduce the
Guadalupe Bass into the restored reach of the
Upper San Antonio River.
Biological assessments for the Lower San
Antonio River identify the fish community as
impaired in assessment unit 1901_02, 25 miles
upstream of Manahuilla Creek, and a concern
in 1901_05, from upstream end of segment to
Escondido Creek. The habitat was identified as
a concern in assessment unit 1901_02. The fish
impairments and habitat concern in the Lower
San Antonio River are more than likely associated
with site-specific limitations such as a lack of
habitat types and a minimal number of sample
collection events over the assessment period.
(There was one collection event in 2009 and one
in 2010). The sample site at Station 12791, San
Antonio River at US 77A in Goliad, has one run
and no pools/glides/riffle microhabitats. SARA
will conduct field reconnaissance upstream of
Goliad State Park to determine if there are better
representative sample sites in the assessment unit.
Future biological collections in the assessment
unit may be adjusted accordingly. The fish
community concern in assessment unit 1901_05
is based on two sampling events and is believed
to be the result of possible limited habitat types;
bedrock and gravel are dominant substrate
types at Conquista Crossing. As funds become
available, SARA may conduct additional field
reconnaissance in 1901_05 to determine if there
are better representative sample sites.
biological collections in the assessment unit may
be adjusted accordingly. As with all segments
in the San Antonio River Basin, the extended
drought conditions are a factor affecting the
biological communities in the Upper Media River
Watershed.
A critical component of habitat quality is
substrate stability. SARA and BCRAGD will be
conducting field reconnaissance to determine
if the impaired fish community and habitat
listings for Segment 1905 Upper Medina River
accurately depict the ecological health of the
stream, or if the listing is due to site-related
limitations experienced during heavy rainfall,
such as scouring down to bedrock. Future
Biological assessments for the Lower Cibolo
Creek identify the fish community as impaired in
assessment unit 1902_02 and a concern in 1902_
03. As with all the watersheds in the San Antonio
River Basin, when compared to TCEQ Index of
Biotic Integrity (IBI) fish scores, SARA fish IBI
scores are most often higher. The TCEQ scoring
criteria were developed based on fish community
attributes known to exist within ecoregions of
As a result of the November 2007 Use
Attainability Analysis (UAA) on the Salado
Creek, all fish, habitat and macrobenthic
community impairments and concerns for Salado
Creek were removed from the 2012 Texas Water
Quality 303(d) List. The UAA indicated that the
upper portion of the Salado Creek could not
support a high aquatic life use designation due to
ephemeral or intermittent low flow conditions.
The TCEQ has indicated that assessment units
1910_05 through 1910_07 will be combined into
a new segment for the 2014 IR. Although flow
augmentation to Salado Creek is provided at
James Park above 1910_03, the inherent ambient
low conditions will be a continuous issue in
this segment. Drought conditions over the
assessment period have also affected the fish and
macrobenthic communities. When stormwater
events do happen, field observations have noted
the effects of heavy and violent stormwater runoff
which has resulted in the scouring and removal of
instream and riparian habitat.
9
Texas which encompasses regions beyond the San
Antonio River (SAR) Watershed. Scoring criteria
used by SARA to evaluate the fish community
within the SAR basin were developed from
historical fish community attributes collected
from within the SAR watershed which may
account for the higher SARA IBI scores. To meet
the high aquatic life use designation for the Lower
Cibolo Creek, the average fish IBI score must ≥
42.00. The average TCEQ fish IBI score for the
seven collection events at Station 14211 was 38.49.
Recommendations by Watershed
The average SARA fish IBI score for the same
seven collection events was 43.11 and meets the
high aquatic life use designation.
Assessment of the fish community in the Lower
Cibolo Creek (assessment unit 1902_02) over the
2012 IR assessment period includes the collection
of several sensitive species, such as the river
darter and grey redhorse sucker. Assessment
unit 1902_02 is considered by SARA staff to be
meeting the high aquatic life use designation.
Water quality information in this report was
derived from two assessment methods:
•
A review of how the water quality in the San
Antonio River Basin compares to the Texas
Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS)
using the 2012 Texas Integrated Report (IR)
for Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and
303(d). The 2012 IR assessment period covers
the most recent seven to ten-year period from
December 1, 2000 through November 30, 2010.
The 2012 IR is on the TCEQ’s website located
at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/
assessment/305_303.html.
•
Trend analysis was performed using a
minimum of 10 years of data containing at
least 20 values covering at least two-thirds of
the 10-year time period. The 10-year trending
period covers June 1, 2002 through May 31,
2012.
Information in the Basin Summary Report
serves to develop a greater understanding of
water quality conditions, identify any trends
and changes, and aid in making water quality
decisions for each sub-watershed in the San
Antonio River Basin. Information in this report,
the 2012 Texas Integrated Report, together with
stakeholder comments will be used to set the
priorities and coordinated monitoring schedules
for subsequent years.
10
Overall Basin-Wide
Lower San Antonio River Watershed
Segment 1901
Recommendations:
Recommendations:
•
To help identify sources of E. coli loading of
the Upper San Antonio River and to monitor
the San Antonio Zoo’s Ultraviolet Disinfection
Facility efficiency, conduct pre- and postbacterial monitoring.
•
•
Depending on budgetary constraints,
adjust or add additional routine and
biological monitoring sites as WPP BMPs
are implemented and the Mission Reach
Ecosystem Restoration and Recreation Projects
are completed.
As weather conditions allow, continue
intensive monitoring efforts in the Lower
San Antonio River Watershed. Intensive
monitoring focuses on identifying potential
sources contributing to elevated bacteria levels
by collecting samples at each seep, tributary
and outfall identified during the survey(s).
Information obtained will continue to focus
and narrow down future monitoring efforts
to help identify areas with elevated levels of E.
coli.
•
As the weather conditions allow, continue
intensive monitoring efforts throughout the
Upper San Antonio River Watershed. These
intensive surveys will continue to focus
on identifying potential sources of E. coli
contamination by collecting samples at each
seep, tributary and outfall identified during
the survey(s). Information obtained will
continue to focus and narrow down future
monitoring efforts to help identify areas with
elevated levels of E. coli.
•
To determine if there are better representative
biological sample sites, conduct field
reconnaissance upstream of US 77A in Goliad
and adjust future biological collections as
necessary.
•
SARA is considering working with the TCEQ
to develop a bacterial TMDL-IP in the Lower
San Antonio River Watershed. SARA should
continue to collect additional water-quality
monitoring in the watershed and implement
bacteria source tracking to determine sources
of bacterial contamination.
•
SARA and Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority
(GBRA) should continue routine monitoring
and provide quality assured data to TCEQ for
assessment.
There were 13 classified and 17 unclassified
stream segments (tributaries) assessed in the 2012
IR. A total of 16 impairments were identified in
the classified stream segments and a total of nine
impairments were identified in the unclassified
stream segments of the San Antonio River
Basin. Impairments include elevated bacteria
levels, depressed DO, elevated chloride, fish
consumption restrictions and impaired fish
communities.
Upper San Antonio River Watershed
Segment 1911
Support the TCEQ and Texas AgriLife
Research TMDL-IP efforts in the Upper San
Antonio River Watershed.
•
•
SARA should continue routine monitoring
and provide quality assured data to the TCEQ
for assessment.
11
Upper Cibolo Creek Watershed
Segment 1908
Upper Medina River Watershed
Segment 1905
Lower Medina River
Segment 1903
Recommendations:
Recommendations:
Recommendations:
•
As indicated in the Upper Cibolo Creek WPP
documents, BMPs should be implemented over
time.
•
•
•
Water monitoring should be collected to
determine the effectiveness of stakeholderrecommended management strategies.
Conduct field reconnaissance to determine
if there are better representative biological
sample sites in the segment; adjust future
monitoring efforts accordingly.
Until a TMDL is initiated, SARA and the
TCEQ should continue routine monitoring
and provide quality assured data to TCEQ for
assessment.
•
•
•
The TCEQ field efforts should continue routine
monitoring and provide quality assured data
for assessment.
SARA and BCRAGD should continue routine
to TCEQ for assessment.
SARA should work with partners to
implement BMPs identified in the Watershed
Master Plan once it is completed.
•
Upper Leon Creek Watershed
Segment 1907
Mid Cibolo Creek Watershed
Segment 1913
•
The TCEQ should continue routine
•
It is recommended that the TCEQ implement
a use-attainability analysis to determine
the appropriate flow type classification and
associated water-quality standards for this
watershed.
Medina Lake
Segment 1904
Recommendations:
•
Recommendations:
Recommendations:
The TCEQ should continue routine
to the TCEQ for assessment.
•
Lower Cibolo Creek Watershed
Segment 1902
for assessment.
Medina Diversion Lake
Segment 1909
Recommendations:
•
As weather conditions allow, continue
intensive monitoring efforts in the Lower
Cibolo Creek Watershed. Information
obtained will continue to focus and narrow
down future monitoring efforts to help identify
areas with elevated level of E. coli.
•
Until a TMDL or WPP for bacteria can be
scheduled, SARA and the TCEQ should
continue routine monitoring and provide
quality assured data to TCEQ for assessment.
12
•
Recommendations:
for assessment.
Lower Leon Creek Watershed
Segment 1906
Medio Creek Watershed
Segment 1912
Recommendations:
Recommendations:
•
SARA and the TCEQ should continue routine
•
•
SARA and the TCEQ should support projects
designed to identify the source(s) of PCBs
impairments and metal concerns.
•
Salado Creek Watershed
Segment 1910
Recommendations:
•
The addition of Stormwater Best Management
Practices to minimize the violent flow and
effects of stormwater events would greatly
benefit the segment.
•
The segment would also benefit from stream
restoration similar to efforts being employed
in the Upper San Antonio River Mission Reach
area.
•
Continue to collect data in support of the
TCEQ’s efforts to implement findings of the
Salado Creek UAA.
•
Support the TCEQ and Texas AgriLife
Research TMDL-IP efforts in the Salado Creek
Watershed.
•
monitoring and provide quality-assured data
TRENDS iN ThE SAN ANTONiO
RivER BASiN
Trending is an important component of water
quality monitoring and environmental decision
making. Trending is accomplished by statistically
analyzing water quality data and graphically
illustrating parameter concentrations as it
relates to flow over time. Because transport and
concentration of point and non-point source
pollutants and aquatic life communities are all
directly influenced by stream flow, instantaneous
flow measurements are collected during routine
monitoring sampling events.
Over the trending period, June 1, 2002 to May
31, 2012, the extended drought has exacerbated
existing water quality impairments and
concerns. In general, depending on the specific
pollutant, drought and low flow conditions
concentrate pollutants, high flow typically
dilute and decrease pollutant concentrations.
Although not a pollutant itself low DO levels are
experienced during low flow and are normally
the result of high level of chemical and biological
demanding pollutants. Low DO levels adversely
affect the ascetics and biological communities
of a waterbody. On the flip side, increased flow
from stormwater events increase DO levels and
dilute chemical concentrations, but may increase
pollutants such as E. coli and nutrients from nonpoint sources. High flows, as a result of violent
stormwater events also scour stream beds and
removes vital aquatic and riparian habitat.
13
Summary of Trends in the San Antonio River Basin
Watershed
Upper San Antonio River
Lower San Antonio River
Upper Cibolo Creek
Mid Cibolo Creek
Lower Cibolo Creek
Instantaneous
Flow
↓
Chloride
↑
1911_08 Station 17066 San Antonio River below San Pedro Creek Confluence
↓
↑
↑
↑
1911_09 Station 12908 San Antonio River at Woodlawn
↓
↑
↑
↑
1901_02 Station 12791 San Antonio River Bridge on US 77-A
↓
↑
↑
↑
1901_02 Station 17859 San Antonio River at North Riverdale Road
↓
↑
Seg/AU
Abbreviated Description
1911_01 Station 12879 San Antonio River at FM 791 Southwest of Falls City
1908_01 Station 16702-Cibolo Creek SE of Boerne end of City Park
↑
↑
1913_01 Station 12921-Cibolo Creek upstream from Weir Road
↑
↑
↓
↑
↑
Medina Lake
1904_01 Station 12825-Medina Lake at Medina Lake Dam
1909_01 Station 18407 Medina Diversion Lake Near Dam
Medio Creek
↑
↓
E. coli
Ammonia
Nitrogen
↑
↑
↑
**Nitrate
Nitrogen
↑
Total
Phosphorus
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↓
↑
↑
↑
↓
↓
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↓
↓
Salado Creek
Temperature
1902_02 Station 14211 -Cibolo Creek at CR 389 near Cestohowa Texas
1902_05 Station 14197-Cibolo Creek at Sculls Crossing
Lower Leon Creek
***pH Range
↑
↑
↑
1905_01 Station 12830 Medina River at Old English Crossing
Upper Leon Creek
*Dissolved
Oxygen
Deficit
↓
1901_04 Station 12794 San Antonio River at SH 72 near Runge
Upper Medina River
Lower Medina River
Sulfate
↑
Total
Dissolved
Solids
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↓
↑
↓
↑
1903_02 Station 12813 Medina River at Cassin Crossing (no trends)
1903_04 Station 14200 Medina River at County Road 484
1907
↓
↑
↑
↓
Upper Leon Creek - insufficient data for any single station
1906_01 Station 14198 Leon Creek Upstream from Leon Creek WWTP
↓
1910_01 Station 12861 Salado Creek at Southton Road
↓
1910_02 Station 12870 Salado Creek at Gembler Road
↓
1910_03 Station 12874 Salado Creek at Rittiman Road
↓
1912_01 Station 12916 Medio Creek at Hidden Valley Campground
↓
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↓
↓
↑
↑
↓
↑
*The amount of dissolved oxygen (DO) varies greatly depending on the temperature of the water. As the water temperature increases, the potential amount of DO decreases greatly. To determine depletion of oxygen due to factors other than temperature, the DO deficit is
calculated and used to identify trends. As DO levels decrease due to chemical and biological demand (pollutants), DO deficit values will increase.
**Nitrate + nitrite is the primary method utilized for analyzing nitrate nitrogen in surface water in Segments 1908, 1913, 1904, 1909, and 1907
***pH criteria is expressed as a range between 6.5-9.0 Standard Units. Identified pH trends are within the pH criteria of 6.5-9.0 Standard Units and are not color coded.
To have a lasting positive impact on water quality,
flow must be maintained over an extended period
of time.
Effluent from wastewater discharge is critical in
maintaining flow in many of the water bodies in
the San Antonio Basin. Although flow in effluentdominated segments such as the San Antonio
14
River, Lower Cibolo Creek, Lower Leon Creek and
Medio Creek are not affected as much by drought,
flows in the Upper Medina River, Medina Lake,
Medina Diversion Lake, Upper Leon Creek
and Upper Medio Creek have been impacted,
see graphs below. Ten year instantaneous flow
trends indicate that flow has generally decreased
throughout the San Antonio Basin. Instantaneous
flow values of 0.0 cubic feet per second (cfs) were
recorded for Salado Creek and Leon Creek; a 0.2
cfs was recorded for the Upper San Antonio River
and a 3.3 cfs for the Lower San Antonio River.
In spite of drought conditions, the flow in Medio
Creek has increased and is more than likely the
result of increased residential development and
associated effluent discharge in the watershed.
15
CONCLuSiONS
Over the last five years, there have been many
accomplishments in the San Antonio River
Basin. In support of the TCEQ’s water quality
programs SARA, TCEQ and other CRP partners
have generated vast amounts of quality assured
data. This data is utilized for environmental
decision making in support of efforts to protect,
maintain, and restore the water resources in the
San Antonio River Basin. Monitoring data was
also made available to the public via SARA’s
website located at http://gis.sara-tx.org/website/
wqmapviewer/. Several accomplishments in
the San Antonio River Basin include approved
bacteria TMDLs in the Upper and Lower San
Antonio River and DO TMDL on the Salado
Creek. In addition to the TMDLs, the 2006
Upper San Antonio River WPP is currently being
updated to identify and propose water quality
best management practices that will serve to
abate or control nonpoint source pollution of E.
coli bacteria, suspended sediments and excess
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) in the
Upper San Antonio River Watershed. Study areas
in the WPP include Alazan Creek, Apache Creek,
Martinez Creek, Olmos Creek, San Pedro Creek,
Sixmile Creek, Zarzamora Creek and the San
Antonio River. TMDL-Implementation Plans will
be initiated in 2013 for the Upper and Lower San
Antonio River. Although there have been many
successes, there is always room for improvement.
TMDLs, TMDL-Implementation Plans, and
WPPs are still needed in many of the watersheds
throughout the San Antonio River Basin. As
funding and resources become available, these
programs and efforts should be initiated.
Looking to the future and keeping abreast of
the challenges in safeguarding water quality,
the USGS (with sponsorship from SARA and
other CRP partners) is looking into emerging
contaminants, hydraulic fracturing and the
occurrence of contaminants in sediment in
the San Antonio River Basin. Personal care,
pharmaceutical products and persistent
organic pollutants not only challenge existing
methodologies and technologies, but also
challenge existing regulatory policies. Until the
health effects of these compounds are known,
education and awareness may be the essential
component to limit the potential impact to
the environment. As such, SARA’s outreach
efforts to increase the public’s knowledge and
understanding have reached thousands of citizens
throughout the basin. SARA and CRP partners
will continue such efforts into the future.
Although human impact on the environment
is primary cause for water quality impairments
and concern in the San Antonio River Basin,
existing and future funding to maintain or
expand the Clean Rivers Program monitoring
efforts in the Basin may ultimately be the largest
limiting factor. As such, Clean Rivers Program
partners should continue to monitor spatially and
temporally and provide quality assured data to
the TCEQ for assessments. Collaborative efforts
such as the TCEQ/City of Boerne’s WPP in the
Upper Cibolo Creek Watershed and BCRAGD
16
monitoring efforts in the Upper Medina River
have added a great amount of quality assured data
to the TCEQ’s database at minimal cost to the
CRP. The CRP partners should continue to seek
opportunities to leverage funds and resources
to maximize efforts to implement water quality
improvement projects in the San Antonio River
Basin.
SARA is working with city and county officials,
community leaders, stakeholders, and other
governmental agencies to develop high-level,
long-range master plans for all watersheds in
the San Antonio River Basin. Master plans will
be developed for the Lower San Antonio River
Watershed, Medina River Watershed, Upper San
Antonio River Watershed, Salado Watershed, and
Leon Watershed. These master plans will address
current and potential water quality and flooding
issues in a “holistic” or integrated manner.
Emphasis will be placed on sustainable, nonstructural solutions such as green infrastructure,
low impact development programs, stormwater
best management practices, and protection and
restoration of instream and riparian habitat
through measures such as conservation easements
and development of parks and open spaces.
Breakdown of Impairments and Concerns
by Segment
Guidance developed by the EPA directs each
state to document and submit the results of its
water quality assessment to the EPA biennially, in
even-numbered years. The Executive Summary
Impairment and Concerns by Segment table
below represents a big-picture view of the most
recent assessment of the San Antonio River
Watershed, completed in 2012. An in-depth
summary by assessment unit for each watershed
in the San Antonio River Basin can be found
in the individual watershed summary sections.
consumption restrictions and impaired fish.
17
Executive Summary of Impairment and Concerns in the San Antonio River Basin by Segment
Watershed
1911
Dissolved Oxygen
Grab Screening
Average
Surface Water Quality Standards and Criteria
Dissolved
Oxygen Grab 24 Hour Dissolved 24 Hour Dissolved
Minimum
Oxygen Average
Oxygen Minimum
Nutrient Screening Levels
Biological
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Total Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Fish
Habitat
Macro Benthic
FS
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
FS
FS
FS
NS
NC
CS
CS
CS
CS
NS
CS
NA
CS
NC
FS
FS
NA
NA
NS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
FS
NA
NA
NS
CS
NC
NC
NC
CS
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
FS
NA
NA
NS
NC
CS
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
FS
NA
NA
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Segment
pH Range
Temperature E. coli geomean
Ammonia
Nitrogen
*Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Apache Creek
1911B
NA
NA
NA
Alazan Creek
1911C
NA
NA
NA
San Pedro Creek
1911D
NA
NA
NA
Six Mile Creek
1911E
NA
NA
NA
Picosa Creek
1911F
NA
NA
NA
CS
NS
FS
NS
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
NS
NC
CS
CS
CS
CS
NS
CS
NA
Escondido Creek
1901A
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
CN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cabeza Creek
1901B
NA
NA
NA
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
CN
NC
NC
NA
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
Hord Creek
1901C
NA
NA
NA
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Watershed
1901
CS
1908
NS
FS
FS
NA
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NS
NC
NC
CS
CS
NC
FS
CS
FS
1913
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
FS
NS
FS
FS
FS
CS
CS
CS
CS
NC
NA
NA
NA
1902
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NC
NC
FS
FS
NS
NC
CS
CS
CS
NC
NS
NC
NA
Martinez Creek
1902A
NA
NA
NA
CS
CS
NA
NA
NA
NA
CN
NC
CS
NA
CS
NA
NA
NA
NA
Salatrillo Creek
1902B
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
FS
NC
CS
CS
CS
NC
NC
NC
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NC
NC
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NS
CS
NA
1905A
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
CS
NA
1904
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
Medina Diversion Lake Watershed 1909
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
Lower Medina River Watershed
1903
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NC
NC
FS
FS
NS
CS
CS
CS
CS
NC
FS
NC
NA
1907
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
1906
FS
FS
FS
NC
NS
CN
FS
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
CS
CS
NC
NA
1910
Medina River above Medina Lake
Watershed
1905
North Prong Medina River
Medina Lake Watershed
FS
FS
FS
CS
NS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NS
NC
CS
NC
NC
CS
FS
NC
NA
Walzem Creek 1910A
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Rosillo Creek 1910B
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Salado Creek Tributary 1910C
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
CN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Menger Creek 1910D
NA
NA
NA
CS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Beitel Creek 1910E
NA
NA
NA
CS
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
CN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Upper Medio Creek
1912
1912A
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NC
CS
CS
CS
NC
FS
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
FS
FS
NA
NA
FS
NA
CS
CS
CS
NC
NA
NA
NA
FS = Fully Supporting the Water Quality Standard
CN = Concern for near-nonattainment of the Water Quality Standard
NS = Not Supporting the Water Quality Standard
CS = Concern for water quality based on screening levels
NC = No Concern
18
NA = Not Assessed
*Nitrate + nitrite is the primary method utilized for analyzing nitrate nitrogen in surface water in Segments 1908, 1913, 1904, 1909, and 1907
SuMMARY REpORT
1.0 introduction
As a result of the 72nd Legislature enactment
of Senate Bill 818 in 1991, the Texas Water
Commission, now known as the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ),
implemented the Texas Clean Rivers Program.
The Clean Rivers Program (CRP) provides the
framework and forum for managing water quality
issues through a comprehensive and holistic
watershed management approach. The watershed
management approach reflects common strategies
for data collection and analyses that identify and
address regional water quality issues in river
basins throughout Texas. The San Antonio River
Authority (SARA) was designated as the regional
agency responsible for planning, coordinating,
and implementing the CRP in the San Antonio
River Basin. The Basin Summary Report is a
requirement of the Texas Clean Rivers Program
and was prepared by SARA staff in cooperation
with the TCEQ and in accordance with the State's
guidelines.
•
Provide quality assured data to the TCEQ for
use in water quality decision making
•
Identify and evaluate water quality issues
•
Promote cooperative watershed planning
•
Inform and engage stakeholders
•
Maintain efficient use of public funds
•
Adapt program to emerging water quality
issues
Waters with known water quality concerns
•
No specific priority for bodies that have no
known water quality problems or without
current water quality data
SARA’s annual Coordinated Monitoring Meeting
(CMM) is normally held in mid-spring. During
this meeting, partnering agencies meet to discuss
monitoring needs for the San Antonio River Basin
for the upcoming year.
SARA would like to thank the agencies listed
below for their help over the last five years. Their
efforts to maximize regional monitoring sample
programs while minimizing duplicative efforts is
greatly appreciated.
Coordination and Cooperation with
Other Basin Entities
Developing a comprehensive coordinated
monitoring schedule (CMS) that supports the
various basin and statewide objectives requires
intensive planning and coordination. The CMS
is located at https://cms.lcra.org/. To coordinate
the efforts and resources of many diverse
organizations while ensuring the San Antonio
River Basin monitoring programs remain
effective and viable, the CMS undergoes annual
review to evaluate new cooperative efforts and
any emerging priorities. As the data collected
is in support of the TCEQ’s Integrated Reports
and water quality standards, annual routine
monitoring decisions should be directed towards:
Goals and Objectives of the Texas Clean
Rivers Program
The goals of the Texas CRP are to maintain and
improve the quality of water within each river
basin in Texas through an ongoing partnership
involving the TCEQ, river authorities, other
agencies, regional entities, local governments,
industry, and citizens. The program's watershed
management approach will identify and evaluate
water quality issues, establish priorities for
corrective action, work to implement those
•
actions, and adapt to changing priorities. In
support of the CRP goals, the long-term objectives
are to:
•
Completing data sets where limited
information indicates that a water quality
criterion shows a standard is not supported but
with a limited data set
•
Concerns for water bodies that are near
nonattainment
•
Austin & San Antonio Offices of Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ)
•
Bandera County River Authority and
Groundwater District (BCRAGD)
•
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
•
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA)
•
Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board
(TSSWCB)
•
City of Boerne
•
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
During the meetings, information from the
most current biennial Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality Integrated Report for
Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d),
CRP partners, and the EAC is used to select
stations and parameters that enhance the overall
water quality monitoring coverage, eliminate
duplication of effort and address basin priorities.
19
BASiN OvERviEW
the river and riparian zone. Many of the urban
streams have greenways and parks. Native and
migratory birds and other wildlife are attracted to
these areas.
Five major perennial streams flow into the San
Antonio River (Figure 1): Medina River, Cibolo
Creek, Salado Creek, Leon Creek, and Medio
Creek. The watersheds of these streams along
with the San Antonio River Watershed make up
the San Antonio River Basin.
The San Antonio River Basin is located in South
Central Texas and begins in the northeast
corner of Bandera County. The river flows in
a southeasterly direction to Goliad County,
and then along the Refugio-Victoria County
line where it joins the Guadalupe River. The
Guadalupe River then flows approximately 10
miles before entering Guadalupe Bay, which flows
into San Antonio Bay.
The northern and southern portions of the
basin are mostly rural, with livestock and
wildlife common in the area. Since the basin
lies in a semi-arid region, with annual rainfall
amounts between 26 to 38 inches, wildlife tend
to congregate near sources of water. Feral hogs,
javelina, deer, rabbits, coyotes, raccoons, and
opossums are common. Native birds such as
turkey, quail, dove, heron, martins, song birds
and migratory birds such as duck and geese are
also common. Bird watching has become an
important activity throughout the basin.
The City of San Antonio is the largest urban
center in the basin and encompasses the majority
of Bexar County. The U.S. Census Bureau
estimates that the population of Bexar County for
2011 was 1.7million people. The urban portion
of the basin also has abundant wildlife along
20
The northeast portion of the basin is in an area
known as the Texas Hill Country. (See Figure
2 for the ecoregions in the San Antonio River
Basin.) The Texas Hill Country is at the southeast
portion of the Edwards Plateau and consists of
limestone that has been eroded to create hills.
The hills are dominated by Ashe juniper and live
oak trees; soils are often thin with sparse grasses.
Rainfall on the Edwards Plateau drains into
creeks which then flow over the highly fractured
Balconies Fault Zone. As rivers cross the Balcones
Fault Zone, water is recharged into the Edwards
Aquifer. Most streams go dry as they cross the
recharge zone, except under very high-flow
conditions.
The central portion of the basin is located in
the Texas Blackland Prairie. This portion is
dominated by deep clay soils, which are gently
Burleson
Kimble
Gillespie
Lee
Travis
Blanco
Edwards
Kerr
Washington
Bastrop
Hays
Austin
Kendall
Fayette
Real
Caldwell
Comal
Bandera
Colorado
Guadalupe
Gonzales
Bexar
Uvalde
Lavaca
Medina
Wharton
Wilson
San Antonio River Watershed
De Witt
Cibolo Creek Watershed
Leon Creek Watershed
Zavala
Medina RiverFrio
Watershed
Jackson
Karnes
Atascosa
Victoria
Calhoun
Goliad
Major Rivers and Creeks
0
Dimmit
La Salle
McMullen
0
12.5
25
25
Live Oak
50 Miles
50
Bee
100 KilometersRefugio
¯
Aransas
San Patricio
Webb
Duval
Jim Wells
Nueces
21
Aransas
Aransas
Aransas
Calhoun
Calhoun
sloping. The deep, rich soils make the blackland
prairie ideal for row crops, but in the San Antonio
River Basin, this area is highly urbanized.
Located in central Bexar County is the artesian
zone of the Edwards Aquifer. Under normal
rainfall years, springs in this area create the
perennial rivers of the basin and where water
wells flow without the use of pumps.
The combination of abundant water and deep,
rich soils is what brought settlers to central Texas,
where, ultimately, they created the city of San
Antonio. Increased water use from the Edwards
Aquifer has diminished the natural spring flow to
many of the rivers and creeks in the basin. In the
past, wells on Salado Creek and the San Antonio
River augmented flow to these rivers. Most of
these wells have been turned off to conserve
drinking water in the aquifer. San Antonio Water
System (SAWS) is providing recycled water to
both Salado Creek and the Upper San Antonio
River. Without this additional recycled water, flow
would decrease in the streams, causing drops in
dissolved oxygen (DO) and impairing biological
communities. During drought, sections of these
rivers would become dry without the augmented
flow provided by SAWS.
South of the Texas Blackland Prairie is the East
Central Texas Plains. This area is made up of
gently sloping sandy loam and clay loam soils
and is mostly rural with small towns interspersed
throughout. The economy of the region is
dominated by cattle ranching and the oil and
gas industry, most notably the Eagle Ford Shale
formation. The Carrizo Aquifer is in the northern
part of this ecoregion, while the Gulf Coast
Aquifer is in the southern portion.
22
Located in southern Goliad County and along
the Refugio-Victoria County line is the Western
Gulf Coastal Plain. The topography of this area
is mostly flat with abundant grassy areas and
fewer trees than the East Central Texas Plains.
Row crops are more common than in the East
Central Texas Plains. Farming, ranching, and the
petroleum industry make up the primary land
use for this ecoregion. The Gulf Coast Aquifer is
located in the southern-most portion of the San
Antonio River Basin.
In the Lower San Antonio River Watershed,
hydraulic fracturing of the Eagle Ford Shale is
increasing dramatically, most notably in Karnes,
DeWitt, Gonzales and Wilson counties (Figure
3). Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting large
volumes of water containing many different
compounds underground under high pressure
in order to allow access to oil and gas that
would otherwise be difficult to extract using
conventional techniques. This process can be
repeated many times for each well at a given site
and each site may contain multiple wells.
30
31
32
33
30, Edwards Plateau
32
31, Southern Texas Plains
32, Texas Blackland Prairies
33, East Central Texas Plains
34, Western Gulf Coastal Plain
34
Populations Centers
0
0
12.5
15
25
30
50 Miles
60 Kilometers
23
¯
with naturally occurring substances from the
producing zone, are returned to the surface as
flowback. Flowback wastewaters may be reinjected into deep formations, transferred to
storage tanks or pits for eventual transport offsite
for disposal, or transferred to wastewater facilities
for processing and returned to surface waters.
Water use is critical to all phases of hydraulic
fracturing which begins with a high pressure
injection of water containing chemical additives
and a proppant (sand or other inert material).
This process induces microseismic events to
occur primarily within the producing zone and
the resulting fractures provide a network of
pathways through which oil and gas can migrate
(Zobac and others, 2010). When the pressure is
reduced, the proppants remain in the fractures
and some proportion of the injected fluid along
Presently, there is limited public information
available concerning the proprietary fluids used
in hydraulic fracturing. However, the EPA and
24
the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYDEC) published analyses of
hydraulic fracturing fluids broken down into
both categories and specific chemical additives
(NYDEC, 2009; USEPA, 2010). Flowback water
contains the materials originally injected into the
well as well as naturally occurring compounds
from the formation that may include salts,
radionuclides, arsenic, mercury, and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene,
toluene, xylene and acetone (NYDEC, 2009; URS
Corporation, 2009; Veil and others, 2004; Zobac
and others, 2010).
In response to the increased activities of the
Eagle Ford Shale play in the San Antonio River
Watershed, SARA, with funding from GBRA,
has initiated a USGS study: Assessing the San
Antonio River Watershed for Contaminants
from Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid and Water
Produced by Oil and Gas Activities. The study
will provide baseline data for a broad spectrum of
contaminants that are associated with hydraulic
fracturing and petroleum production in general.
To establish a baseline, this project will review
available data on hydraulic fracturing fluids and
existing data from monitoring sites and previous
studies within the watershed to develop and refine
a priority list of analytical schedules. It will also
collect and analyze water and sediment samples
for compounds known to be associated with
hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced waters
resulting from oil and gas production activities.
Nine sites within the San Antonio River
Watershed will be sampled twice, once during
base flow conditions and once during higher flows
(Figure 4). Surficial bed sediment material will be
collected at approximately the same time as the
water samples in order to compare sediment and
water column occurrences and concentrations.
This will facilitate evaluation of re-suspension
and transport processes for constituents that are
detected at a given sampling location. The final
report should be available by the end of 2014.
Throughout the history of oil and natural gas
exploration and production, there have been
countless communities that have experienced
the boom-bust nature of the industry. The riches
25
made available have served to economically
and socially benefit, but also raise concerns
within communities. As a result, SARA
commissioned the Texas Public Partners to
prepare a Best Practices Handbook to help the
communities within the SARA watershed protect
the surroundings of the watershed, as well as
their own community assets and interests. The
handbook is located at SAR’s website at http://
www.sara-tx.org/. This handbook, which includes
a manual of best practices, seeks to address issues
that affect the watershed and the surrounding
26
communities, as well as provide a means for
enacting the practices.
SuMMARY Of SAN ANTONiO
RivER BASiN WATER QuALiTY
ChARACTERiSTiCS
As the population increased, so did degradation
of water quality in streams of the basin. In
the 1700s and 1800s the streams and acequias
(irrigation ditches) were used to distribute water
for drinking and irrigation. Unfortunately, the
same streams and acequias were also used to
carry away waste from the City of San Antonio.
In the early 1900s, steps were taken to organize
the collection of waste. In 1930, the City of San
Antonio opened the Rilling Road Wastewater
Treatment Plant to treat the waste before
discharging it into the San Antonio River.
Eventually, the wastewater generated by the
increasing population of San Antonio became too
much for the Rilling Road Wastewater Treatment
Plant to treat adequately. The discharge from
this plant caused depressed DO levels which
adversely affected aquatic life. In 1987, the City of
San Antonio closed the Rilling Road Wastewater
Treatment Plant and opened the Dos Rios
Wastewater Treatment Plant. This plant is owned
and operated by San Antonio Water Systems
(SAWS), which is a public utility of the City of
San Antonio. SAWS is governed by a board that
consists of the Mayor of San Antonio and six
members that are appointed by the city council.
With the closure of the Rilling Road plant and
the opening of Dos Rios, DO levels in the river
increased, causing aquatic life to improve. The
Dos Rios Recycling Center discharges to the
Lower Medina River. Dos Rios is also permitted
to discharge re-use water into the Upper San
Antonio River and Salado Creek. The re-use water
is also sold to customers that would otherwise
be forced to use water from the Edwards Aquifer
for irrigation. This provides needed conservation
of the Edwards Aquifer water resources for the
community. Salado Creek Water Recycling Center
discharged effluent into the Upper San Antonio
River until the summer of 2006. SAWS also
operates the Leon Creek and Medio Creek Water
Recycling Centers.
Minor Aquifers
QUEEN CITY
SPARTA
YEGUA JACKSON
Major Aquifers
CARRIZO
EDWARDS
EDWARDS-TRINITY
GULF_COAST
TRINITY
0
0
12.5
10
20
25
50 Miles
40 Kilometers
27
¯
SAWS operates its plants within the specifications
required by its permits and discharge a highquality effluent into the river. Discharges from
SAWS plants have low biochemical oxygen
demand and total suspended solids in the effluent.
Wastewater discharge from the City of San
Antonio and surrounding areas constitutes a large
portion of the water flowing downstream below
Bexar County.
Much of the ambient (non-runoff) flow in
the San Antonio River Basin originates from
the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer System (Aquifer
System) (Figure 5). This system is composed of
the Edwards, Trinity and the Edwards-Trinity
aquifers (Ryder 1996). Edwards-Trinity aquifer is
a karst aquifer in carbonate rock and as a result
may be more vulnerable to contamination than
the sand aquifers (Maupin and Barber, 2005).
USGS, Edward Aquifer Authority Water levels
often vary greatly, causing spring flows to vary
greatly. The water is hard, due to the limestone,
and the pH tends to be above 7.0. The water clarity
is good from the springs and wells. Whether from
natural causes or pollution from agriculture on
the Edwards Plateau, nitrate nitrogen values are
elevated from the springs. There are numerous
large springs (e.g., Blue Hole, San Pedro Springs)
and many unnamed springs and seeps from the
Aquifer System that feed the streams in the basin.
While the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer System is the
most well-known and studied aquifer in the basin,
the San Antonio River Basin passes over several
other major and minor aquifers that recharge
and/or contribute water to the streams of the
basin. The Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer provides water
for Wilson County and parts of Bexar County.
28
The Carrizo-Wilcox is a vast sand aquifer.
Martinez Springs (northeast of Saint Hedwig
in east Bexar County), and Sutherland Springs
(northeast Wilson County) originate from the
sands of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer. The Gulf
Coast Aquifer provides water for both Goliad
and Karnes counties. Minor aquifers in the basin
include Sparta and Queen; both are sand aquifers
located in Wilson County.
Due to the natural geography of the Texas Hill
Country, tropical storms from the Gulf of Mexico
and large air masses from the north tend to
collide over this region creating very heavy rain in
Central Texas and the Hill Country. This region is
commonly known as Flash Flood Alley. The steep
slopes of the Texas Hill Country along with thin
soils, exposed bedrock and the rapid development
of central Texas and the Hill Country (which
has increased the amounts of impervious cover)
create a situation where stormwater runoff is
very rapid and potentially destructive. Apart
from endangering lives and property, the rapid
runoff also scours rivers, destroying or disrupting
both instream and riparian habitats. Wildlife,
especially fish and benthic macroinvertebrate
communities, are impaired due to lack of habitat
and the force of the flow.
2.0 puBLiC iNvOLvEMENT
San Antonio River Basin Environmental
Advisory Committee (EAC)
SARA engages in several environmental studies
and projects that require a public outreach
component. Many of these studies and projects
are identifying overlapping concerns and would
benefit from cross-sharing the knowledge
acquired. In 2005, the SARA Board of Directors
approved the creation of an environmental
advisory committee to serve as an umbrella
committee dedicated to understanding,
identifying, and addressing the environmental
strengths and weaknesses within the San
Antonio River Basin. The EAC began its work
in April 2005. The advisory committee consists
of up to 25 members, including two co-chairs,
one representing Bexar County and the other
representing a downstream county. The table
below lists the interest groups represented on the
EAC. Some groups have more than one seat on
the committee.
From these general stakeholder categories,
SARA identified more than 70 organizations or
individuals who could serve as a potential EAC
member. Nomination solicitation letters were
mailed to these various stakeholder groups.
SARA staff from Intergovernmental Relations,
Environmental Science and Parks reviewed the
nominations received and submitted a list to the
SARA Communications Committee and the full
Board of Directors for approval.
At the regular December 2011 SARA board
meeting, the EAC membership was updated and
individuals were officially appointed to serve on
the EAC.
SARA is privileged to have an extraordinary
group of individuals who have volunteered their
time to improve the environmental health of the
To increase the public’s knowledge and
involvement in water quality issues, SARA
provides public outreach materials and promotes
the following educational activities:
River Reach Quarterly Newsletter
Water quality information is regularly provided to
the public through SARA’s quarterly newsletter,
River Reach. Created in 2003, the newsletter also
features water quality-related community events
that are hosted and/or sponsored by SARA. River
Reach is distributed by regular mail and email
to stakeholders throughout South Central Texas,
including SARA’s jurisdiction of Bexar, Wilson,
Karnes and Goliad counties. It is also distributed
in person throughout the area at school functions,
community events and public meetings. SARA’s
mailing list database contains more than 10,000
names and grows continually as interested
stakeholders sign up to receive the newsletter.
River Reach in Education
Articles concerning water quality issues are
frequently published in SARA’s quarterly River
Reach community newsletter. With this in mind,
SARA’s Community Relations Department
reached out to science teachers and other
educators in the San Antonio River Basin and
offered to send them copies of each issue. The
effort is designed to help teachers incorporate
water quality information into their classroom
curriculum. SARA continues to mail newsletters
to these teachers.
General Stakeholders Categories for the Environmental Advisory Committee
Co-Chairs
Environmental
Academia
Municipalities
Agriculture
The Public
Bay and Estuary
Parks and Recreational
Business and Industry
Water Utilities/Water Purveyors/Fee Payers 1
Counties (up to one representative per county)
Water Right Holders
29
Water: A Living Lesson Educators’
Conference
elementary-age students, bus wraps, newspaper
ads, and a radio and television media campaign.
Developed in partnership with the San Antonio
Water System, the Edwards Aquifer Authority,
and the University of Texas at San Antonio,
the conference is in its10th year in 2013 and
has drawn more than 2,000 participants from
South Central Texas into workshops, field trips,
booth exhibits, and brainstorming sessions with
other educators and subject matter experts. The
conference is designed to provide educators more
resources, information, and hands-on activities
with which to address water-related topics in their
classrooms. Workshops presented by SARA staff
centered on water quality and related watershed
management issues.
Erosion Presentations
Watershed Model Presentation
The various forms of the erosion presentation
include a discussion about watersheds. It is
difficult to comprehend the concept of erosion
without first understanding the watershed.
Through the use of SARA’s watershed model,
students see a firsthand demonstration of
how erosion works. While the focus of this
presentation is the transportation of sediment,
the idea of watersheds is pervasive throughout the
lesson.
Mission Reach Presentation and Field
Trip
The story of the Mission Reach Project is one of
ecosystem restoration. The whole project involves
restoring native habitat and native stream
migration and improving water quality. The San
Antonio River Improvements Project (SARIP)
has other flood control, recreation, and cultural
effects as well, but restoring the ecosystem to a
healthier state is one of its biggest components.
A tour of the River Walk: Mission Reach, offered
by SARA, demonstrates just how much has been
done to restore the ecosystem on the river. A
virtual tour of this section of the river also shows
the public what the ecosystem was and how it has
been restored to the state it is in today.
SARA promotes stewardship and sustainability
of the San Antonio River by all those who live,
work or travel through the San Antonio River
Watershed through its environmental awareness
campaign. This environmental awareness
initiative will encourage residents to “Be
Watershed Wise” through a series of messages
addressing issues, such as general watershed
education, sustainable land-use practices,
prevention of illegal dumping, encouraging
recycling, reducing the use of plastic bags,
picking up pet waste, proper lawn care and
vehicle maintenance techniques and others. This
is a proactive approach to prevent water quality
and trash issues in the river through education
of the community. This information is on the
signage along the River Walk: Mission Reach
and is distributed through posters printed for
Basura Bash
In partnership with the San Antonio River
Foundation, the Basura Bash Planning
30
Organization and a host of private businesses
that sponsor staff, professional services and other
resources, SARA supports the citizen-led Basura
Bash trash collection and recycle event. March
2013 marked the 19th annual event. In addition to
removing trash and recyclables from the banks of
the San Antonio River and its 15 tributaries, the
event, along with the press conference kick-off,
serves to increase awareness of the need for river
basin stewardship. As part of its sponsorship,
SARA’s education outreach program also offers
training to organized groups within the San
Antonio River Basin that seek to create their own
river-clean-up and recycling events.
River Walk Watershed Alliance
Since 2008, SARA has been working with the
Paseo del Rio Association, Downtown Alliance/
Centro San Antonio, Downtown Residents
Association, Bexar County, City of San Antonio,
and San Antonio Water System to reduce human
impacts to river water quality in the River Walk
Watershed. With EPA funds awarded through
TCEQ, these seven entities formed the River Walk
Watershed Alliance (RWWA) to reduce bacteria
levels which were significantly exceeding state
standards. The RWWA both gathered information
from and provided information to River Walk
employees, residents, and visitors about their daily
routines within the watershed. Through input
gathered, the RWWA determined that bacteria
loading was linked to human behaviors such as
sidewalk and patio café cleaning procedures that
sent runoff straight to the river; human feeding
of wildlife, which resulted in greater numbers
but less diversity of wildlife and the bacteria
they generate; and improper trash management.
With continued input from its audiences, the
RWWA developed a series of Best Management
Practices (BMP) educational pieces tailored to
each audience and to various job functions within
the heavily urbanized, tourist-driven watershed.
By late 2010, bacterial levels in the watershed
had dropped by 48 percent. Although the grant
ended in August 2010, the RWWA continues to
promote its BMP messages through social media,
community events, River Walk businesses, and
ads targeted to River Walk Watershed audiences.
31
SARA-SpONSORED AND/OR
ATTENDED COMMuNiTY
EvENTS
A list of previous SARA-Sponsored and/or
Attended Community Events can be viewed in
previous Basin Highlight Reports. The list below
covers the time not presented in the 2011 Basin
Highlight Report to the present.
February 2012
May 2012
25 Earthwise Living Day
5
25 Basura Bash
12 Bloom Boom Wildflower Festival
19 Museum Reach Fun 5K and Health &
Wellness Expo
June 2012
September 2011
10 Branch River Park Grand Opening
14 Green Week-Sustainability Conference
October 2011
8
River Walk Lucky Duck Race and Festival
8
Medina River Fall Festival
MedDrop SA 2012
2
SAWS Project Agua 5K
5
Canoe Trail Goliad Summer Flotilla
9
Goliad County Collection Event
9
Geocaching at Helton-San Antonio River
Nature Park
16 If the River Could Talk
20 SARA’s 75th Anniversary Reception
15 LiveGreenFest
July 2012
15 Mission Tour de Goliad
3
22 Mitchell Lake Audubon Center Wildlife
Festival
10 Bat Talk on the Museum Reach
March 2012
23 Sunday in Brackenridge-Year of Jazz
3
Get Outdoors! (pictured above)
November 2011
10 SAWS Spring Bloom
5
30 Fresh Air Friday
Canoe Trail Goliad Fall Flotilla
12 Annual Arbor Day Celebration
December 2011
3
River of Lights
21 Wilson County SARAY Archive and
Watershed History Event
21 Mission Reach Bicycle Tour
April 2012
14 Jackson Nature Park Wildflower Hike
August 2012
21 Earth Day San Antonio
January 2012
21 Earth Day Mission Reach Walk
23 Basura Bash Press Conference
23 Texas Cavaliers River Parade
32
Bat Talk on the Museum Reach
4
Goliad County SARA Archive and Watershed
History Event
4
MedDrop SA 2012 Collection Date
7
Bat Talk on the Museum Reach
18 Karnes County SARA Archive and Watershed
History Event
September 2012
8
Karnes County Waste Collection Event
18 Feral Hog Webinar
22 Leon Springs Family GreenFest
December 2012
March 2013
1
PecanFest at Helton-San Antonio River
2
Nature Park
April 2013
Museum Reach River of Lights
13 Wildflower Hike at Jackson Nature Park
(pictured below)
13 Wildflower Hike along the San Antonio River
1
1
Wilson County Waste Collection Event
Get Outdoors!
June 2013
February 2013
1
2
July 2013
Birding Hike on the Mission Reach
23 Basura Bash
6
Canoe Trail Goliad Summer Flotilla
Bat Talk along the San Antonio River
29 National Public Lands Day at Helton-San
Antonio River Nature Park (canceled due to
weather)
October 2012
6
River Walk Lucky Duck Race and Festival
10 Water Forum III
13 Branch River Park First Anniversary
13 CPS Energy LiveGreenFest
20 21st Annual Missions Tour de Goliad
20 Mitchell Lake Audubon Festival
November 2012
3
Goliad Fall Flotilla
3
Learning is Fun at Confluence Park
10 Rock Formation Hike at Jackson Nature Park
33
3.0 WATER QuALiTY REviEW
The watershed summaries in this section
describes water quality based on chemical and
biological data collected by the SARA, USGS,
GBRA, TCEQ and their contractors. The
information represents a snapshot of the levels
of bacteria, nutrients, aquatic life use, and other
water quality parameters at more than 180 sites
throughout six watersheds in the San Antonio
River Basin. The data was obtained from the
TCEQ surface water quality database (SWQMIS).
•
3.1 WATER QuALiTY
TERMiNOLOGY
Prior to presenting the water quality summary for
each watershed in the San Antonio River Basin,
an understanding of terminology, water quality
parameters and TCEQ assessment methodology
and processes are needed to understand the
complex issues involved in monitoring and
assessing data.
using the TCEQ 2012 Texas Integrated Report
for Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and
303(d). The TCEQ 2012 IR assessment period
covers the most recent seven to 10-year period
from December 1, 2000 through November
30, 2010. The 2012 IR is on the TCEQ’s
website located at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/
waterquality/assessment/305_303.html.
•
34
•
Recreation Use: Recreation use is determined
by the analysis of water samples for E. coli
bacteria in freshwater. Enterococci and fecal
coliform bacteria are used to assess support of
the contact recreation use in tidal water.
•
General Use: Water quality criteria for several
constituents are established in the TSWQS to
safeguard general water quality rather than
one specific use. Parameters such as water
temperature, pH, chloride, sulfate, and total
dissolved solids are the parameters protecting
aquatic life, recreation, public water supply and
other beneficial uses.
•
Fish Consumption Use: Fish consumption use
is assessed by review of the Texas Department
of State Health Service (TDSHS) published
fish tissue data, human risk assessment
information, consumption advisories and
aquatic life closures. The TDSHS consumption
advisories website is located at http://www.
dshs.state.tx.us/seafood/survey.shtm#advisory.
The TSWQS requires that surface waters shall
not be toxic to humans from consumption of
aquatic organisms. The DSHS website contains
information regarding fish consumption
advisories and aquatic life closures. Fish
consumption use is supported in water bodies
Texas Surface Water Quality Standards
(TSWQS)
In the TSWQS, the TCEQ has assigned designated
uses for all classified water bodies and defined five
categories of use: aquatic life, contact recreation,
fish consumption, public water supply, and
general use. Each water body in the San Antonio
River Basin is evaluated against its designated
aquatic life use, the contact recreation standard
and general use. (See Table 3.1 at the end of this
section for Site-Specific Uses and Criteria for
Classified Segments.) Fish consumption use and
public water supply use are assigned and assessed
to specific segments with the San Antonio River
Basin. The designated uses as identified in the
TSWQS are:
minimum of a 10-year data set containing at
2012.
The 2012 Integrated Report assessment period of
record for the last seven years is December 1, 2003
through November 30, 2010. Samples from these
seven years are evaluated when available, and
macroinvertebrate and fish community are
also assessed, provided that the minimum
number of samples is available. Each criterion
is evaluated independently and an impairment
is identified when any one of the criterion is
not attained. Segments are designated in one of
five categories (exceptional, high, intermediate,
limited, or minimal) for aquatic life use based
upon the results being evaluated.
if necessary, the most recent samples collected
in the preceding three years (December 1, 2000
through November 30, 2003) can also be included
to meet the requirements for minimum sample
number.
•
Aquatic Life Use: Aquatic life use is
determined by DO criteria, toxic substances
in water, ambient water toxicity and sediment
toxicity test results. Indices for habitat, benthic
where the DSHS has collected tissue data and
a subsequent risk assessment indicates that
no significant risk, due to consumption of
pollutants over a person’s lifetime, exists.
•
Public Water Supply Use: Public water supply
use is evaluated for surface water bodies that
are designated in the TSWQS for public water
supply use. Human health criteria from the
TSWQS are used to determine whether the
segment is supporting public water supply use.
The human health criteria are based, in part,
on the primary maximum contaminant levels
adopted in the Texas Administrative Code (30
TAC §290).
2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water
Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d) Formerly called
the "Texas Water Quality Inventory and 303(d)
List," the Integrated Report evaluates the quality
of surface waters in Texas, and provides resource
managers with a tool for making informed
decisions when directing agency programs. The
Texas Integrated Report describes the status of
Texas’ natural waters based on historical data. It
identifies water bodies that are not meeting the
TSWQS. The Texas Integrated Report satisfies the
requirements of federal Clean Water Act Sections
305(b) and 303(d). The TCEQ produces a new
report every two years in even-numbered years, as
required by law.
Guidance for Assessing and Reporting
Surface Water Quality in Texas
(Guidance)
In the development of the 2012 Integrated
Report, specific assessment methods were
utilized as describe in the 2010 Guidance for
Assessing and Reporting Surface Water Quality
in Texas (Guidance). The Guidance is located
assessment/305_303.html. The document is
developed by staff of the TCEQ with input
through an advisory stakeholder process.
Individuals representing diverse organizations
and interests are invited to participate in the
revision of current guidance and to develop,
review, and comment on new draft guidance
every few years. The advisory group includes but
is not limited to, state agencies, environmental
consultants, river authorities, environmental
groups, industry, agricultural interests and
municipalities.
Classified Segment
A classified segment is a water body or portion
of a water body that is individually defined in
the TSWQS. A segment is intended to have
relatively homogeneous chemical, physical, and
hydrological characteristics. A segment provides a
basic unit for assigning site-specific standards and
for applying water quality management programs
of the TCEQ. Classified segments may include
streams, rivers, bays, estuaries, wetlands, lakes,
or reservoirs. Classified segments are protected
by site-specific criteria as stated in the TSWQS.
The classified segments are assigned four-digit
numbers. The first two digits correspond to the
major basin in which they are located. The last
two digits distinguish individual segments within
the particular basin. For example, Segment 1901
is in basin 19 (San Antonio River basin) and 01
represents the Lower San Antonio River from
the confluence with the Guadalupe River in
Refugio/Victoria County to a point 600 meters
downstream of FM 791 at Mays crossing near
Falls City in Karnes County.
Unclassified Segments (Tributaries)
Because of the great extent of waters in the
state, not all bodies of water are classified in
the standards. For example, when managing
a classified segment of the Lower San Antonio
River, it may be necessary to examine water
quality in the tributaries that flow into that
segment. Some of these tributaries may not be
part of the classified segment system. When
that happens, for management purposes, the
tributary is assigned a unique tracking number
that is referred to as an unclassified segment.
This unclassified tributary will be designated
with the number of the classified segment in
whose watershed it is located, along with a letter.
Example 1901A Escondido Creek is a tributary
of the Lower San Antonio River. Unclassified
segments are small and often intermittent water
bodies, typically not assigned specific water
quality standards.
Unclassified segments are generally assessed on
the flow and the criteria for the classified segment
into which they flow, but in some cases may be
assigned specific water quality standards.
Assessment Units
Each classified and unclassified segment is further
broken down into sub-areas called assessment
units (AU). For the purpose of the assessment,
use support is reported at the AU sub-area levels.
Each assessment sub-area is known as an AU,
which is defined as the smallest geographic area
of use support reported in the assessment. Each
AU within a segment is assigned a number such
as 1901_01. A segment may consist of more than
35
one AU, 1901_02, 1901_03, and so on. Support
of criteria and uses are examined for each AU.
To address water quality regulatory activity
such as permitting, standards development, and
remediation, use support information applies to
the AU level. The 303(d) List is reported at the AU
level for each water body.
be noted that all identified pH trends are within
the 6.5-9.0 Standard Units criterion. Trends
were examined for the following water quality
parameters:
Trend analyses qualifiers include:
•
Flow
•
pH
Trend Analyses
•
DO Deficit (DO deficit)
•
Temperature
•
Ammonia
•
Total Phosphorus
•
Nitrate
•
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
•
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
•
Sulfate
•
Chloride
•
E. coli
Trend analyses were conducted to determine if
statistically significant trends were present when
comparing parameter data over time. SWQMIS
data was obtained from a minimum of one
monitoring site for each classified segment and
select unclassified segments. Trend analyses was
conducted as indicated in the CRP Guidance
located at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/
monitoring/crp/guidance/index.html, Task 5—
Data Analysis and Reporting, Exhibit 5B—Steps
and Criteria for Trend Analysis.
Each data set had at least 20 samples collected
throughout a 10-year period, June 1, 2002 to May
31, 2012, covering at least two-thirds of the time
period. For measurements collected the same day,
the most complete sample data set was used. Data
was graphed and analyzed using Microsoft Excel.
Trends were considered statistically significant
if the absolute value of the t-ratio is ≥ 2 and the
p-value is < 0.1, trends were also identified as
either increasing “↑” or decreasing “↑”. With the
exception of decreasing flows, decreasing trends
are generally beneficial and increasing trends
are detrimental to water quality. pH criterion is
expressed as a range of 6.5-9.0 Standard Units, as
a result pH trends were not color coded. It should
36
“<” and “>” were dropped.
•
Total Dissolved Solids values were calculated
using the formula TDS = 0.65 X Conductivity.
•
When different limits of quantitation (LOQ)
were experienced during the 10-year trending
period, the higher LOQ was utilized.
o Ammonia: LOQ changed from 0.02 to
0.1 on 9/1/2007. All values <0.1 prior to
9/1/2007 were changed to 0.1.
o Nitrate: LOQ changed from 0.02 to 0.05 on
9/1/2007. All values <0.05 prior to 9/1/2007
were changed to 0.05.
o Chloride and Sulfate: LOQ changed from
1 to 5 on 9/1/2007. All values <5 prior to
9/1/2007 were changed to 5.
o Total Phosphorus: LOQ changed from
0.06 to 0.02 on 9/1/2007. Values were not
changed.
The amount of DO (DO) varies greatly depending
on the temperature of the water. As the water
temperature increases, the potential amount of
DO decreases greatly. To determine depletion of
oxygen due to factors other than temperature, the
DO deficit is calculated using the formula below.
This simple DO deficit formula is used to identify
trends rather than establish precise DO deficit
values.
•
There were insufficient Ortho-Phosphate
values for trending. Prior to 2008, non-filtered
samples were collected, after 2008 field-filtered
samples were collected. Only field- filtered
samples are to be utilized.
•
There were insufficient Chlorophyll-a values
for trending. Chlorophyll-a sampling was
initiated in 2008.
•
There were multiple methods utilized to
analyze E. coli. Data for equivalent E. coli
methods were combined for trend analysis.
•
For segments where SARA was not the
primary sampling entity, nitrate+nitrite values
were utilized for trending.
DO deficit = [500/(Temperature + 35)] – DO
As DO levels decrease due to chemical and
biological demand (pollutants), DO deficit values
will increase.
•
Table 3.1 Site-Specific Uses and Criteria for Classified Segments
Criteria
Uses
Segment
Segment Description
Domestic
Aquatic Life
Water
Recreation
Supply
Use
Chloride
(mg/L)
Sulfate
(mg/L)
Total
Dissolved
Solids
(mg/L)
Dissolved
Oxygen Dissolved 24 Hour
24 Hour
Grab
Oxygen Dissolved Dissolved
Screening
Oxygen
Oxygen
Grab
Average Minimum( Average Minimum
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
mg/L)
pH
Range
(SU)
E. coli
Temperature6
geomean1
o
( C)
(CFU/100ml)
Ammonia
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Nitrate
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Ortho
Phosphorus
(mg/L)
Total
Phosphorus
(mg/L)
Chlorophyll-a
(µg/L)
1901
PCR
High
180
140
750
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
6.5-9.0
32.2
126
0.33
1.95
0.37
0.69
14.1
1902
Lower Cibolo Creek
PCR
High
170
275
900
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
6.5-9.0
32.2
126
0.33
1.95
0.37
0.69
14.1
1903
Medina River Below Medina Diversion Lake
PCR
High
PS2/AP3
120
120
700
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
6.5-9.0
32.2
126
0.33
1.95
0.37
0.69
14.1
1904
Medina Lake
PCR
High
PS/AP
80
75
350
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
6.5-9.0
31.1
126
0.11
0.37
0.05
0.20
26.7
31.1
126
0.33
1.95
0.37
0.69
14.1
1905
Medina River Above Medina Lake
PCR
Excellent
PS
1906 5
Lower Leon Creek
PCR
High
PS5
1907
Upper Leon Creek
1908
Upper Cibolo Creek
PCR
High
1909
PCR
High
1910
Salado Creek
PCR
High
1911
PCR
High
4
PCR
High
50
150
400
6.0
4.0
6.0
4.0
6.5-9.0
120
120
700
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
6.5-9.0
35
126
0.33
1.95
0.37
0.69
14.1
PS/AP
3
55
240
550
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
6.5-9.0
35
126
0.33
1.95
0.37
0.69
14.1
PS/AP
3
50
100
600
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
6.5-9.0
32.2
126
0.33
1.95
0.37
0.69
14.1
PS/AP
3
50
75
400
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
6.5-9.0
32.2
126
0.11
0.37
0.05
0.20
26.7
PS/AP
3
140
200
600
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
6.5-9.0
32.2
126
0.33
1.95
0.37
0.69
14.1
150
150
750
5.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
6.5-9.0
32.2
126
0.33
1.95
0.37
0.69
14.1
1912
Medio Creek
PCR
Intermediate
150
150
750
4.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.5-9.0
35
126
0.33
1.95
0.37
0.69
14.1
1913
Mid Cibolo Creek
PCR
Low
150
150
750
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
6.5-9.0
32.2
126
0.33
1.95
0.37
0.69
14.1
1
The indicator bacteria for freshwater is E. coli
3
For Segment 1903, the public supply designation does not apply from the confluence of the San Antonio River in Bexar County upstream to a point 2.5 Kilometers
(1.5 miles) upstream of the confluence of Leon Creek.
The aquifer protection use applies to areas in the contributing, recharge and transition zones of the Edward Aquifer.
4
The critical low-flow for Segment 1905 is calculated according to §307.8(a)(2)(B) of the TSWQS
5
For Segment 1906, the public supply designation does not apply from the confluence of the Medina River in Bexar County uptream to a point 4.8 Kilometers (3 miles)
upstream.
2
6
Temperature was coverted from oF to oC, the criteria for temperature are listed as maximum values at any site within the segment.
37
3.2 WATER QuALiTY pARAMETERS
A list of water quality parameters, their impact and potential cause of impairments are identified in the table below.
Monitoring Parameters and What They Mean
Parameter
Potential Impacts
Potential Causes Impairments
Temperature
Water temperature affects the oxygen content of the water, with warmer
water unable to hold as much oxygen. When water temperature is too
cold, cold-blooded organisms may either die or become weaker and more
susceptible to other stresses, such as disease or parasites.
Colder water can be caused by reservoir releases. Warmer water can
be caused by removing trees from riparian zone, soil erosion, or use of
water by industry to cool equipment.
Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS)
High total dissolved solids may affect the aesthetic quality of the water;
interfere with washing clothes and corroding plumbing fixtures. High
total dissolved solids in the environment can also affect the permeability
of ions in aquatic organisms.
Mineral springs, carbonate deposits, salt deposits, and sea water
intrusion are sources for naturally occurring high concentrations of
TDS. Other sources can be attributed to oil exploration, drinking
water treatment, chemicals, stormwater and agricultural runoff and
wastewater discharges.
Dissolved Oxygen
(DO)
Organisms that live in the water need oxygen to live. In stream segments
where DO is low, organisms may not have sufficient oxygen to survive.
Modifications to the riparian zone; human activity that causes water
temperatures to increase; and increases in organic matter, bacteria,
and over-abundant algae may cause DO levels to decrease.
pH
Most aquatic life is adapted to live within a narrow pH range. Different
organisms can live at and adjust to differing pH ranges, but most fish
die if pH is below 4 (the acidity of orange juice) or above 12 (the pH of
ammonia).
Industrial and wastewater discharge, runoff from quarry operations
and accidental spills.
Nutrients:
• Nitrogen
• Nitrate nitrogen
• Nitrite nitrogen
• Total Phosphorus
Nutrients increase plant and algae growth. When plants and algae die,
the bacteria that decompose them use oxygen. This reduces the DO in the
water.
High levels of nitrates and nitrites can produce Nitrite Toxicity, or
“brown blood disease” in fish. This disease reduces the ability of blood to
transport oxygen throughout the body.
Nutrients are found in effluent released from wastewater treatment
plants, fertilizers, and agricultural runoff carrying animal waste from
farms and ranches. Soil erosion and runoff from farms, lawns, and
gardens can add nutrients to the water.
Ammonia
Elevated levels of ammonia in the environment can adversely affect fish
and invertebrate reproductive capacity and reduce the growth of young.
Ammonia is excreted by animals and is produced during the
decomposition of plants and animals. Ammonia is an ingredient in
many fertilizers and is also present in sewage, stormwater runoff,
certain industrial wastewaters, and runoff from animal feedlots.
Bacteria: Escherichia coli
(E. coli)
These bacteria are typically not harmful to humans, but their presence
is an indicator of recent fecal matter contamination which may contain
pathogens dangerous to humans.
Present in all warm-bodied animals, these bacteria are common
in polluted waters. Poorly maintained or ineffective septic systems,
overflow of domestic sewage, nonpoint sources, and runoff from
animal feedlots can elevate bacteria levels.
38
3.2 WATER QuALiTY pARAMETERS
A list of water quality parameters, their impact and potential cause of impairments are identified in the table below.
Monitoring Parameters and What They Mean
Parameter
Potential Impacts
Potential Causes Impairments
Chloride
Chloride is an essential element for maintaining normal physiological
functions in all organisms. Elevated chloride concentrations can
disrupt osmotic pressure, water balance, and acid/base balances in
aquatic organisms which can adversely affect survival, growth and/or
reproduction.
Natural weathering and leaching of sedimentary rocks, soils, and salt
deposits can release chloride into the environment. Other sources can
be attributed to oil exploration and storage, sewage and industrial
discharges, runoff from dumps and landfills and saltwater intrusion.
Sulfate
Effects of high sulfate levels in the environment have not been fully
documented; however, sulfate contamination may be contributing to the
declines of native plants by altering chemical conditions in the sediment.
Due to abundance of elemental and organic sulfur; and sulfide
mineral, soluble sulfate occurs in almost all natural water. Other
sources are the burning of sulfur containing fossil fuels, steel mills and
fertilizers.
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS)
Increased turbidity which reduces light and decrease the production of
oxygen by plants. Suspended solids can also clog fish gills.
Excessive TSS is the result of accelerated erosion and is often
associated with high flows, where river banks are cut, or sediment is
re-suspended. It can also be the result of sheet erosion, where
overland flow of water cause a thin layer of soil to be carried by the
water to the stream. Disturbing vegetation, without proper barrier to
slow down overland flow (such as construction sites or row cropping),
increase TSS.
Eventually, the suspended solids settle to the bottom of the stream or
lake, creating sediment. Excessive sediment can cover instream habitat,
smother benthic organisms and eggs.
24-Hour DO
The amount of DO (DO) in a water body is critical to aquatic life. As
a result of diurnal fluctuations throughout the day, it is important to
measure DO concentrations over a 24-hour period at regular intervals.
The segment’s support of the aquatic life use designation is based on the
assessment of 24-hour average and absolute minimum criterion.
24-hour DO monitoring is conducted frequently with biological and
habitat assessments. Oxygen is depleted by both natural functions and
pollution.
Natural functions including: water temperature, photosynthesis and
respiration by aquatic plants and animals, breakdown of organic
matter, flow and water mixing, and daily and seasonal cycles.
Sources of Pollution including: excessive nutrients and chemicals,
thermal contamination and removal of vegetation.
39
Index of Biotic Integrity
Aquatic systems provide habitat for a variety of
biotic assemblages, including fish and benthic
macroinvertebrates. Each of these assemblages
tends to require a unique set of ecological
conditions. As a result, the characteristics of each
assemblage, in terms of species present, relative
dominance, trophic organization, etc. vary as a
result of change in ecological conditions, both
natural and/or non-natural. Such changes in
the characteristics of the biotic assemblages
may be reflected in the results of assessments
of biotic integrity (Index of Biotic Integrity or
IBI). Thus, it is important to monitor more than
one assemblage, since man-induced changes as
well as natural variation in instream ecological
conditions, and biotic interactions, can affect each
assemblage in a different way with subsequent
differences in IBI results for each.
Unlike chemical testing of water samples, which
gives brief snapshots of chemical concentrations,
an IBI captures an integrated net impact on a
biological community structure. The complete
absence, particularly a sudden disappearance of
some indicator species, can constitute powerful
evidence of pollution or stress factors. IBIs
generally do not resolve a specific cause of
impairment.
The TCEQ uses fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages as the primary
biotic indicators of water quality. Both
assemblages, along with physical habitat data,
are used to establish the appropriate Aquatic
Life Use (ALU) category for unclassified water
40
bodies, and both assemblages are used to assess
support of designated aquatic life use for the
305(b) assessment. Historically, when establishing
the appropriate ALU for a previously unclassified
water body, fish have been the primary indicator,
with benthic macroinvertebrate and physical
habitat evaluations used as complementary
information.
Wastewater Treatment and Recycling Centers
(WWTRC), Wastewater Treatment Plants
(WWTP), Waste Water Treatment Facilities
(WWTF)
There are many names utilized to identify
wastewater treatment plants. Systems that
discharge effluent into the streams and reservoirs
within the San Antonio River Basin are identified
for each watershed. Information regarding Water
Recycling Centers, Wastewater Treatment Plants,
or Wastewater Treatment Facilities was obtained
from the EPA’s Water Discharge Permits website
located at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/pcs-icis/
search.html.
Chloride, Sulfate, and Total Dissolved
Solids
Chloride, sulfate, and TDS criterion in the
TSWQS were developed to represent annual
averages of all values that were collected when
stream flow equaled or exceeded the 7Q2 value
established for each segment. Due to infrequent
monitoring and absence of stream flow
information at many sites, all of the chloride,
sulfate, and TDS values are averaged for all sites
within the segment and compared to the criterion
for each parameter. The assessment of general
uses is based on the average concentration and
applies to the entire length or area of the segment.
For the 2012 IR assessment, for cases where
TDS was not measured, a value is calculated by
multiplying specific conductance measured at the
surface by a factor of 0.65. The chloride, sulfate
and TDS criteria are not supported if the average
value exceeds the criteria.
3.3 TCEQ ASSESSMENT
METhODOLOGY pROCESS
Surface water quality monitoring is the first
component of the assessment process. The
review of data gathered through water quality
monitoring is the next step in a process that
identifies impairments and is used to determine if
actions taken to reduce pollution are working.
Once a water body is placed on the 303(d) List, the
TCEQ may then initiate a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) study. A TMDL study determines
the maximum amount of a pollutant a water body
can receive and still meet the State Surface Water
Quality Standard for that pollutant. The TMDL
study also allocates the amount of pollutant
between point source and nonpoint (runoff)
sources.
Once the TMDL study is completed, an IP may
be initiated. An IP outlines the best management
practices (BMPs) necessary to implement the
TMDL study. The BMPs may be voluntary or
regulatory. With both the TMDL and the IP
process, there is always a public comment period
where the public may provide comments.
3.4 TExAS DROuGhT
The state is no stranger to drought conditions.
Texas climatologists have indicated the
drought of 2011 was the worst single year
drought in recorded history. It was estimated
that approximately 97 percent of the state was
experiencing extreme or exceptional drought
conditions, including Bexar, Wilson, Karnes and
Goliad counties. (See figures 6 and 7.)
As a result of the 2011 drought conditions
throughout Texas, Governor Rick Perry,
Governor of the State of Texas, issued an
Emergency Disaster Proclamation on July 5, 2011,
certifying that exceptional drought conditions
posed a threat of imminent disaster in specified
counties in Texas. This Proclamation was
renewed on October 30, 2012. The Proclamation
states that record high temperatures, preceded
by significantly low rainfall, have resulted in
declining reservoir and aquifer levels, threatening
water supplies and delivery systems in many parts
of the state. Karnes and Goliad counties were
mentioned in the Proclamation.
To ensure continuity of statewide routine Surface
Water Quality Monitoring (SWQM) activities
during extended periods of drought the TCEQ
issued an Interim Guidance for Routine Surface
Water Quality Monitoring During Extended
Drought located at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/
assets/public/compliance/monops/water/wqm/
interim_droughtguidance.pdf. The guidance
states that if the monitoring site is dry, collecting
entities are to go ahead and collect routine
samples within 400 meters of the site. If the
monitoring site is dry and if there are pools
within 400 meters, the pool maybe sampled so
long as the pool meets certain size and depth
criteria as stated in the guidance. To maintain
sample integrity, the TCEQ guidelines require
documentation of the conditions found at
drought-affected locations with photographs and
detailed site descriptions of water conditions.
U.S. Drought Monitor
September 27, 2011
Valid 7 a.m. EST
Texas
Drought Conditions (Percent Area)
None D0-D4 D1-D4 D2-D4 D3-D4
Current
Last Week
(09/20/2011 map)
3 Months Ago
D4
0.00
100.00 100.00 99.16
96.65
85.75
0.00
100.00 100.00 99.03
96.10
85.43
2.68
97.32
95.71
94.52
90.62
72.32
Start of
Calendar Year
7.89
92.11
69.43
37.46
9.59
0.00
Start of
Water Year
75.57
24.43
2.43
0.99
0.00
0.00
77.29
22.71
3.34
0.97
0.00
0.00
(06/28/2011 map)
(12/28/2010 map)
(09/28/2010 map)
One Year Ago
(09/21/2010 map)
Intensity:
D0 Abnormally Dry
D3 Drought - Extreme
D1 Drought - Moderate
D4 Drought - Exceptional
D2 Drought - Severe
The Drought Monitor focuses on broad-scale conditions.
Local conditions may vary. See accompanying text summary
for forecast statements.
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu
Released Thursday, September 29, 2011
Michael Brewer, National Climatic Data Center, NOAA
41
August 2011
May 2012
The extended drought conditions are resulting in declining reservoir and aquifer levels, threaten drinking water supplies and increase
threat of wildfire. The fluctuation of the water’s pH as a result of drought conditions may also adversely affects water quality and biological
communities by concentrating or increasing toxicity of certain chemicals.
42
3.5 WATERShED SuMMARiES
The purpose the Watershed Summary section
is to develop a greater understanding of water
quality conditions, identify any trends and
changes, and aid in making water quality
Antonio River Basin.
The data is arranged from upstream to
downstream for the following watersheds in the
•
San Antonio River
•
Cibolo Creek
•
Medina River and Lakes
•
Leon Creek
•
Salado Creek
•
Medio Creek
The Water Quality Impairment, Concern and
Long-Term Trend table is provided to visually
identify the watershed’s level of support as
identified in the 2012 Texas Integrated Report
for Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d).
This table details all the individual AUs and
associated stations for both classified and
unclassified segments in the watershed, associated
surface quality standards and nutrient screening
criteria, and any detected trends. Specific station
descriptions along with the latitude/longitude
coordinates can be viewed at the TCEQ website
located at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/
clean-rivers/data/station.html. If the segment AU
is meeting the assigned designated water uses it
is identified as Fully Supporting (FS). If an AU
is Nonsupporting (NS) its designated uses, the
water body is referred to as “impaired”. If the AU
is close to violating the water quality standard or
screening level, the AU is identified as a Concern
for near nonattainment of the water quality
standard (CN), or as a Concern for water quality
based on screening levels (CS). No Concern (NC)
is used for parameters within screening levels or
Each watershed summary contains a map,
watershed characteristics, segment location
description, information on special projects
and technical data analysis. Discussions are
also included to summarize any aquatic life
and habitat evaluations conducted during the
assessment period. The technical data analysis
section includes two tables. The Water Quality
Summary table provides a big-picture view of
the impairments and concerns in the watershed,
possible sources and solutions/actions taken
to assess the issues, and any comments voiced
by stakeholders. The impairments in the Water
Quality Summary table are in red text, concerns
are in black text.
43
for parameters that have limited or inadequate
data but have compelling evidence of support of
the standard. A status of Not Assessed (NA) may
be identified where parameters were not assessed
for the 2012 IR. Limited or inadequate are
identified with a black polka dot fill-in font.
For select station(s), parameter trends, either
increasing or decreasing ( or ) are identified
at the end of each table. There are two types
of trending graphs that may appear in the
Watershed Water Quality Summaries, 1) flow
values and parameter concentrations over time,
and 2) parameter concentrations over flow values.
44
For graphs displaying flow values and
parameter concentrations over time. Parameter
concentrations are represented by the
unconnected orange dots (• ) and flow values
are represented by the blue dots connected by
a blue line (–• –). The dashed red line (----) is
the parameter’s Texas Surface Water Quality
Standard (TSWQS), or screening level (SL). The
parameter’s trend-line against time is shown
in black (
). An example of the parameter
concentration over time for Station 12916, Medio
Creek at Hidden Valley Campground can be seen
in below (left).
In the graphs displaying parameter
concentrations over flow values, parameter
concentrations are represented by the orange
dots (• ). The parameter’s trend-line against flow is
shown in black (
). An example of parameter
concentrations over flow values for Station 14197,
Cibolo Creek at Sculls Crossing can be seen below
(right).
Kendall
Caldwell
Comal
Bandera
LERIN HILLS MUD WWTP
!
.
Guadalupe
13658
^
po
^
^
^
^
Bexar
^
^
^^
^
^
^^
^
^
^
po
^
^
^
^
^
^^
^
^
^^
!
.^
^
CARLISLE FACILITY 001
Medina
12705
Kendall
1911B_02
Assessment Units
1911_01
1911_04
1911D_02
LERIN HILLS MUD WWTP
1911_05
1911E_01
1911_06
1911H_01
1911_07
1911A_01
1911B_01
12889
1911D_01
Medina
18814
15308
Bexar
^
20345
15707
^
12899
^ 20360
^!. 15085
^
14219
^ 18865
20605
^
20604
^
^ ^
20606
20117
20120
18737
^
^^
12712
^
^
20344
12715
20121
^
20118
^^
14223
^ po
^ ^ ^^ ^
^
18735
^
^
^ 12708
12710
20119
12707
12769
^
20116
12911
18859
12908
^
12716
at Convention Center
20122
Gonzales
12905
12904
20361
^
14220
^^
18736
14256
!
.
17066
WALTER EDWIN PIPES WWTP
^
^ ^ 12761
12885
Wilson
Comal
^ ^ ^
12883
^
12886
12884
^ 12882
20355
!
.
^!.
Upper San
^ Antonio River Watershed
^
Guadalupe
20350
^
^
Monitoring Stations
!
.
Wastewater Facilities & Recycling Centers
12880
Unclassifed Stream Segment
12881
Segment 1911
^
po
^
^
^
^
Bexar
12879
^
^
^^
^
^
^^
^
^
^
o
p
^
^
^
^
^
^^
^^
^
15308
^
^
^
Karnes
!
. ^
10
20 Miles
12899
^
^
20
40 Kilometers
12705
^
12769
12897
^
20638
^!.
^
1911B_02
12894
^ ^ 12761
12885
1911C_01
16731
Oak
^ ^Live ^
12883
1911C_02
^
12889
12886
1911D_01
12884
^ 4512882
20355
Dewitt
Flow Augmentation Sites
Population Centers
0
0
Assessment Units
1911_01
1911_02
1911_03
1911_04
5
10
C
CITY OF FLORESVILLE WWTP
13658
Atascosa
Frio
^
^
1911H_02
po
near Witte Museum
18813
12718
^!.
12912
op^^
po!.
^
near Brackenridge Road
!
.
16731
1911C_02
1911_03
1911_09
12894
1911C_01
1911_02
Bandera
1911_08
^^
^
12897
^
20638
^
Segment 1911
Segment 1911
Gonza
¯
WALTER EDWIN PIPES WWTP
1911D_02
Wilson
Goliad
uppER SAN ANTONiO
WATERShED - SEGMENT 1911
Unclassified segments of the Upper San Antonio
River assessed in the 2012 IR include:
TCEQ documentation describes the Upper San
Antonio River Segment 1911 as extending from
a point 600 meters (660 yards) downstream
of FM 791 at Mays Crossing near Falls City in
Karnes County to a point 100 meters (110 yards)
upstream of Hildebrand Avenue at San Antonio
in Bexar County. Approximate drainage area of
the entire Upper San Antonio River Watershed is
558 square miles. Major tributaries to the Upper
San Antonio River include Medina River and
Salado Creek. Throughout most of its length the
physical characteristics of the Upper San Antonio
River are influenced by geological formations
of the Gulf Coastal Plains Province. The San
Antonio River originates as natural spring flow
from the Edwards Aquifer south of the Balcones
Fault Zone then flows over the Gulf Coastal Plains
of the Central Plains Province. The watershed has
an average yearly rainfall of 26 to 34 inches. Base
flow of the Upper San Antonio River is artificially
maintained with well water discharges from the
San Antonio Zoo and reuse water from the City of
San Antonio WWTRCs. The San Antonio Water
System began introducing reuse water into the
San Antonio River at Brackenridge Park, next
to the Witte Museum in June of 2000 and in the
River Walk at the Henry B. Gonzales Convention
Center in August 2006.
•
Segment 1911B Apache Creek
•
Segment 1911C Alazan Creek
•
Segment 1911D San Pedro Creek
•
Segment 1911E Sixmile Creek
•
Segment 1911H Picosa Creek
Based on analysis by SARA on spatial data from
the TCEQ and the USGS, the estimated land
use land cover for the Upper San Antonio River
Watershed is: Agricultural 30.3%, Barren 0.5%,
Forest 27.7%, Urban Development 29.2%, Water
1.6%, and Wetlands 2.8%.
46
As a result of insufficient data, Olmos Creek
(1911A), Calaveras Reservoir (1911F) and Braunig
Reservoir (1911G) were not assessed in the 2012
IR.
through two 24-foot diameter tunnels and release
the flood waters south of the downtown area.
Five 18th century Spanish missions reside along
upper reaches of the San Antonio River, including
Mission Espada, Mission Concepcion, Mission
San José, and Mission San Juan Capistrano. The
most famous mission is San Antonio de Valero,
better known as the Alamo. The waterway is also
home to the San Antonio River Walk, one of San
Antonio's primary tourist destinations and the
centerpiece of the city.
The San Antonio River essentially begins under
another name – Olmos Creek, which has its
headwaters just north of Loop 1604. Just south of
Olmos Dam, the San Antonio Springs discharge
at rates of 0 to 100 cfs, depending upon the level
of the Edwards Aquifer (SAR WPP, December
2006). The riparian habitat between Olmos Dam
and Brackenridge Park is dense and includes
a variety of trees and plants such as live oak,
hackberry, cedar elm, pecan, Texas oak, Texas
persimmon, lantana, and cutgrass. At this point,
the creek becomes known as the San Antonio
River which the flows through the heavily
urbanized downtown district of San Antonio.
As the San Antonio River flows past South Loop
410 into its rural segment, it becomes wider and
deeper and takes on the natural characteristics
of South Texas streams influenced by the geology
of the Gulf Coastal Plains. Unusual features in
this watershed are the flood control tunnels on
the San Antonio River and San Pedro Creek. The
tunnels collect flood water north of the historic
downtown area and divert it underground
The Environmental Protection Agency
Envirofacts website located at http://www.epa.
gov/enviro/facts/pcs-icis/search.html, identifies
geographic coordinates for the following
permitted municipal and industrial wastewater
facilities which fall in the Upper San Antonio
River Watershed:
•
Lerin Hills Mud WWTP
•
Carlisle Facility 001
•
Walter Edwin Pipes WWTP
•
City of Floresville WWTP
The Upper San Antonio River, Segment 1911
has a high aquatic life use designation and is not
classified for domestic water supply use. Like
all segments in the San Antonio River Basin,
this segment is designated for primary contact
recreation however; the City of San Antonio
has an ordinance that forbids swimming in any
portion of the San Antonio River within the
corporate limits. Contact recreation includes
activities such as swimming, wading by children,
diving, tubing, surfing, kayaking, canoeing and
rafting.
Water Quality Summary
According to the 2012 IR, bacteria impairments
have been identified throughout the watershed.
Some fish community and depressed DO
impairments have also been documented. Habitat,
nutrients, depressed oxygen and chlorophyll-a
have been listed as concerns. The Water Quality
possible sources and solutions/actions taken to
assess the issues. The impairments in the Water
are in black text.
Segment 1911 – Upper San Antonio River
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area of
Watershed
Possible Sources/ Comments Voiced by
Stakeholders
Possible Solutions / Actions Taken
E. coli
Upper and Lower
• Direct and indirect stormwater runoff
sources of fecal matter from domestic
and wild animals
• Sewer breaks and overflows
• Poorly maintained septic tank
systems
The Upper San Antonio River WPP is being revised to include additional BMPs that what
would abate or control nonpoint source pollution of E. coli bacteria, suspended sediments
and excess nutrients in the Upper San Antonio River watershed. Monitoring of established
and ongoing instream sites will also be conducted to document the BMPs’ effectiveness.
The TCEQ has contracted with Texas AgriLife Research to facilitate the development of the
TMDL Implementation Plan in the Upper San Antonio River Watershed.
Nitrate
Entire Segment
Ortho-Phosphorus
Upper and Lower
Total Phosphorus
Upper and Lower
• Wastewater treatment plant discharge
• Improper use of fertilizers
• Organic matter carried to river with
stormwater runoff
There are no state numerical nutrient stream water quality standards, only screening
criteria. Phosphorus, ammonia, nitrate, and chlorophyll-a data is utilized to indicate areas
of possible concern. Continue monitoring in support of the TCEQ efforts to establish
freshwater stream nutrient criteria.
Maintain sample collection.
Fish Community
and Habitat
Upper
The upper portions of the San Antonio
River have been highly engineered
for flood water conveyance. The San
Antonio River Improvement Projects
are expected to improve habitat and fish
communities.
The Eagleland Restoration Project (one-mile reach) was completed December 2012. The
Mission Reach Restoration Project (eight-mile reach) is scheduled to be completed by
August 2013.
Restoration efforts associated with these projects are expected to help oxygenate the water,
reduce sediment in the water, and restore the structural diversity of the river to support a
variety of ecosystem functions and aquatic wildlife.
47
Segment 1911A – Olmos Creek
Segment 1911B – Apache Creek
Segment 1911C - Alazan Creek
Segment 1911D - San Pedro Creek
Segment 1911E - Sixmile Creek
Segment 1911H - Picosa Creek
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area of
Watershed
Possible Influences/ Comments Voiced
by Stakeholders
E. coli
Apache, Alazan,
San Pedro, Sixmile
Creeks
• Direct and indirect (stormwater
runoff) sources of fecal matter from
domestic and wild animals
The Upper San Antonio River Watershed WPP is being revised to include additional
BMPs that would abate or control nonpoint source pollution of E. coli bacteria, suspended
sediments and excess nutrients in the Westside Creeks of the Upper San Antonio River
Watershed.
Depressed DO
Apache, San Pedro,
Picosa Creeks
Intermittent low flows, poor riparian
Category 5c has been assigned to this impairment: additional data and information should
buffer vegetation, low channel sinuosity, be collected before a TMDL is scheduled.
and shallow depth
Ammonia
Alazan Creek
Nitrate
San Pedro Creek
Chlorophyll-a
Alazan Creek
stormwater runoff
Special Projects in the Upper San Antonio
Watershed
SARA and the San Antonio Metropolitan Health
District.
The USGS conducted the Characterization of
Sediment Quality in the San Antonio Area,
South Central Texas study. The study sampled
bed sediment and large volume suspended solids
in Segments 1902, 1906, 1910, 1911 and 1912.
Analyses included major and trace elements
(including Mercury) and organic compounds
including: DDT, Chlordane, Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). The final USGS report
is located at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3090/
FS11-3090.pdf. This project is being sponsored by
USGS Occurrence and Distribution of
Pharmaceuticals, Hormones and Wastewater
Compounds in the San Antonio River Basin,
Texas, 2011-14: The objective of the study is
to assess the occurrence and concentrations
of hormone, pharmaceutical and wastewater
compounds throughout the San Antonio River
Watershed. Estimated project closing date is
January 2014. This project is being sponsored by
SARA.
48
USGS and SARA Study: Assessing the San
Antonio River Watershed for Contaminants from
Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid and Water Produced
by Oil and Gas Activities. The study addresses
the need to initiate and refine an appropriate
suite of water-quality measurements for detecting
and monitoring hydraulic fracturing fluid and
produced water-derived contaminants in surface
water of the lower San Antonio River Watershed.
To accomplish this goal, this project will (1)
review available data on hydraulic fracturing
fluids and existing data from monitoring sites and
previous studies within the watershed to develop
and refine a priority list of analytical schedules,
and (2) collect and analyze surface water and
sediment samples for compounds known to
be associated with hydraulic fracturing fluids
and produced waters resulting from oil and gas
production activities.
Three Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria in
the San Antonio Area for Segment Numbers: The
Upper San Antonio River and Salado Creek were
first identified as impaired due to bacteria in the
2000 Texas Water Quality Inventory and 303(d)
List (TCEQ 2000). Walzem Creek was added to
the list in 2002. The TCEQ adopted these TMDLs
on July 25, 2007, the EPA approved them on
September 25, 2007, at which time they became
part of the state's Water Quality Management
Plan.
Upper San Antonio River Watershed Protection
Plan (EPA 319 Grand administered through the
TCEQ): In an effort to enhance the urban reaches
of the Upper San Antonio River (Segment 1911)
and improve and protect water quality, the project
will update the 2006 Upper San Antonio River
WPP. The revised WPP will identify and propose
water quality best management practices (BMPs)
that would serve to abate or control nonpoint
source pollution of E. coli bacteria, suspended
sediments and excess nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorous) in the Upper San Antonio River
Watershed. The water quality goals of the project
are to develop a plan for implementation of
approved BMPs that would aid in reducing E. coli
nonpoint source (NPS) loads to the Upper San
Antonio River. SARA and the Bexar Regional
Watershed Management (BRWM) partnership’s
objectives are to have the Upper San Antonio
River compliant with the State of Texas Surface
Water Quality Contact Recreation Standard,
which is a geometric mean of less than 126 E. coli
organisms per 100 milliliters.
Westside Creeks Restoration Project: The
Westside Creeks Restoration Project is a
community-based planning effort focused
on advancing concepts for restoring the
environmental conditions of the Alazan,
Apache, Martinez, and San Pedro Creeks, while
maintaining or enhancing their current flood
control components, and provides increased
opportunities for people to enjoy these urban
creeks. The project area includes approximately
14 miles of creekway primarily located in
the city’s urban core. To date, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is testing a new planning
paradigm by documenting the investigations,
studies, and analyses to determine the feasibility
of implementing ecosystem restoration and
recreation along the Westside Creeks. The project
will provide concepts for ecosystem restoration
that will increase the biological stability of the
creeks and reintroduce native plants. Within
Elmendorf Lake Park, situated on Apache Creek,
park improvements will include improved
recreational amenities as well as water quality
best management practices. Following design,
construction will commence in a phased manner.
The Westside Creeks project has included
significant public involvement by an oversight
committee comprised of two co-chairs and
community leaders representing 20 organizations
throughout the City of San Antonio and its
Westside. Community input has driven the
design concepts for environmental restoration of
these creeks and recreational components of the
project.
SARA, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
(TPWD) and Texas State University (TxST)
partnership, through a National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation Grant: Reintroduction of
the Guadalupe Bass into the San Antonio River
Basin Project. The project will collect Guadalupe
Bass (Micropterus treculi) adults, verify the
fish for genetic integrity, tag, and reintroduce
the fish into the restored reach of the Upper
San Antonio River. Evaluation of efforts will
begin six months after the reintroduction to
document movement, reproduction, recruitment
and preferred habitat. Evaluation data will assist
future habitat restoration efforts throughout the
species’ native range. As part of the San Antonio
River Restoration Projects, the overall outcomes
expected are to reintroduce the Guadalupe Bass
to the Upper San Antonio River, expand its range
and distribution, and improve the biotic integrity
of the Upper San Antonio River.
The San Antonio River Improvements Project
(SARIP) is a $358.3 million ongoing investment
by the City of San Antonio, Bexar County, San
Antonio River Authority (SARA), the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the San Antonio River
Foundation in flood control, amenities, ecosystem
restoration and recreational improvements
along 13 miles of the San Antonio River from
Hildebrand Avenue south to Loop 410 South.
San Antonio River Improvement Project (SARIP)
is comprised of four distinctive reaches: The
Museum Reach, the Downtown Reach, the
Eagleland Reach, and the Mission Reach. The
project in the Mission Reach areas aims to
restore native habitat and the natural meander
of the river, improve water quality, along with
developing new recreational opportunities.
49
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the Upper San Antonio River Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Segment 1911 - Upper San Antonio River
Segment_AU
1911_01
1911_02
1911_03
1911_04
1911_05
Biological
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Fish
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
IBI Score 41
NA
NC
NA
CS
CS
CS
NA
CS
CS
CS
CS
CS
NA
NC
NA
750 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
o
32.2 C
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NA
NC
NC
NA
FS
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
FS
FS
NA
FS
FS
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
CS
CS
CS
NA
NA
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NC
NC
FS
FS
FS
NC
CS
NA
CS
NC
NA
NA
perennial
perennial
perennial
Aquatic Life
Use
high
high
high
perennial
perennial
Flow Type
E. coli
geomean
126
CFU/100ml
NS
NS
NS
Chloride
Stations in the
Segment
12879
12880
12881
12882, 12883,
12884, 12885
12886, 12889,
20355
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Oxygen
Dissolved
24 Hour
24 Hour
Grab
Oxygen
Dissolved Dissolved
Screening
Grab
Oxygen
Oxygen
Average
Minimum Average
Minimum pH Range
Sulfate
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
Temperature
NA
NA
NA
Habitat
HBI Score
20
NA
NA
NA
Macro
Benthic
Score
29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1911_06
12894; 16731
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NC
NC
FS
FS
FS
NC
CS
NC
NC
NC
FS
(41.00)
1911_07
12897, 20638
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
NS
NC
CS
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
(22.00)
CS
(19.30)
CS
(17.00)
CS
(18.66)
1911_08
1911_09
12899, 15308,
17066
1290, 12905,
12908, 12911,
12912, 14219,
14220, 14223,
14256, 15085,
18859, 18865,
20118, 20122,
20360, 20361
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
NS
NC
CS
NC
NC
NC
CN
(36.40)
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NS
NC
CS
CS
CS
NC
NS
(33.86)
Bacteria Impairment
The Upper San Antonio River and Salado Creek
first identified as impaired due to bacteria in the
List (TCEQ 2000). Walzem Creek was added to
the list in 2002. In response to the listing, the
TCEQ initiated three TMDLs in the San Antonio
Area, which include the Upper San Antonio
River, Salado Creek and Walzem Creek. The goals
of the TMDLs were to determine the maximum
bacteria loading the stream can receive and
still allow support of the contact recreation use.
Indicator bacteria such as E. coli, although not
generally pathogenic, indicate a possible risk
to public health. The criteria for support of the
contact recreation use are based on indicator
bacteria rather than direct measurements of
pathogens. The TCEQ adopted these TMDLs on
50
Discharges from wastewater treatment
facilities and other institutions
Discharges from urban storm sewer systems
Runoff from undeveloped lands
Wildlife deposition
Pets and livestock deposition
Leaking sewer infrastructure
Failing septic systems
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
July 25, 2007. The EPA approved the TMDLs on
September 25, 2007, at which time they became
part of the state's Water Quality Management
Plan. The final TMDL report identified both
regulated and unregulated sources of pollution.
Possible sources or causes of contamination in the
report include:
SARA, in cooperation with local partners and the
TCEQ, completed a WPP for the urban portion of
NA
NA
NA
NA
the Upper San Antonio River (above Loop 410) in
December 2006. The WPP included water quality
monitoring and recommendations for bacteria
control measures. As part of the WPP several
steps have been taken to reduce bacteria:
•
The San Antonio Zoo has moved the hippo
enclosure so waste can be discharged to a
sanitary sewer and not the San Antonio River.
•
Construction of an Ultraviolet Disinfection
Facility to disinfect water being released into
the San Antonio River from the zoo began in
June 2012 and is expected to be completed in
the summer of 2013.
•
Bat colonies, located under the Houston Street
Bridge, have been relocated, so their waste
doesn’t drop directly into the San Antonio
River.
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the Upper San Antonio River Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Segment 1911B - Apache Creek
Segment 1911C - Alazan Creek
Segment 1911D - San Pedro Creek
Segment 1911E - Six Mile Creek
Segement 1911H - Picosa Creek
Sulfate
Temperature
E. coli
geomean
126
CFU/100ml
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
12710, 12712,
15707, 18735,
18814, 20604,
20605, 20606
perennial
intermediate
Segment/AU
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
Alazan Creek
1911C_01
12715, 18737,
20345
intermittent
w/pools
limited
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1911C_02
12716, 12718,
18813, 20344
intermittent
w/pools
limited
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
CS
NC
NC
NC
CS
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
750 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
35 oC
126
CFU/100ml
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
12707, 18736,
20116
perennial
high
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
12708, 20117,
20119, 20120,
20121
perennial
high
NA
NA
NA
CS
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NC
CS
NA
NC
NA
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
750 mg/L
2 mg/L
1.5 mg/L
2 mg/L
1.5 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
35 oC
126
CFU/100ml
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
12705
intermittent
minimal
NA
NA
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
750 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
35 C
126
CFU/100ml
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
20350
intermittent
w/pools
NA
CS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
pH Range
Temperature
E. coli
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Segment/AU
Apache Creek
1911B_01
Segment/AU
San Pedro
Creek
1911D_01
1911D_02
Segment/AU
Six Mile Creek
1911E_01
Segment/AU
Picosa Creek
1911H_01
Stations in the
Segment
Chloride
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Oxygen
Dissolved
24 Hour
24 Hour
Grab
Oxygen
Dissolved Dissolved
Screening
Grab
Oxygen
Oxygen
Average
Minimum Average
Minimum pH Range
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
NA
NA
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
NA
NA
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
NA
limited
NA
750 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
35 oC
NA
CS
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
750 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
35 oC
126
CFU/100ml
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
o
Trends
Seg/AU
1911_01
1911_08
1911_09
Description
Station 12879 San Antonio River at FM 791
Southwest of Falls City
Station 17066-San Antonio River just downstream
of the San Antonio River and San Pedro Creek
Confluence
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Station 12908-San Antonio River at Woodlawn
Dissolved Oxygen Deficit
↑
↓
↑
NC = No Concern
NA = Not Assessed
↑
↑
↑
↑
↓ = Decreasing Trend
51
↑ = Increase Trend
Limited/Inadequate Data
Once the Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility is
operating near the headwaters of the Upper San
Antonio River, SARA anticipates a dramatic
drop in E. coli loading to the urban portion of
the Upper San Antonio River. Once this has
happened, it will become easier to identify other
sources of the E. coli loading of the river.
To continue to address elevated levels of bacteria,
nutrients and other pollutants, the 2006 Upper
San Antonio River WPP is being updated. The
purpose of the update is to assess progress
made since 2006 and to provide significantly
more detailed proposals for implementation of
future BMPs to achieve the needed reduction
in bacteria loads in the river. SARA will work
with local partners to develop a suite of BMPs
recommended for implementation and inventory
suitable locations for BMP implementation.
Stormwater quality monitoring will be conducted
at Alazan Creek, Apache Creek, Martinez Creek
and San Pedro Creek as part of the WPP to
evaluate potential bacteria load reductions and
verify the scale of implementation required to
meet water quality standards. If a sub-watershed
is contributing a significantly higher load of
bacteria and nutrients, future BMPs may be
prioritized for those sub-basins where the higher
loads are being found. The TCEQ has contracted
with Texas AgriLife Research to facilitate the
development of the TMDL Implementation Plan
in the Upper San Antonio River Watershed.
In an effort to assist the public in recreational
planning, SARA monitors three stations weekly
for E. coli (in San Antonio, at the second
crossing of Mission Road, near Floresville in
Wilson County, and Southwest of Falls City in
Karnes County). The data is available on SARA’s
Recreation website located at http://www.saratx.org/parks_and_trails/current_conditions/
current_conditions.php. This website shows a
strong relationship between rainfall and elevated
E. coli values.
Biological Assessment
Biological assessments for the Upper San Antonio
River identify a fish community impairment
and habitat concern Segment 1911_09, from
just upstream of the confluence with San Pedro
Creek up to the upper end of the segment. A fish
community and habitat concern was identified
in 1911_08, and a habitat concern was listed for
1911_07.
For the three assessment units, the fish Index of
Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores ranged from 28 (low)
at Mitchell Street in 2005 to 44 (high) at Heinesh
Ranch in 2010. The average number of individual
fish collected per site was 310 and the average
number of fish species collected at each site was
13. Tolerant individuals made up 79 percent of
52
all individuals collected, and the average number
of intolerant species collected per sampling
event was three. Nonnative individuals made up
51 percent of all individuals collected. Species
collected included the suckermouth catfish, sailfin
molly, Rio Grande cichlid, Mexican tetra, blue
tilapia, redbelly tilapia and the sailfin catfish.
Native species collected included the ghost shiner,
red shiner, central stoneroller, spotted bass,
spotted sunfish, mosquitofish, green sunfish, and
the longear sunfish.
The Habitat Quality Index score ranged from
17 (intermediate) at Mission Road in 2004 to
20 (high) at Mitchell Street in 2005. The Upper
San Antonio River is characterized by well to
poorly defined stream bends. Stream banks are
gently sloping and covered with native grasses
and wildflowers. The average width of the
natural riparian habitat is 10 meters. The upper
reaches of Upper San Antonio River has been
channelized to evacuate flood waters quickly from
the urban portion of the City of San Antonio
and is limited primarily to native grasses and
wildflowers. Average percent tree canopy is 22
percent and includes pecan, hackberry, black
willow, oak, and ash trees. Instream habitat types
include riffles, runs and glides. Gravel and cobble
are the dominant substrate types throughout
Segment 1911. The average number of instream
cover types is eight and includes woody debris,
tree roots, overhanging vegetation, undercut
banks, boulders, and gravel. The average percent
instream cover is 36 percent. Average percent
stream bank erosion is 14 percent.
As discussed in the trending analyses section
below, restoration efforts associated with the
Mission Reach Improvement Project should
help address the aquatic life impairments and
concerns identified in the Upper San Antonio
River Watershed. Restoration efforts associated
with the Mission Reach include the incorporation
of aquatic features such as riffles, runs, pools
and embayments. SARA will continue existing
monitoring efforts in these reaches and will add
additional sites once restoration is completed.
Trending Analyses
Nutrients have been identified as a concern
throughout the Upper San Antonio Watershed.
Springs from the Edwards Aquifer, which feed
the Upper San Antonio River during wet years,
typically have nitrate concentrations close
to or exceeding the State’s screening criteria.
In addition, nitrate nitrogen concentrations
discharged from WWTPs and re-use water
are well above the screening criteria of 1.95
mg/L. Station 12908 San Antonio River at East
Woodlawn is below the re-use water outfall.
Trend analysis conducted for data collected at
Station 12908, indicates increasing trends in
total dissolved solids, nitrate, total phosphorous,
chloride, sulfate and DO deficit (Figures USAR
1-3). Out of the 71 nitrate values used for
trending, 71.4 percent of the values exceeded the
screening level criteria of 1.95 mg/L. Out of the 70
total phosphorus values, 40.8 percent of the values
53
exceeded the screening level criteria of 0.69 mg/L.
Elevated levels of nutrients and extended drought
conditions maybe the likely sources for increasing
trends in DO deficit.
Station 17066 Upper San Antonio River at
Mission Road is located in assessment unit
1911_08, below the Westside Creeks (Alazan,
Apache, Martinez, and San Pedro), approximately
2 miles downstream of the San Pedro Creek
confluence. While increasing trends for total
dissolved solids, chloride and sulfate have been
observed, monitoring data indicate the water
quality at Station 17066 is meeting associated
water quality standards for these parameters.
Increase trending for total dissolved solids,
chloride and sulfate have been detected
throughout the Upper San Antonio River
Watershed and is most likely due to prolonged
drought conditions resulting in an accumulation
of dissolved solids, increased water resource
demands and an increase in the percent of
54
wastewater discharges relative to the total instream water volume (Figures USAR 4-6).
Graphic illustrations of flow and concentration of
total dissolved solids, chloride and sulfate show
that during high flow concentrations decrease
(Figures USAR 7-9).
In addition to increasing total dissolved solids,
chloride and sulfate trends at Station 17066,
increase trends for pH, nitrates, and total
phosphorus have also been detected. Although
temperature shows a decreasing trend, values
are within the TSWQS criteria. In spite of the
additional nutrient loading by re-use water,
it is important to understand that with the
extended drought and diminishing spring flows,
the effluent and reuse water is vital to keep this
portion of the San Antonio River flowing. Station
17066 is located in the SARA Eagleland and
Mission Reach Ecosystem Restoration Project
area. Improvements along the Mission Reach will
focus on ecosystem restoration using a technique
known as fluvial geomorphology, which is the
55
study of the processes and pressures operating
on river systems. This technique will transform
the straightened river by adding sinuosity
where possible while maintaining flood control,
reducing erosion, re-introducing native vegetation
and creating an environment more suitable for
recreation and wildlife. More than three million
cubic yards of soil are being removed in order
to restore and recreate a more natural riverine
environment. Restoration efforts associated with
the Mission Reach include the incorporation of
aquatic features such as riffles, runs, pools and
56
embayments. These features are expected to help
oxygenate the water, reduce sediment in the water,
and restore the structural diversity of the river to
support a variety of ecosystem functions and help
address the aquatic life impairments and concerns
identified in the 2012 IR.
For the 2012 IR, Station 12879 San Antonio
River at FM 791 Southwest of Falls City was the
furthest downstream monitoring station assessed
in the Upper San Antonio River Watershed.
Increasing trends were identified for chloride,
sulfate, total dissolved solids, pH and nitrate.
Graph illustrations of instantaneous flow versus
chloride, total dissolved solids and pH show
that concentrations decrease with increase flow
(Figures USAR 10-12). Increase flows have a
tendency to dilute chloride, total dissolved solids,
pH concentrations and pollutants. Possible
sources for increasing trends include discharges
from municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment facilities, leaks and overflows from
sewage lines and septic tanks, and stormwater
runoff from agricultural and urban land.
Comal
Colorado
Guadalupe
Gonzales
Lower San Antonio River Watershed Lavaca
Bexar
Assessment Units
1901_01
1901_02
Wharton
1901_03
1901_04
Wilson
1901_05
Dewitt
CITY OF FALLS CITY WWTP
Stream Segment 1911
Stream Segment 1901
^
12796
!
.
^
16580
Atascosa
Karnes
^ ^ ^
17861
.
!
!
.
KARNES CITY OF
KARNES CITY, CITY OF (PLT NO.1
17573
Jackson
1901B_01
12795
1901C_01
CITY OF KENEDY WWTF
17860
^
^^
^
!
.
1901A_01
1901A_02
RIDDLEVILLE STREET WWTP
17862
1901_06
1901D_01
12794
^
Monitoring Stations
!
.
!
.
18402
Population Centers
12793
COTTONWOOD WTP
^
17859
17858
^ ^
^
^ ^ !.^
Goliad
18319
18320
16992
CITY OF GOLIAD WWTP
^
12791
12790
McMullen
Live Oak
Bee
0
0
5
10
12.5
^
20 Miles
25
Victoria
50 Kilometers
Refugio
12789
Calhoun
¯
Aransas
57
LOWER SAN ANTONiO
WATERShED – SEGMENT 1901
The Lower San Antonio River starts from the
confluence with the Guadalupe River in Refugio/
Victoria County to a point 600 meters (660 yards)
downstream of FM 791 at Mays crossing near
Falls City in Karnes County. Segment 1901 is 153
miles long and has a watershed of approximately
1,214 square miles. It is located primarily in
Karnes and Goliad counties. The segment receives
flows from two upstream segments: the Upper
San Antonio River, Segment 1911, and Lower
Cibolo Creek, Segment 1902.
post oak savanna; however mesquite, acacia and
prickly pear cactus are now more common. At
the southern end of the watershed is the Western
Gulf Coastal Plains. The watershed has an average
yearly rainfall of 28 to 40 inches. The soils in this
ecoregion are nearly level sands and sandy loams.
Plants in this ecoregion include: mesquite, acacia,
cordgrass marshes, tallgrass and mid-grass
prairies. Although there are population centers,
land uses are predominantly agricultural and
ranching.
Unclassified segments of the Upper San Antonio
River assessed in the 2012 IR include:
use land cover for the Lower San Antonio River
Forest 6.8%, Range 37.8%, Urban Development
4.5%, Water 0.3%, and Wetlands 4.9%.
•
Segment 1901A Escondido Creek
•
Segment 1901B Cabeza Creek
•
Segment 1901C Hord Creek
•
Segment 1901D Lost Creek
According to the geographic coordinates at the
Environmental Protection Agency Envirofacts
website located at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/
facts/pcs-icis/search.html, the following permitted
municipal and industrial wastewater facilities
are located in the Lower San Antonio River
watershed:
As a result of insufficient data, Lost Creek (1901D)
was not assessed in the 2012 IR.
A very small edge of this watershed east of the
Cibolo and San Antonio River confluence is in
the blackland prairie ecoregion. The majority of
the watershed is in the East Central Texas Plains.
This ecoregion is also known as the South Texas
Brush Country. This region has shallow clay
and sandy loam soils, which are gently sloping
to level. The predominant land use is grazing
and crop production. Originally, this area was a
58
•
City of Falls City WWTP
•
City of Karnes
•
City of Karnes City Plt No.1
•
Cottonwood WTP
•
Riddleville Street WWTP
•
City of Kenedy WWTF
•
City of Goliad WWTP
This segment has a high aquatic life use
designation and is not classified for domestic
water supply use. Like all segments in the San
Antonio River Basin, this segment is designated
for primary contact recreation. This includes
rafting.
According to the 2012 IR, bacteria and fish
community impairments have been identified
in the Lower San Antonio River. Habitat and
nutrients have been listed as concerns. The Water
Quality Summary table provides a big picture
view of the impairments and concerns in the
watershed, possible sources and solutions/actions
taken to assess the issues. The impairments in
the Water Quality Summary table are in red text,
concerns are in black text
Segment 1901 – Lower San Antonio River
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area of
Watershed
Stakeholders
E. coli
Entire
systems
• Stormwater runoff sources of fecal
matter from wild animals and intense
livestock production
TCEQ completed a TMDL for bacteria on the Lower San Antonio River on August 20,
2008.
Collect additional data.
As State funding is available, SARA will be applying for the Lower San Antonio River WPP
grant. SARA will be documenting sources of bacteria in the Lower San Antonio River and
tributaries as part of the WPP.
Fish Community
Upper and Lower
The seven-year assessment was based
on two sampling events in 1901_02 and
two in 1901_05
Habitat
Upper
The seven year assessment was based on Collect additional data.
two sampling events in 1901_02
Nitrate Nitrogen
Entire
Ortho-Phosphorus
Entire
Total Phosphorus
Entire
Chlorophyll-a
Upper and Lower
stormwater runoff
Segment 1901A – Escondido Creek
Segment 1901B - Cabeza Creek
Segment 1901C - Hord Creek
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area of
Watershed
Stakeholders
E. coli
Escondido Creek
Cabeza Creek
The listing is based on limited, carried forward or inadequate data.
systems
Collect additional samples.
59
Special Projects in the Lower San Antonio
River Watershed
of hormone, pharmaceutical, and wastewater
SARA.
USGS and SARA Study: Assessing the San
Antonio River Watershed for Contaminants
from Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid and Water
Produced by Oil and Gas Activities. The study
addresses the need to initiate and refine an
appropriate suite of water-quality measurements
for detecting and monitoring hydraulic fracturing
fluid and produced water-derived contaminants
in the lower San Antonio River Watershed. To
accomplish this goal, this project will (1) review
available data on hydraulic fracturing fluids and
existing data from monitoring sites and previous
studies within the watershed to develop and refine
a priority list of analytical schedules, and (2)
collect and analyze surface water and sediment
samples for compounds known to be associated
with hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced
waters resulting from oil and gas production
activities.
Total Maximum Daily Load for Bacteria in the
Lower San Antonio River (LSAR): The LSAR
was first identified as impaired for recreational
use in the 2000. In response to elevated bacteria,
60
the TCEQ developed a total maximum daily
load (TMDL) project to determine the pollutant
reductions necessary to restore water quality in
the river. The goal of the TMDL was to determine
the amount (or load) of a pollutant that the Lower
San Antonio River could receive and still support
its designated uses. The allowable load was then
allocated among categories of sources within
the watershed. The TCEQ adopted the Lower
San Antonio River TMDL on August 20, 2008,
and the EPA approved the TMDL on 20 October
2008. The Lower San Antonio River IP has not
been initiated. The TMDL report is Located at
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/tmdl/34lowersanantoniobac.html#background.
The San Antonio River Basin Nature-Based Park
Resources Plan: The study area encompasses
southern Bexar County (south of IH-10, US
90, and IH-410); and all of Wilson, Karnes,
and Goliad counties. The goals of the naturebased park resources plan have been established
to encourage recreational, educational, and
economic development; to promote public
awareness of those opportunities; and to support
stewardship of local resources through the use of
sustainable materials and maintenance practices.
This plan also provides an opportunity to connect
to, and focus on, the San Antonio River and its
major tributaries. The plan utilizes current local
park planning initiatives as a catalyst for regional
development. Local residents, as well as visitors
to the area, are able to take advantage of singleday and multi-day opportunities. Local projects
(such as the Floresville Hike and Bike Trail or
the Goliad Canoe Trail) can form the basis for
this regional recreational system using the rivers,
roadways, and abandoned rail lines.
Instream Flow Study of the Lower San Antonio
River and Lower Cibolo Creek, Study Design: In
2001, the 77th Texas Legislature enacted Senate
Bill 2 establishing the Texas Instream Flows
Program (TIFP). The State Legislature tasked
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality and
the Texas Water Development Board to work
with stakeholders to develop instream flow
recommendations that will maintain a sound
ecological environment for both the instream
and riverine habitats. The San Antonio River
Authority has been working with these state
agencies on the Lower San Antonio River
and Cibolo Creek Instream Flows Program.
Additional information can be found at http://
www.twdb.texas.gov/surfacewater/flows/instream/ .
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the Lower San Antonio River Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Segment 1901 -Lower San Antonio River
1901_01
Stations in the
Segment
12790
1901_02
1901_03
1901_04
Segment_AU
1901_05
1901_06
Dissolved
Dissolved
Oxygen Grab Oxygen
Screening
Grab
Average
Minimum
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Average
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Minimum
pH Range
Temperature
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
150 mg/L
150 mg/L
750 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 oC
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
Biological
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Fish
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
IBI Score 42
FS
E. coli geomean
126
CFU/100ml
NS
NA
CS
NA
CS
NA
NA
NS
(32.20)
NA
NA
Habitat
HBI Score
20
NA
CS
(16.00)
NA
NA
Macro
Benthic
Score
29
NA
perennial
Aquatic Life
Use
high
12791; 17858;
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
NS
NC
NC
CS
CS
CS
12793;17859
12794
12795; 12796;
16580; 17860;
17861; 17862
12789
perennial
perennial
high
high
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
FS
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
FS
NS
NS
NC
NC
CS
CS
CS
CS
CS
CS
NC
NC
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NC
NC
FS
FS
NS
NC
CS
CS
CS
NC
CN
(31.20)
NA
NA
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
CS
CS
CS
CS
NA
NA
NA
Flow Type
NA
NA
NA
Bacteria Impairments
state's Water Quality Management Plan.
identified in the TMDL report include:
Approximately 120 miles of the Lower San
Antonio River are designated as impaired due
to elevated levels of bacteria. The Lower San
Antonio River was first identified as impaired
for recreational use in the 2000 Texas Water
Quality Inventory and 303(d) List. In response
to the listing, the TCEQ contracted with James
Miertschin and Associates Inc. to develop a
TMDL on the Lower San Antonio River. The
final TMDL report, One Total Maximum Daily
Load for Bacteria in the Lower San Antonio
River, identified possible point and nonpoint
sources of bacteria, and quantified the appropriate
reductions necessary to comply with established
standards for water quality. The goal of the
TMDL was to determine the maximum bacteria
loading the stream can receive and still support
the contact recreation use. Indicator bacteria such
as E. coli, although not generally pathogenic,
indicate a possible risk to public health. The
TCEQ used analyses of flow and load duration
curves (LDCs) in the development of the TMDL.
The TCEQ adopted the TMDL on August 20,
2008. The EPA approved the TMDLs on October
20, 2008, at which time they became part of the
Possible sources or causes of contamination
identified in the TMDL report include:
•
26% of the isolates originated from avian
wildlife
•
12% of the isolates originated from non-avian
wildlife
•
Discharges from wastewater treatment
facilities (WWTFs)
•
Stormwater runoff from both the urban and
non-urban landscapes
•
12% of the isolates originated from sewage
•
10% of the isolates originated from cattle
•
Wildlife and other warm-blooded animal
deposition
•
9% of the isolates originated from other nonavian livestock
•
Pet and livestock deposition
•
6% of the isolates originated from pets
•
Leaking sewer infrastructure
•
•
Failing septic systems
4% of the isolates originated from zoo/exotic
animals
•
21% of the isolates were unidentified
The Lower San Antonio River TMDL utilized
and identified bacterial source tracking (BST)
as a possible method to determine the sources
of E. coli in environmental samples. BST can
be useful in the development of TMDLs as part
of the source assessment, load allocation, and
in the development of an IP or WPP to target
specific sources of bacteria entering a respective
water body. In the development of the Lower San
Antonio River TMDL, BST was utilized to better
define sources of bacteria. The sources of E. coli
While there were several questions about the
reliability of the BST method utilized in the
TMDL, it did show the majority of E. coli bacteria
tested originated from animal sources. Since
the TMDL, microbial source tracking (MST)
methods have greatly improved. As part of the
SARA Stream Monitoring effort, SARA will be
exploring ways to utilize the most current MST
methods to determine the sources of bacterial
contamination in the Lower San Antonio River
61
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the Lower San Antonio River Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Segment 1901A - Escondido Creek
Segment 1901B - Cabeza Creek
Segment 1901C - Hord Creek
Segment/AU
Escondido Creek
1901A_01
Segment/AU
Cabeza Creek
1901B_01
Segment/AU
Hord Creek
1901C_01
18319
pH Range
Temperature
Chloride
Sulfate
150 mg/L
150 mg/L
750 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
35 C
perennial
high
NA
NA
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
150 mg/L
150 mg/L
750 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
o
35 C
limited
NA
NA
NA
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
17573; 18402
16992
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Minimum
Aquatic Life
Use
Flow Type
Stations in the
Segment
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Average
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Stations in the
Segment
Stations in the
Segment
Dissolved
Dissolved
Oxygen Grab Oxygen
Screening
Grab
Average
Minimum
intermittent
w/pools
Flow Type
intermittent
w/pools
Aquatic Life
Use
150 mg/L
150 mg/L
750 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
limited
NA
NA
NA
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
pH Range
o
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
CN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
126
CFU/100ml
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
E. coli geomean
126
CFU/100ml
CN
NC
NC
NA
NC
NA
35 C
126
CFU/100ml
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
NA
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Temperature
E. coli
Grab
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
o
Trends
Seg/AU
1901_02
1901_02
1901_04
Description
Station 12791 San Antonio River Bridge on US 77-A
and 183 Southeast of Goliad
Station 17859 San Antonio River at North Riverdale
Road 15 KM (9.32 miles) West of Goliad Texas
Station 12794 San Antonio River at SH 72 near
Runge
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↓
↑
↑
↑
↓
↑
↑
NC = No Concern
and Lower Cibolo Watersheds. This effort is
currently in the planning phase.
The elevated levels of nutrients and E. coli it
dependent on various sources of contamination,
including input from municipal and industrial
wastewater facilities, and runoff from agricultural
activities and wildlife. Land use for the Lower
San Antonio River Watershed indicates that
urban areas of the watershed account for less
than five percent of the watershed. As a result of
the available land, together with the extended
drought conditions, livestock and wildlife
concentrations normally increase along the river.
SARA field biologists have documented numerous
cattle crossings and feral hog wallows in the
62
NA = Not Assessed
↑
↑
Lower San Antonio River Watershed. A helicopter
survey in early 2012 identified significant
numbers of feral hogs in the watershed. It was
estimated that for every cow seen during the
survey, 50 feral hogs were seen. Feral hogs have
been identified as a key potential contributor of E
coli and nutrients.
compliance with contact recreation use criterion
as defined in the Texas Surface Water Quality
Standards. The TMDL-IP will identify actions,
responsible parties, technical and financial needs,
monitoring and outreach efforts, and a schedule
of activities for each management measure and
control action.
Tentative plans are to initiate a stakeholder driven
Lower San Antonio River bacteria TMDL-IP in
later part of 2013. The intent of the IP is to foster
stewardship of the watershed and commitment
at the local level. Activities in the TMDL-IP
are intended to achieve the E. coli reductions
identified in the TMDL report that are necessary
to bring the Lower San Antonio River back into
In an effort to assist the public in recreational
planning, SARA monitors one station weekly for
E. coli (at Goliad, in Goliad County). The data is
available on SARA’s Recreation Website located at
http://www.sara-tx.org/parks_and_trails/current_
conditions/current_conditions.php. This website
shows a strong relationship between rainfall and
elevated E. coli values.
Biological assessments for the Lower San Antonio
River identify the fish community as impaired
in assessment unit 1901_02 and a concern in
1901_05. The habitat was identified as a concern
in assessment unit 1901_02. Station 12791,
San Antonio River at US 77A in Goliad, is in
assessment unit 1901_02 and was sampled once in
2009 and once in 2010. Station 16580 San Antonio
River at Conquista Crossing is in 1901_05 and
was sampled once in 2008 and once in 2010.
The fish IBI scores for both assessment units
ranged from 22 (low) at Conquista Crossing in
2010 to 37 (intermediate) at Conquista Crossing
in 2008. The average number of individual
fish collected per site was 247 and the average
number of different species collected was 11 per
event. Seventy-five percent of the fish species
collected were considered tolerant and no
intolerant species were collected. Nine percent of
all species collected were considered non-native
and included the suckermouth catfish, sailfin
molly, Amazon molly, Rio Grande cichlid and the
Mexican tetra. Native species collected included
the red shiner, bullhead minnow, channel catfish,
flathead catfish, Gambusia affinis, green sunfish,
bluegill sunfish, and the longear sunfish.
The Habitat Quality Index score ranged from
16 (intermediate) at US 77A in Goliad, Texas in
2009 and 2010 to 23 (high) at Conquista Crossing
in 2008. The Lower San Antonio River stream
channel is characterized by well to poorly defined
stream bends. Stream banks are gently sloping to
high steep banks covered with dense hardwood
riparian forest. Average width of the natural
riparian habitat within Segment 1901 is 20 meters
and includes native hardwood trees, shrubs and
grasses. Average percent tree canopy is 59 percent
and includes pecan, elm, hackberry, black willow,
cottonwood, oak, cypress, and ash trees.
The fish impairment and habitat concern in
the Lower San Antonio River, assessment unit
1901_02 is due to a lack of habitat types and
minimal number of sample collections over the
assessment period; one collection event in both
2009 and 2010. The sample site is characterized as
one glide with no pools or riffle microhabitats. To
determine if there are better representative sample
sites for the assessment unit, SARA will conduct
field reconnaissance upstream of the Station
12791, San Antonio River at US 77A in Goliad,
and may adjust future biological collections
accordingly. The fish community concern in
assessment unit 1901_05 is based on two sampling
events and is believed to be the result of limited
habitat types; bedrock and gravel are dominant
substrate types at Conquista Crossing. As funds
become available, SARA may conduct additional
field reconnaissance in 1901_05 to determine if
there are better representative sample sites.
Trending Analyses
For the 2012 IR, Station 12794 San Antonio
River at SH 72 near Runge was the only station
assessed in assessment unit 1901_04. The
sampling station is located below the Karnes City,
Kenedy, and Goliad WWTPs. Assessment unit
1901_04 fully supports its general and aquatic life
uses according to the 2012 IR. However, with a
geometric mean of 207.33 CFU/100mL, it does not
support contact recreation based on a geometric
63
mean above the State Water Quality Standard of
126 CFU/100mL. To prevent biasing the trends,
while maintaining trending criteria, data from
inconsistent sample collections between 2009
through 2012, were not included. Increasing
trends for chloride, pH, ammonia, nitrate and
total phosphorous were identified; a decrease
trend in DO deficit was also detected (Figure
LSAR 1-3).
In addition to increasing trends for chloride, pH
and nitrogen, a decreasing trend for temperature
has been detected at Station 17859 San Antonio
River at North Riverdale Road; all but two
chloride values are within accepting TSWQS
ranges and screening levels (Figure LSAR 4-6).
For Station 12791 San Antonio River Bridge on
US 77-A and 183 southeast of Goliad, significant
statistically increasing trends were identified for
chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids, pH, and
nitrate (Figures LSAR 7-9). The increasing pH
trend is consistent with increasing pH trends in
64
both the Upper and Lower San Antonio River
Watersheds. There were 179 pH values collected
at Station 12791. The values range from 7.6 to 9.1
with a median value of 8.1. Only one pH value
in 10 years was above the TSWQS. Drought
conditions resulting in low flows together with
elevated levels of nutrients may have resulted in
an excessive increase in the growth of aquatic
plants and algae. During photosynthesis plants
take up carbon dioxide resulting in an increase in
water pH. Although there was inadequate data to
trend chlorophyll-a, data collected between June
1, 2008 and June 1, 2012, data indicate elevated
chlorophyll-a levels between 20 µg/L and 75 µg/L
in low-flow conditions. Although chlorophyll-a
appears to be increasing over time, until sufficient
data is available no solid conclusions can be made.
65
Blanco
Kendall
Kerr
Hays
12857
12858
12854
^^
CITY OF BOERNE WWTP
Bandera
Comal
12855
^^
^
^^
12856
16702
12853
15126
12927
Stream Segment 1908
Stream Segment 1913
Cibolo Creek Watershed
12924
SCHERTZ WWFT
^^!.^
^ !.
^
!
. !
.
^
^
14201
14923
15303
Bexar
!
. !
^
.
^
!
.
^ !.^
UPPER MARTINEZ CREEK WWTF
12749
MARTINEZ II WWTP
15305
Assessment Units
1902_01
1902B_02
1902_02
1908_01
1902_03
1908_02
1902_04
1908_03
1902_05
1913_01
1902A_01
1913_02
1902A_02
1913_03
!
.
CITY OF MARION WWTP
MEADOW VIEW PARK WWTP 1
12921
Stream Segment 1913
Stream Segment 1902
12919
^
12741
15306
14197
^
14203
!
.
MARTINEZ III WWTF
GRAYTOWN ROAD WWTP
QUAIL RUN WWTP
^
12805
CITY OF STOCKDALE WWTP
!
.
12803
Wilson
^
Monitoring Stations
1902A_04
!
.
^
12798
14211
Population Centers
1902B_01
Atascosa
Frio
0
0
5
5
10
10
20 Miles
20777
^
Karnes^
20 Kilometers
12797
66
Gonzales
CITY OF LA VERNIA WWTP
!
.
1902A_03
1902A_05
Guadalupe
12925
14212
SALATRILLO CREEK
Medina
Caldwell
CIBOLO CREEK MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY WWTP
!
.
^
^
¯
Dewitt
uppER CiBOLO CREEK
Segment 1908 starts a little more than 10 miles
northwest of the City of Boerne, approximately
one mile upstream of the confluence of Champee
Springs in Kendall County, and ends at the
Missouri-Pacific Railroad Bridge west of Bracken,
Texas. The Upper Cibolo Creek Watershed covers
approximately 228 square miles and contains the
City of Boerne and a portion of Fair Oaks Ranch.
This stream segment has intermittent flow, only
the portion of the Upper Cibolo in and around
the City of Boerne is perennial. Just below the
Cibolo Nature Center in Boerne, the perennial
creek disappears, recharging into the Edwards
Aquifer. Due to significant groundwater recharge
through fractures in the streambed, the lower 43
miles of this segment is often dry. The watershed
has an average yearly rainfall 28 to 36 inches.
There are no unclassified segments of the Upper
Cibolo Creek as identified in the 2012 IR.
This segment is in the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion.
This region is commonly referred to as the Texas
Hill Country. The soils are generally shallow and
underlain by limestone. The limestone rock has
been eroded to create the steep hills in this region.
The hills are dominated by Ashe juniper, Texas
red oak and stunted live oak trees, and sparse
grasses. Rainfall on the Edwards Plateau drains
rapidly into creeks, causing flash floods within
the region and downstream. The rapid flow often
causes scouring of aquatic habitat within the
region. The City of Boerne is located in the upper
northeastern portion of the watershed. Sheep
and goat ranching is common in this area. This
area is becoming more populated with small
hobby ranches and has experienced an increase
in residential development associated with the
growth of the City of Boerne. According to U.S.
Census Bureau information, the population of the
City of Boerne has increased 69.5 percent between
2000 and 2010.
the TCEQ and the USGS, the combined estimated
land use land cover for the Upper, Mid and Lower
Cibolo Creek watersheds are: Agricultural 27.7%,
Barren 0.4%, Forest 22%, Range, 35.9%, Urban
Development 12.1%, Water 0.2%, and Wetlands
1.8%.
67
Segment 1908 – Upper Cibolo Creek
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area of
Watershed
Stakeholders
E. coli
Middle
The TCEQ is the primary monitoring entity in this segment.
matter from livestock production and
wild animals
The City of Boerne, in partnership with the Cibolo Nature Center and local stakeholders,
• Local and migratory
is developing a WPP to restore the contact recreation uses of the creek and to prevent
pollution that could result from population growth in the watershed.
Chloride
Entire
• Wastewater treatment plant discharge Chloride values for all sites within the segment are averaged. The average concentrations
• Low flows and natural weathering
are then used to determine compliance for the entire segment when compared to the
and leaching of sedimentary rocks,
criteria as stated in the TSWQS.
soils and salt deposits can release
chloride into the environment
Ortho-Phosphorus
Lower
Total Phosphorus
Lower
stormwater runoff
criteria. Phosphorus, ammonia, nitrate and chlorophyll-a data is utilized to indicate areas
Habitat
Middle
This site is dominated by cypress trees
and has a very narrow riparian buffer
zone. Lack of stream sinuosity and very
low bank angles also contribute to lack
of habitat.
A wider riparian buffer zone could improve the habitat by allowing overhanging vegetation
and debris.
Stakeholder comment: Nutrient criteria are not a one-size-fits-all condition. As a result of the natural hydrological cycles it might be difficult to
understand what the Upper Cibolo Creek can simulate without eutrophication and habitat destruction. The cycles of drought and flood seem to
have a big impact on the nutrient concentrations as well as the algal growth in the water body.
68
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the Upper Cibolo Creek Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Segment 1908 - Upper Cibolo Creek
Chloride
Segment_AU
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
1908_01
12853, 12854,
12855, 12856,
15126, 16702
perennial
high
NS
1908_02
12857, 12858
perennial
high
1908_03
No Stations
perennial
high
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Dissolved
Oxygen Grab Oxygen
Screening
Grab
Average
Minimum
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Average
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Minimum
pH Range
Temperature
E. coli geomean
126
CFU/100ml
Biological
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Fish
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
IBI Score 42
600 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 oC
FS
FS
SM
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
CS
CS
NC
FS
(51.00)
NS
FS
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
FS
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
E. coli
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Nitrogen*
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
50 mg/L 100 mg/L
Habitat
HBI Score
20
Macro
Benthic
Score
29
NC
(22.80)
FS
(39.00)
CS
(16.00)
NA
NA
NA
Trends
Seg/AU
1908_01
Chloride
Description
Station 16702-Cibolo Creek SE of Boerne
Downstream end of City Park in the Nature
↑
Preserve 1608 meters (0.999 mile) Downstream of
SH46
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
pH Range
Temperature
↑
↑
↓
NC = No Concern
NA = Not Assessed
SM = This assessment method is superceded by another method
*Nitrate + nitrite is the primary method utilized for analyzing surface water in Segment 1908
gov/enviro/facts/pcs-icis/search.html identifies
the geographic coordinates for City of Boerne’s
WWTP as a permitted municipal wastewater
facility located in the Upper Cibolo Creek
Watershed. The City of Boerne’s new Wastewater
Treatment and Recycling Center (WWTRC)
permitted volume is 1.4 MGD on a running
annual average basis.
designation. It is also designated for use as a
public water supply. Aquifer protection use
applies to this segment because it contributes
to recharge of the Edwards Aquifer. Like all
segments in the San Antonio River Basin, TCEQ
has designated this section for primary contact
recreation. This includes activities such as
swimming, wading by children, diving, tubing,
surfing, kayaking, canoeing and rafting.
are in black text.
Upper Cibolo Creek Watershed Water
Quality Summary
The Upper Cibolo Creek WPP: The Upper Cibolo
Creek WPP was developed by the City of Boerne
in partnership with the TCEQ, Cibolo Nature
Center, and local stakeholders. The WPP project
included development of a stakeholder group,
water quality monitoring, modeling, and the
completion of a nine-element WPP. The plan
includes measures and best management practices
(BMPs) to address current sources of bacteria.
In addition, nutrients and other concerns of the
According to the 2012 IR, bacteria and chloride
impairments have been identified in the Upper
Cibolo Creek Watershed. Phosphorus and habitat
have been listed as concerns. The Water Quality
Summary table provides a big picture view of
Special Projects
69
partnership have been incorporated into the
plan. Information on the WPP is located at http://
www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/nonpoint-source/
projects/uppercibolo-wpp#background.
Bacteria Impairment
As a result of elevated bacteria, the Upper Cibolo
Creek was identified as impaired for recreational
use in the 2006 Texas Water Quality Inventory
and 303(d) List. Prior to a TCEQ initiated
TMDL, the City of Boerne proactively initiated
the Upper Cibolo Creek WPP in August 2009.
This WPP is one of the first community initiated
WPPs in Texas. As a result of the WPP, the
Upper Cibolo Creek Watershed Partnership was
formed to promote stakeholder cooperation and
ensure the views of local citizens, special interest
groups, businesses, and governing bodies were
represented in the watershed planning process.
By utilizing the watershed approach, stakeholders
worked together in topical focus groups,
70
stakeholder, steering committee, and technical
advisory committee meetings to understand
why local water quality problems exist. Through
these meetings sources such as agricultural land
management practices, on-site sewer facilities,
populations and impacts of feral hogs, spatial
distribution of white-tailed and axis deer, pet
wastes, cliff swallow nesting sites, and seasonal
and spatial variations in waterfowl abundance
were identified as potential contributors to
bacteria loads. For modeling purposes, the
identified sources were grouped into three broad
categories; wildlife, agriculture, and urban/
residential. Using estimated load contributions,
stakeholders are developing specific BMPs
and strategies to target these sources in order
to achieve pollutant load reductions that are
sustainable and cost effective. The WPP has been
drafted and the City of Boerne is addressing
public comments.
The City of Boerne has built a new WWTRC and
plans to provide re-use water for landscape and
agricultural irrigation as well as other uses. The
new WWTRC is located at 41 Old San Antonio
Road, approximately two miles southeast of the
intersection of I-10 and Highway 46. The new
WWTRC will have stricter effluent limits and
should help address the impairment and concerns
in the Upper Cibolo Creek.
Chloride Impairment
The Upper Cibolo Creek Watershed is impaired
based on elevated levels of chloride. Due to the
infrequent monitoring and absence of stream flow
information at many sites, requirements as stated
in the Guidance for Assessing and Reporting
Surface Water Quality in Texas indicate that all
chloride values are averaged for all sites within
the segment. The average concentration is then
used to determine compliance for the entire
segment. The chloride general use criteria are not
supported if the average value exceeds the criteria
as stated in the TSWQS.
The Upper Cibolo Creek Watershed is located
in the Texas Hill Country where limestone is
covered with a thin layer of topsoil, which makes
the region prone to flash flooding. When flash
flooding occurs during heavy rainfall events,
the high velocity of water tends to scour the
streambed down to bedrock. Although the
chloride impairment may be partially attributed
to the dissolution of minerals from naturally
occurring geologic deposits, the water quality has
been greatly impacted by drought conditions and
municipal discharge.
This site is dominated by cypress trees and has
a very narrow riparian buffer zone. Lack of
stream sinuosity and very low bank angles also
contribute to lack of habitat.
A wider riparian
buffer zone could improve the habitat by allowing
overhanging vegetation and debris. As mentioned
in the section above, the scouring effects due to
flash flooding may also be contributing factor
to the habitat concern identified in assessment
unit 1908_02. It should be noted that the habitat
concern identified in the 2012 IR was based
on limited data that was carried forward from
previous assessments; no metadata was provided
for the assessment of 1908_02.
Trending Analyses
Increasing trends for chloride, total dissolved
solids and total phosphorous were detected at
Station 16702, Upper Cibolo Creek at the end of
the Nature Preserve (Figure UCC-3). Although a
decreasing ammonia trend was detected, it should
be noted that concentrations have stabilized since
June 2006.
71
MiD CiBOLO CREEK
Mid Cibolo Creek, Segment 1913, begins at the
Missouri-Pacific Railroad Bridge west of the
City of Bracken and ends 110 yards downstream
of IH-10. This segment of the Cibolo acts as the
county boundary between Bexar and Comal
County and Bexar and Guadalupe County. The
watershed is approximately 19 miles long and has
an approximate drainage area of 46 square miles.
Segment 1913_03, from a point 100 meters (110
yards) upstream of the Cibolo Creek Municipal
WWTP up to the upper end of the segment, is
located in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge zone. As
a result, there is little or no flow in the upper reach
of the creek during the drier portions of the year.
The Mid Cibolo is almost entirely on the Texas
Blackland Prairie. This ecoregion is characterized
by deep, dark-colored, rich clay soils, also known
as vertisol soils, which are gently sloping to level.
Vertisol soils expand and shrink with moisture,
causing cracks in the soil when it is dry. The deep,
rich soils make the blackland prairie ideal for row
crops, but in the San Antonio River Basin, this
area is dominated by urbanization. Originally
a tall grassland prairie, most of the original
prairie has been replaced by urbanization and
agriculture. Mesquite, blackjack and post oak
trees are common.
According to geographic coordinates from the
municipal or industrial wastewater facilities are
located in the Mid Cibolo Creek Watershed:
•
Cibolo Creek Municipal Authority WWTP
•
Schertz WWTF
This segment has a limited aquatic life use
for primary contact recreation. Contact recreation
includes activities such as swimming, wading
by children, diving, tubing, surfing, kayaking,
canoeing and rafting.
Segment 1913 – Mid Cibolo Creek
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area of
Watershed
Possible Sources/ Comments Voiced by Stakeholders
Depressed DO
Middle
• Elevated Nutrients
• Low Flows
TCEQ is monitoring in this segment.
CCMA Odo J. Riedel Water Reclamation Plant upgrades have helped
address the depressed DO levels and grab DO trends continue to show
improvement. The state’s monitoring efforts will focus on the Mid Cibolo
Creek to evaluate the 24-hour minimum depressed oxygen impairment.
Ammonia
Lower
• Low flows and natural weathering and leaching
of sedimentary rocks, soils and salt deposits can
release chloride into the environment
Chloride values for all sites within the segment are averaged. The average
concentrations are then used to determine compliance for the entire segment
when compared to the criteria as stated in the TSWQS.
Nitrate
Lower and Middle
• Organic matter carried to river with stormwater
runoff
There are no state numerical nutrient stream water quality standards, only
screening criteria. Phosphorus, ammonia, nitrate, and chlorophyll-a data
is utilized to indicate areas of possible concern. Continue monitoring in
support of the TCEQ efforts to establish freshwater stream nutrient criteria.
Ortho-Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
72
Mid Cibolo Creek Watershed Water
Quality Summary
black text. There were no biological or habitat
assessments conducted for the 2012 IR.
According to the 2012 IR, depressed DO
impairment has been identified in the Mid Cibolo
Creek Watershed; nutrients have been listed as
concerns. The Water Quality Summary table
provides a big-picture view of the impairments
and concerns in the watershed, possible sources
and solutions/actions taken to assess the issues.
The impairments in the Water Quality Summary
table (left) are in red text, concerns are in
Special Projects
SARA.
Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Wastewater
The Mid Cibolo Creek Draft TMDL: In response
to the depressed DO for this segment, the TCEQ
completed a draft total maximum daily load to
analyze conditions in the creek and determine the
pollutant reductions necessary to restore suitable
conditions for aquatic life in Mid Cibolo Creek.
The draft TMDL report is located at http://www.
tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/tmdl/31-midcibolo.
html.
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the MId Cibolo Creek Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Segment 1913 - Middle Cibolo Creek
Chloride
Segment_AU
1913_01
1913_02
1913_03
Stations in the
Segment
12919 12921
12924, 12925
12927; 14212
Flow Type
perennial
perennial
perennial
Aquatic Life
Use
limited
limited
limited
Sulfate
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
FS
FS
FS
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Dissolved
Oxygen Grab Oxygen
Grab
Screening
Average
Minimum
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Average
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Minimum
pH Range
Temperature
750 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 oC
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
E. coli geomean
126
CFU/100ml
FS
FS
FS
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
CS
NC
NC
CS
CS
NC
CS
CS
NC
CS
CS
NC
NC
NC
NC
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Nitrogen*
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Trends
Seg/AU
1913_01
Chloride
Description
Station 12921-Cibolo Creek 137 meters (150 yards)
upstream from Weir Road on north bank three
↑
miles upstream from IH 10
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
pH Range
↑
Temperature
E. coli
↑
NC = No Concern
NA = Not Assessed
↑
↑
73
DO Impairment
The Mid Cibolo Creek Watershed was first
identified as impaired due to depressed oxygen
levels in the 1999 Texas Water Quality Inventory
and 303(d) List. In response to the listing, the
TCEQ initiated the Mid Cibolo Creek TMDL
project in September 2005. The development of
the TMDL was preceded by a larger project to
collect data and assess whether a TMDL was
the appropriate means by which to address the
problem. The results of this project are provided
in the Mid Cibolo Creek, Segment 1910 Final
Reports Volume 1 and 2. The final reports
summarize physical, chemical, and biological data
collection activities from 2002 through 2004. The
final reports are located at http://www.tceq.texas.
gov/waterquality/tmdl/31-sc_bacox_project.html.
The project data collection activities to
characterize DO levels during low flow periods
were completed and used to support models
designed to quantify existing loads and determine
how the loads are allocated to the sources in
the watershed. The initial loading analysis was
completed in December 2006. After completion
of the draft TMDL, the TCEQ determined that a
municipal point source discharge was likely to be
the primary source of the impairment. As a result,
it was not necessary to complete and submit
a TMDL to the EPA. Instead, improvement
in the quality of the Mid Cibolo Creek could
be accomplished through requirements in the
municipal point source discharge facility’s permit.
74
Trend Analyses
Station 12921 Cibolo Creek 137 meters upstream
from Weir Road is below the CCMA discharge
site.
Trend analyses for Station 12921 identify
increase trends for chloride, total dissolved
solids, pH, nitrate+nitrate, and total phosphorus.
A decreasing DO deficit trend has also been
detected (Figure MCC 1-3).
Although a decrease DO deficit trend indicates
an improvement in water quality, the 2012 IR
identifies the segment as not meeting the limited
aquatic life use designation based on 24-hour
minimum DO. Out of the 16 values assessed,
the 2012 IR identifies seven of the 24-hour DO
minimum values below the 2 mg/L minimum
criteria. The 2012 also identifies concerns for
water quality based on screening levels for
ammonia, nitrate, and phosphorus.
Upper Cibolo Creek is immediately above Mid
Cibolo Creek and is included in the Edwards
Aquifer recharge and contributing zones; as
a result, there is typically no flow from the
headwaters into Mid Cibolo Creek under normal
conditions. Change in land use due to residential
development associated with the growth of
San Antonio, ambient low flows and effluent
discharge, coupled with the drought conditions
experienced over the assessment period are
possible reasons for the 24-hour minimum DO
impairment and nutrient concerns.
75
LOWER CiBOLO CREEK
Segment 1902 extends from the confluence with
the Lower San Antonio River in Karnes County to
a point 100 meters (110 yards) downstream of IH10 in Bexar/Guadalupe County. The approximate
drainage area of the Lower Cibolo Creek is 580
square miles. This portion of Cibolo Creek is rural
and defines the Bexar/Guadalupe county line as
it flows southeastward through the Gulf Coastal
Plains of the Central Plains Province. Base flow
for the Lower Cibolo Creek originates from spring
flow southwest of the City of Schertz, Texas. Many
other springs exist throughout this segment.
Springs along with effluent from permitted
municipal facilities contributes to the overall flow
within the Lower Cibolo Creek. Most portions
of the Lower Cibolo Creek are deeply entrenched
and stream banks are composed of alluvial soils.
Riparian corridors are dense and wide bordered
by farm and ranch lands and provide an excellent
canopy over most of the creek throughout its
length. Glides dominate the aquatic habitats
throughout this segment and are occasionally
interrupted by riffles and runs.
Martinez Creek, Segment 1902A, and Salatrillo
Creek, Segment 1902B are unclassified segments
of the Lower Cibolo Creek assessed in the 2012
IR.
76
According to geographic coordinates from the
located in the watershed:
•
Salatrillo Creek WWTP
•
Upper Martinez WWTF
•
Martinez II WWTP
•
Martinez III WWTF
•
Graytown Road WWTP
•
City of Marion WWTP
•
Meadow View Park WWTP 1
•
City of La Vernia WWTP
•
Quail Run WWTP
•
City of Stockdale WWTP
canoeing, and rafting.
Lower Cibolo Creek Watershed Water
Quality Summary
According to the 2012 IR, bacteria and fish
community impairments and nutrient concerns
have been identified in the Lower Cibolo Creek
Watershed. Bacteria, depressed DO, and nutrient
concerns have been identified in the unclassified
segment of the waters. The Water Quality
Summary table provides a big picture view of
are in black text.
Segment 1902 – Lower Cibolo Creek
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area
of Watershed
E. coli
Lower
Middle
• Poorly maintained septic tank systems
• Stormwater runoff sources of fecal matter from
intense livestock production and wild animals
Both TCEQ and SARA are monitoring and assessing the data in this segment.
Fish Community
Lower
Fish community in the 1902_02 of the Lower Cibolo
contains several sensitive species. The concern for
fish community in 1902_03 is based on inadequate
data and/or carried forward
Nitrate Nitrogen
Upper
Ortho-Phosphorus
Upper
Total Phosphorus
Upper
runoff
screening criteria. Phosphorus, ammonia, nitrate, and chlorophyll-a data is utilized
to indicate areas of possible concern. Continue monitoring in support of the TCEQ
efforts to establish freshwater stream nutrient criteria.
Segment 1902A – Martinez Creek • Segment 1902B – Salatrillo Creek
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area
of Watershed
E. coli
Lower and
Middle
Martinez
Creek
• Poorly maintained septic tank systems
• Stormwater runoff sources of fecal matter from
intense livestock production and wildlife
The concern for E. coli in 1902A is based on inadequate, limited and/or carried
forward data.
Depressed DO
Upper
Martinez
Creek
runoff
The concern for depressed DO is based on inadequate, limited and/or carried
forward data.
Nitrate Nitrogen
Sporadic
Martinez
and Salatrillo
Creeks
runoff
The concerns for nutrients in 1902A and 1902B are based on inadequate, limited
and/or carried forward data.
Ortho-Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
There are no nutrients state water quality standards, only screening criteria.
Phosphorus, ammonia, nitrate, and chlorophyll-a data is utilized to indicate areas
of possible concern. Continue monitoring in support of the TCEQ efforts to
establish freshwater stream nutrient criteria.
77
Lower Cibolo Creek Recreational Use
Attainability Analysis (RUAA): In the summer
of 2010, a RUAA was conducted on Lower Cibolo
Creek to determine the appropriate recreational
use and numeric criteria for the segment. As a
result of the evidence collected during the Lower
Cibolo Creek RUAA, the TCEQ recommended
that the Lower Cibolo Creek retain its primary
contact recreation use and a corresponding E.
coli geometric mean of 126 CFU/100mL for the
entire segment. Information on the Lower Cibolo
Creek RUAA can be found at the TCEQ’s website
located at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/
standards/ruaas/lowercibolo1902.
Special Projects
River and Lower Cibolo Creek, Study Design: In
2001, the 77th Texas Legislature enacted Senate
Bill 2 establishing the Texas Instream Flows
Program (TIFP). The State Legislature tasked
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality and
the Texas Water Development Board to work
with stakeholders to develop instream flow
recommendations that will maintain a sound
ecological environment for both the instream
and riverine habitats. The San Antonio River
Authority has been working with the state
agencies on the Lower San Antonio River and
Cibolo Creek Instream Flows Program.
SARA.
Instream Flow Study of the Lower San Antonio
78
Salatrillo-Martinez Water Quality SARA Study:
With the emphasis on the importance of the
water quality aspect in protecting available
water resources, this project is aimed to perform
detailed analysis and modeling of water quality
for Salatrillo-Martinez sub-watershed within the
Cibolo Watershed. The initial project activities
will include site visits, collecting and organizing
watershed characteristics and flood data using
SARA’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
databases and tools, collecting rainfall runoff
data from recent events, using the DFIRM models
and applying a state-of-the-art physically based
distributed parameter hydrologic model process,
and applying a water quality model calibrated by
input from the distributed model. The deliverables
of the project will be 1) a water quality model
of the watershed, 2) a detailed analysis of the
existing water quality conditions, 3) a description
of factors that potentially influence the water
quality at different environmental conditions
and an attempt of study of instream flow, and 4)
recommendations for enhancement of the water
quality of the watershed.
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the Lower Cibolo Creek Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Segment 1902 - Lower Cibolo Creek
1902_01
Stations in the
Segment
12797, 20777
1902_02
1902_03
Biological
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Fish
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
IBI Score 42
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NS
(38.50)
CN
(Carry
Forward
Data)
NA
FS
(45.30)
900 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 oC
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NC
NC
FS
FS
NS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
NS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
perennial
Aquatic Life
Use
high
12798, 14211
perennial
12803
perennial
Flow Type
E. coli
geomean
126
CFU/100ml
NS
Chloride
Segment_AU
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Oxygen
Dissolved
24 Hour
24 Hour
Grab
Oxygen
Dissolved Dissolved
Screening
Grab
Oxygen
Oxygen
Average
Minimum
Average
Minimum pH Range
Sulfate
170 mg/L 275 mg/L
Temperature
1902_04
12805
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
CS
CS
NC
NC
1902_05
14197
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NC
NC
FS
FS
FS
NC
CS
CS
CS
NC
Segment 1902A - Martinez Creek
Segment 1902B - Salatrillo Creek
Chloride
Segment_AU
Martinez
Creek
1902A_01
1902A_02
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
12741
perennial
high
NA
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Oxygen
Dissolved
24 Hour
24 Hour
Grab
Oxygen
Dissolved Dissolved
Screening
Grab
Oxygen
Oxygen
Average
Minimum
Average
Minimum pH Range
Temperature
E. coli
geomean
126
CFU/100ml
750 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 oC
NA
NA
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
CN
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
NC
NC
NA
CS
NA
14203
perennial
high
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1902A_03
15306
perennial
intermediate
NA
NA
NA
4 mg/L
NA
3 mg/L
NA
4 mg/L
NA
3 mg/L
NA
NA
NA
CN
NA
CS
NA
NA
NA
1902A_04
15305
perennial
intermediate
NA
NA
NA
4 mg/L
CS
3 mg/L
CN
4mg/L
NA
3 mg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1902A_05
12749
perennial
high
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Segment_AU
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
Salatrillo
Creek
1902B_01
14201; 14923;
15303
intermittent
w/pools
limited
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
NA
NA
750 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 oC
126
CFU/100ml
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
FS
NC
CS
CS
CS
NC
pH Range
Temperature
E. coli
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Trends
Seg/AU
1902_02
1902_05
Description
Station 14211 -Cibolo Creek at CR 389 near
Cestohowa Texas
Station 14197-Cibolo Creek at Sculls Crossing
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
↓
↑
↑
NC = No Concern
↓
↑
NA = Not Assessed
↑
79
Macro
Habitat
Benthic
HBI Score
Score 29
20
NA
NA
NC
NA
(20.40)
NA
NA
NC
(23.90)
NA
NA
NA
Bacteria Impairment
The Lower Cibolo Creek meets the San Antonio
River a few miles upstream of State Highway 80
in north central Karnes County. The lower 29
miles of Lower Cibolo Creek, from the confluence
with Clifton Branch to the confluence with the
San Antonio River, is listed in the 2012 Texas
303(d) List as impaired for contact recreation
due to E. coli geometric means above the 126
CFU/100mL criteria. In addition to this segment
being effluent-dominated, this area is mostly
rural and is influenced by wildlife, ranching and
agricultural activities. SARA field biologists have
documented numerous cattle crossings, large
rookeries of black vultures, and feral hog wallows
in the Lower Cibolo Creek Watershed.
In the summer of 2010, a RUAA was conducted
on Lower Cibolo Creek to determine the
appropriate recreational use and numeric
criteria for the segment. A RUAA is a specific
type of Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) that
is conducted to evaluate and determine what
level of recreational use is appropriate for a
particular water body. RUAAs are typically sitespecific studies that assess reasonably attainable
recreational uses that can occur based on the
physical and flow characteristics of a stream, such
as water depth and persistence of flow. Supporting
information also includes surveys of individuals
and organizations with firsthand knowledge of
the water body in order to assess historical and
existing patterns of recreational use.
As a result of the evidence collected during
the Lower Cibolo Creek RUAA, the TCEQ
recommended that the Lower Cibolo Creek
80
retain its primary contact recreation use and
a corresponding E. coli geometric mean of
126 CFU/100mL for the entire segment, from
the confluence with the San Antonio River in
Karnes County to a point 100 meters (110 yards)
downstream of IH-10 in Bexar/Guadalupe County
in accordance with §307.4 (j) (1) of the TSWQS.
sunfish, river darter, grey redhorse, spotted bass,
and red shiner.
Biological assessments for the Lower Cibolo
Creek identify the fish community as impaired
in assessment unit 1902_02 and a concern in
1902_ 03. Station 14211, County Road 389 near
Cestohowa is in assessment unit 1902_02 and
was sampled once each year from 2004 to 2010.
It should be noted that the habitat concern
identified in 1902_03 was based on limited
data that was carried forward from previous
assessments. There were no biological collections
in 1902_03 for the 2012 IR assessment period.
For 1902_02, the Habitat Quality Index score
ranged from 18 (intermediate) in 2007 to 21.5
(high) in 2004, 2006 and 2009 at County Road
389. The Lower Cibolo Creek Watershed is
characterized by well- to poorly defined stream
bends. Stream banks are gently sloping within
the upper reaches of the segment and high steep
vertical banks within the lower reaches. Average
width of the natural riparian habitat within
Segment 1902 is 17 meters and includes native
hardwood trees, shrubs and grasses. Average
percent tree canopy is 67 percent and includes
pecan, elm, hackberry, black willow, cottonwood,
oak, and ash trees. Instream habitat types include
riffles, runs, and glides. Although gravel is the
dominant substrate in the segment, some bed
rock and slit are present in the upper reaches. The
average number of instream cover types is ten
and includes emergent vegetation, woody debris,
tree roots, overhanging vegetation, gravel, cobble,
ledges, undercut banks, and boulders. The average
percent instream cover is 27 percent. Average
percent stream bank erosion is 30 percent.
The fish IBI scores for County Road 389 in
Segment 1902_02 ranged from 30 (low) in 2004
and 2009 to 45 (high) in 2010. The average
number of individual fish collected per site
was 267 and the average number fish species
collected at each site was 13. Tolerant species
comprised 69 percent of all species collected.
Non-native species made up 10 percent of all
species collected. Species collected include the
sailfin molly, Amazon molly, Mexican tetra, and
Rio Grande cichlid. Some native species collected
include the channel catfish, mosquitofish, green
When compared to TCEQ Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI) fish scores, SARA fish IBI scores
are most often higher. TCEQ scoring criteria
were developed based on fish community
attributes known to exist within ecoregions
of Texas which encompass regions beyond the
SAR Watershed. Scoring criteria used by SARA
to evaluate the fish community within the
SAR basin were developed from historical fish
community attributes collected within the San
Antonio River Watershed, which may account
for the higher SARA IBI scores. To meet the
Until a TMDL or WPP can be scheduled, SARA
and TCEQ monitoring efforts will continue to
investigate impairments and concerns in the
Lower Cibolo Creek Watershed.
high aquatic life use designation for the Lower
Cibolo Creek, the average fish IBI score must
be ≥ 42.00. The average TCEQ fish IBI score for
the seven collection events at Station 14211 was
38.49 (intermediate). The average SARA fish IBI
score for the same seven collection events was
43.11 (high) and meets the high aquatic life use
designation.
from >200 to >575 individuals. The number and
identity of darter species increased from two to
three species. Species of darts include the Texas
logperch, logperch and the river darter. Sunfish
species increased from seven to eight species,
sucker species increased from two to three species
and intolerant species increased from five to six
species.
As documented in the Recalibration of Fish
Community Metrics In the San Antonio River
Basin Report (SARA, April 2012), historical
review of fish community data from 1993 to
2011 indicated that the total number of fish
species collected within the Lower Cibolo Creek
watershed increased from 40 to 51 species. The
number of individuals in the sample increased
Assessment of the fish community in 1902_02,
over the 2012 IR assessment period, includes the
collection of several sensitive species such as the
river darter and grey redhorse sucker. Assessment
unit 1902_02 is considered by SARA staff to be
meeting the high aquatic life use designation.
SARA will maintain biological collections in
assessment units 1902_02 and 1902_05.
Trend Analyses
Although nutrients are identified as a concern
throughout the upper portion of Lower Cibolo
Creek and its tributaries, trending at 14197, Cibolo
Creek at Sculls Crossing, indicates a decreasing
trend in nitrate concentrations (Figure LCC 1).
Increasing trends in chloride, DO deficit, pH and
total phosphorus (Figure LCC 2) have also been
identified.
At Station 14197, there was a statistically
significant trend when comparing nitrate
concentrations relative to flow. When flows
increased, nitrate concentrations increased;
this is usually indicative of nonpoint source
pollution (Figure LCC 3). There was also a
81
statistically significant trend when comparing
total phosphorous concentration relative to flow
(Figure LCC 4). When flows increased, total
phosphorous concentrations decreased. This is
usually indicative of point source pollution.
Although the presence of nutrients in the upper
reaches of the segment may be attributed to the
wastewater treatment facilities located in the
Mid Cibolo Creek and the upper reaches of the
Lower Cibolo Creek and its tributaries, elevated
levels of nutrients may also be attributed to other
various sources. Agricultural runoff carrying
animal waste from farms and ranches, fertilizers,
soil erosion and runoff from farms, lawns, and
gardens can also add nutrients to the water. While
82
the land use in the upper reach of this segment
has historically been agricultural and rangeland,
SARA staff observations have indicated an
increase in residential development associated
with the growth of San Antonio. It is likely that
the upper 44.2 miles of the Lower Cibolo Creek,
from the upper end of the segment to Elm Creek
(1902_05 and 1902_04), have a diverse array of
possible point and nonpoint nutrient sources.
Trend analysis conducted on Station 14211,
Cibolo Creek near Cestohowa showed a decrease
in nitrate values over the trending period (Figure
LCC 5). There was no statistically significant
trend when comparing nitrate concentrations
relative to flow.
83
Gillespie
Edwards
Blanco
Hays
Kerr
Medina River Watershed
Kendall
Unclassified Stream Segment
Stream Segment 1905
18447
^
Real
Comal
^
Bandera
BANDERA, CITY OF WWTP
14213
^!.
^
13638
Assessment Units
1903_01
12829
1903_02
1903_03
12830
^
12825
Stream Segment 1904
Stream Segment 1909
1903_04
1903_05
Stream Segment 1905
Stream Segment 1904
^
12859
1903A_01
18407
^
^
12823
1904_02
Bexar
^
1904_03
1905_01
Stream Segment 1909
Stream Segment 1903
12824
1904_01
Uvalde
Guadalupe
Medina
!
.
CASTROVILLE WWTF
12821
1905_02
14200
^
^!.^
12818
1905A_01
CITY OF LA COSTE WWTP
1909_01
Monitoring Stations
!
.
Frio
84
!
.
12814
12813
!
.
^^
^
^
!
.
12812
DOS RIOS WATER RECYCLING CENTER
0
0
Zavala
^^
^
CITY OF SOMERSET WWTP
Population Centers
MITCHELL LAKE
12817
12816
APPLEWHITE RD WWTF
^
12819
5
5
10
10
20 Miles
20 Kilometers
Atascosa
12811
!
.
¯
Wilson
uppER MEDiNA RivER
WATERShED - SEGMENT 1905
Segment 1905 extends from a point immediately
upstream of the confluence of Red Bluff Creek in
Bandera County to the confluence of the North
Prong Medina River and West Prong Medina
River in Bandera County.
This portion of the Medina River is rural and lies
entirely within the Edwards Plateau. Cattle, goats,
and sheep are commonly grazed throughout this
region. Crop cultivation is limited to areas with
alluvial soils. The immediate banks of the Upper
Medina River vary from low, gently sloping,
gravel-covered banks sparsely covered with native
vegetation to high, steep, solid layers of limestone
formations. This segment is characterized by
alternating riffle, glides and pooled habitats with
wide, gentle curves and bends. Substrates consist
of limestone bedrock covered with gravel and
boulders. Large cypress tree trunks are commonly
seen lying within the stream bottom. The riparian
corridor varies in width and consists of willows,
cypress, pecan, and oaks. Native grasses and forbs
are common along the stream.
The North Prong Medina River, Segment 1905A,
is the only unclassified segment of the Upper
Medina River assessed in the 2012.
the TCEQ and the USGS, the combined estimated
land use land cover for the entire Medina River
gov/enviro/facts/pcs-icis/search.html identifies the
geographic coordinates for the City of Bandera
WWTP as a permitted municipal or industrial
wastewater facility in the Upper Medina River
Watershed.
This segment has an exceptional aquatic life use
designation. Exceptional is the highest aquatic
life use given by the state. This segment is also
designated for use as a public water supply. Like
all segments in the San Antonio River Basin,
this segment is designated for primary contact
recreation. Contact recreation includes activities
such as swimming, wading by children, diving,
tubing, surfing, kayaking, canoeing, and rafting.
Upper Medina River Watershed Water
Quality Summary
According to the 2012 IR, fish community
impairment has been identified in the Upper
Median River. Habitat has been listed as a
85
Segment 1905 – Upper Medina River
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area
of Watershed
Fish Community
and Habitat
1905 & 1905A
The listings for fish and habitat are due to destruction Question: Are the listings accurately depicting the ecological health of the stream,
of instream and riparian habitat caused by natural
or are the listings due to site-specific related limitations (scouring down to
scouring.
limestone)?
To address the question, SARA and BCRAGD will determine if there are sites in
the segment(s) that are not influenced by natural conditions experienced during
heavy rainfall.
concern in both the Upper Medina River and in
the North Prong of the Upper Medina. The Water
watershed, possible sources, and solutions/actions
taken to assess the issues. The impairments in
the Water Quality Summary table are in red text,
concerns are in black text.
SARA Medina River Watershed Master Plan, July
2011-summer 2014: SARA and its consultant,
Malcolm Pirnie/ARCADIS-US, together with
stakeholders, the City of San Antonio, Bexar
County, and other partners, are developing a
high-level, long-range master plan for the Medina
River Watershed, including portions of Medio
Creek. The Master Plan will address potential
water quality and flooding issues in a “holistic”
or integrated manner, with planning emphasis
on sustainable, non-structural solutions such as
86
green infrastructure, low impact development
programs, stormwater best management
practices, protection of riparian corridors
through voluntary measures such as conservation
easements, and development of parks and open
spaces. In addition to sustainable solutions,
traditional approaches such as complete streets
and sustainable sites will be considered when
alternatives are being evaluated.
SARA.
Collaborative Effort in Segment 1905: In early
2012, the Bandera County River Authority and
Groundwater District (BCRAGD) expressed a
desire to participate in the 2013 CRP activities
within Bandera County. In a collaborative effort
to maintain and improve the water quality
in Segment 1905 Upper Medina River, SARA
and the BCRAGD entered into an Interlocal
Agreement (ILA). The cooperation between
SARA and BCRAGD will allow BCRAGD to be
a sub-participant under SARA’s CRP QAPP and
collect water quality samples in Segment 1905.
BCRAGD will submit the samples to SARA’s
Environmental Sciences NELAP-Accredited
Laboratory for analysis. In addition to taking over
routine monitoring in Bandera County, BCRAGD
expanded the CRP water quality sampling from
two to six sample sites. The SARA-BCRAGD ILA
represents the first cooperation of this kind under
the CRP in the San Antonio River Watershed
Biological assessments for the Upper Medina
River, assessment unit 1905_01 identified the
fish community as impaired and the habitat as a
concern. The habitat was identified as a concern
in assessment unit 1905A_01. Station 12830
Medina River at Old English Crossing is in
assessment unit 1905_01 and was sampled once
each year from 2004 to 2006 and once each year
from 2008 to 2010. Station 18447 North Prong
Medina River aka Wallace Creek upstream of SH
16 was sampled once in 2008.
For 1905_01 and 1905A_01, the fish IBI scores
ranged from 18.5 (limited) at Old English
Crossing in 2010 to 50 (high) at North Prong
Medina River in 2008. The average number of
individual fish collected per site was 178 and
the average number of fish species collected
at each site was 14. Tolerant individuals made
87
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the Upper Medina River Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Upper Medina River Watershed
Segment 1905 - Medina River above Medina Lake
Chloride
Segment_AU
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
1905_01
12830, 13638
perennial
exceptional
FS
1905_02
14213
perennial
exceptional
FS
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Dissolved
Oxygen Grab Oxygen
Grab
Screening
Average
Minimum
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Average
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Minimum
pH Range
Temperature
E. coli geomean
126
CFU/100ml
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Fish
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
IBI Score 52
400 mg/L
6 mg/L
4 mg/L
6 mg/L
4 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
31.1 oC
FS
FS
NC
FS
NC
NC
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
FS
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50 mg/L 150 mg/L
Segment 1905A - North Prong Medina River
Segment/AU
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
1905A_01
18447
perennial
high
Chloride
Sulfate
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
NA
Biological
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Dissolved
Oxygen Grab Oxygen
Grab
Screening
Average
Minimum
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Average
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Minimum
pH Range
Temperature
E. coli geomean
126
CFU/100ml
NA
Macro
Benthic
Score
>36
NA
NA
Biological
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
750 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
35 oC
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
pH Range
Temperature
E. coli
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
NA
NS
(44.50)
CN
(50.00)
Habitat
HBI Score
26
CS
(20.00)
Macro
Benthic
IBI Score
IBI Score 52 IBI Score 26
>36
CS
NC
NA
(52.50)
(21.50)
Fish
Habitat
Trends
Seg/AU
1905_01
Chloride
Description
Station 12830 Medina River at Old English Crossing
↑
above Bandera Falls
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
↑
↑
↑
↓
NC = No Concern
up 44 percent of all species collected and the
average number of intolerant species collected
per sampling event was two in Segment 1905. Six
percent of all species collected were considered
non-native and included the Mexican tetra,
Rio Grande cichlid, redbreast sunfish, common
carp and the sailfin catfish. Native fish species
collected included the Texas shiner, red shiner,
blacktail shiner, channel catfish, greenthroat
darter, green sunfish and the bluegill sunfish.
The Habitat Quality Index score ranged from 18.5
(intermediate) at Old English Crossing in 2010
to 22 (high) at Old English Crossing in 2004.
Average width of the natural riparian habitat that
88
NA = Not Assessed
borders the Upper Medina River is 16 meters
grasses. Average percent tree canopy is 31 percent
and includes cypress, sycamore, willows, pecans,
and oaks. Instream habitat types include riffles,
runs, and glides. The average number of instream
cover types is seven and includes overhanging
vegetation, boulders, tree roots, gravel and
macrophytes. The average percent instream
cover is 23 percent. Average percent stream bank
erosion is 26 percent.
The Upper Medina River is characterized by well
to poorly defined stream bends. Stream banks
of the Upper Medina River vary from low-
lying, gently sloping banks to high, steep, solid
limestone formations. Many of the low-lying
banks consist of gravel sparsely covered with
native grasses and wildflowers. The dominant
substrate type throughout the Upper Medina
River is gravel. A critical component of habitat
quality is substrate stability. The fish community
and habitat impairment and concerns are
believed to be the result of site-related limitations
experienced during heavy rainfall, such as
scouring down to bedrock. As a result, SARA
and BCRAGD will work together to determine
if there are better representative sample sites for
the assessment unit. Future biological collections
in Segment 1905 and 1905A may be adjusted
accordingly. As with all segments in the San
Antonio River Basin, the extended drought
conditions are another factor affecting the
biological communities in the Upper Media River
Watershed.
Trend Analyses
At Station 12830, Medina River at Old English
Crossing, increasing trends were identified for
chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids, and DO
deficit (Figures UMR 1-3). A decreasing trend was
identified for total phosphorus.
Although the increasing chloride, sulfate, and
total dissolved solids trends may be partially
attributed to discharges from municipal
wastewater treatment facilities, leaking septic
systems, and dissolution of minerals from
naturally occurring geologic deposits, the water
quality maybe largely impacted by the drought
conditions over the assessment period.
Discussions with BCRAGD indicate the extended
drought conditions have caused large portions
of Upper Medina River, especially 1905A North
Prong of the Medina River, to go dry. As the
following pictures indicate, alternating wet and
drought periods have greatly impacted the habitat
and ecological health of the Upper Medina River
89
MEDiNA LAKE – SEGMENT 1904
Medina Lake extends from Medina Lake Dam in
Medina County to a point immediately upstream
of the confluence of Red Bluff Creek in Bandera
County, up to the normal pool elevation of 1064.2
feet.
Medina Lake, located along the Medina/
Bandera County line, is a reservoir created by
the construction of Medina Dam, completed in
1912. The lake was created to irrigate farmland
and has also become a recreational area for local
residents. The dam is managed by the BexarMedina-Atascosa Counties Water Control and
Improvement District No. 1.
Ecoregion. This ecoregion is commonly referred
to as the Texas Hill Country. The soils are
generally shallow and underlain by limestone. The
limestone rock has been eroded to create the steep
hills in this region. The hills are dominated by
Ashe juniper, Texas red oak and stunted live oak
trees, and sparse grasses. Rainfall on the Edwards
Plateau drains rapidly into creeks, causing flash
floods within the region and downstream. The
rapid flow often causes scouring of aquatic habitat
within the region. Ranching is common; this area
is becoming more populated with small hobby
ranches.
According to the Environmental Protection
Agency Envirofacts website located at http://www.
epa.gov/enviro/facts/pcs-icis/search.html, there are
no permitted municipal or industrial wastewater
facilities located in the watershed.
Medina Lake is located in the Edwards Plateau
90
Medina Lake Watershed Water Quality
Summary
The 2012 IR does not list any impairments or
concerns for any portion of the Medina Lake
Watershed. There were no biological or habitat
Segment 1904 – Medina Lake
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area
of Watershed
No impairments or concerns identified.
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for Medina Lake Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Medina Lake Watershed
Segment 1905 - Medina Lake
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Dissolved
Oxygen Grab Oxygen
Grab
Screening
Average
Minimum
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Average
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Minimum
pH Range
Temperature
E. coli geomean
126
CFU/100ml
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
0.11 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
0.20 mg/L
26.7 µg/L
NC
Segment_AU
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
80 mg/L
75 mg/L
350 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
31.1 oC
1904_01
12825
reservoir
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
1904_02
12829
reservoir
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1904_03
No Stations
reservoir
high
FS
FS
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
E. coli
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Nitrogen*
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Trends
Seg/AU
1904_01
Description
Station 12825-Medina Lake at Medina Lake Dam
West of San Antonio
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
pH Range
Temperature
↑
NC = No Concern
NA = Not Assessed
91
Depth profiles are typically taken to assess
water quality in reservoirs. According to the
Guidance for Assessing and Reporting Surface
Water Quality in Texas, the first surface profile
measurement is used to evaluate temperature,
sulfate, chloride, TDS, nutrients and chlorophyll.
If the lake is stratified, DO (DO) and pH are
measured at the mixed surface layer only. The
TCEQ identifies the mixed surface layer as the
measurements taken from the surface to where
the temperature decreases by more than 0.5
°C. The average DO values and the median pH
values of the mixed surface layer are compared
to the state standard. If the reservoir is not
stratified, then the DO and pH measurements
for each profile of entire mixed water column are
compared to the criteria.
According to the 2012 IR, Medina Lake is
meeting all TSWQS and screening criterion.
Although available data for Station 12825, Media
Lake at Medina Lake Dam identifies an increasing
sulfate trend (Figure ML 1), it is more likely the
result of the drought conditions experienced over
the trending period.
92
93
MEDiNA DivERSiON LAKE –
SEGMENT 1909
Segment 1909, in Medina County, extends from
Medina Diversion Dam to Medina Lake Dam and
reaches the normal pool elevation of 926.5 feet
(impounds Medina River). This lake was built to
feed a vast network of irrigation canals. The lake
is owned and managed by the Bexar-MedinaAtascosa Counties Water Improvement District
No. 1. While Medina Lake has numerous parks
and public access areas, Medina Diversion Lake is
surrounded by private property, and access to the
lake is limited.
According to the Environmental Protection
Agency Envirofacts website located at http://www.
epa.gov/enviro/facts/pcs-icis/search.html, there are
no wastewater treatment plants located in this
segment’s watershed. Developments around the
lake use septic systems to treat sewage.
Medina Diversion Lake Watershed Water
Quality Summary
concerns for any portion of the Medina Diversion
Lake. There were no biological or habitat
According to the 2012 IR, Medina Diversion Lake
is meeting all TSWQS and screening criterion.
Although available data for Station 12825, Medina
Lake at Medina Lake Dam indicates an increasing
total dissolved solids and DO deficit trend
(Figures MDL 1-2), it is more likely a result of the
drought conditions experienced over the trending
period.
Segment 1909 – Medina Diversion Lake
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area
of Watershed
94
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for Medina Diversion Lake Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Medina Diversion Lake Watershed
Segment 1909 - Medina Diversion Lake
Segment_AU
1909_01
Stations in the
Segment
12859, 18407
Flow Type
reservoir
Dissolved
Dissolved
Oxygen Grab Oxygen
Grab
Screening
Average
Minimum
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Average
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Minimum
pH Range
Temperature
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Aquatic Life
Use
50 mg/L
75 mg/L
400 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 oC
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
0.11 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
0.20 mg/L
26.7 µg/L
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
E. coli
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Nitrogen*
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
E. coli geomean
126
CFU/100ml
Trends
Seg/AU
1909_01
Description
Station 18407 Medina Diversion Lake Near Dam
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
↑
↑
pH Range
NC = No Concern
NA = Not Assessed
Temperature
95
LOWER MEDiNA RivER –
SEGMENT 1903
Segment 1903 extends upstream from its
confluence with the San Antonio River in
southeast Bexar County to the Medina Diversion
Dam in Medina County. The approximate
drainage area is 376 square miles and it is
predominately rural. The upper end of this
segment flows through portions of the Edwards
Plateau as it makes its way on to the Gulf Coastal
Plains of the Central Plains Province. Due to the
lack of deep organic soils, vegetation is limited
along the stream within the upper reaches of this
segment. Major tributaries to the Lower Medina
River include Leon Creek, Geronimo Creek, and
Medio Creek. Other major contributors to the
Medina River include the effluent discharge from
Dos Rios Water Recycling Center, Leon Creek and
Medio Creek Water Recycling Center Treatment
Facility. The upper reach of this segment is
characterized by excellent water clarity, moderate
to swift velocity, gravel and limestone substrates,
high steep limestone banks and alternating run,
glide, riffle and pooled habitats. The lower reach of
this segment is influenced by alluvial formations
of the Gulf Coastal Plains and the stream habitats
alternate between runs and glides. This portion of
the Medina River is characteristically deeper and
more turbid.
According to geographic coordinates on the
located in the watershed:
96
•
Castroville WWTF
•
City of La Coste WWTP
taken to assess the issues. The impairments in the
Water Quality Summary table (page 98) are in red
text, concerns are in black text.
•
Applewhite Road WWTF
Special Projects
•
City of Somerset WWTP
•
Dos Rios Water Recycling Center
•
Mitchell Lake
Malcolm Pirnie/ARCADIS-US, together with
County and other partners are developing
a high-level, long-range master plan for the
Medina River Watershed, including portions
of Medio Creek. The Master Plan will address
potential water quality and flooding issues in a
“holistic” or integrated manner, with planning
emphasis on sustainable, non-structural
solutions. This includes green infrastructure,
best management practices, and protection of
riparian corridors through voluntary measures.
Examples of these measures include conservation
easements as well as development of parks and
open spaces. In addition to sustainable solutions,
Although it does not discharge directly into
Medina River, Leon Creek Water Recycling
Center discharges into Leon Creek approximately
two miles from the confluence with Medina River.
Lower Medina River Watershed Water
Quality Summary
According to the 2012 IR, bacteria impairment
and nutrient concerns have been identified in
the Lower Medina River Watershed. The Water
SARA.
Segment 1903 – Lower Medina River
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area
of Watershed
E. coli
Lower
•
Sewer breaks and overflows
Poorly maintained septic tank systems
Stormwater runoff sources of fecal matter from
intense livestock production and wild animals
Before a TMDL is scheduled, SARA and the TCEQ will continue to monitor and
assess the data in Segment 1903.
Wastewater treatment plant discharge
Improper use of fertilizers
Organic matter carried to river with stormwater
runoff
•
•
Nitrate Nitrogen
Entire
Ortho-Phosphorus
Lower
Total Phosphorus
Lower
Ammonia
Lower
•
•
•
Bacteria Impairment
Assessment unit 1903_02, from five miles
upstream of the San Antonio River to one and
a half miles upstream of Leon Creek, was first
identified as impaired for recreational use in
the 2010 Texas Water Quality Inventory and
303(d) List. Based on the 2012 IR, the geometric
mean for E. coli in assessment unit 1903_02 is
161 CFU, exceeding the criterion of 126 CFU.
Possible sources of E. coli contamination include
stormwater runoff from agricultural activities and
wildlife, improper and failing septic tank systems
and sewer breaks and overflows.
Until a TMDL is initiated, SARA and the TCEQ
will continue to monitor and assess the data in
the Lower Medina River Watershed. In addition
to routine monitoring, SARA initiated the
Medina River Watershed Master Plan in July 2011.
The goal of the Medina River Watershed Master
Plan is to prepare a holistic or integrated master
plan that reflects SARA’s approach to sustainable
watershed planning. In addition to flood retention
and structural solutions, the Master Plan will
use a broader approach that identifies ways to
maximize parks and open space programs,
associated BMPs, and conservation easements to
solve flood control problems and water quality
issues. Water quality monitoring in the Lower
Medina River is also included in the Master Plan.
Biological assessments for the Lower Medina
River did not identify any impairments or
concerns for biological and habitat communities.
Station 14200, Medina River at County Road 484
located in assessment unit 1903_04 was sampled
once each year from 2004 to 2006 and once each
year from 2008 to 2010.
Fish IBI scores ranged from 33 (limited) in
2008 to 50 (exceptional) in 2004. The average
total number of individual fish collected and
identified at each site is 112. An average of 12
different fish species was collected per sampling
event. The average percent of tolerant individuals
was 15 percent per sampling event and the
average number of intolerant species collected
per sampling event was four. Average percent
non-native species collected in Segment 1903
during this assessment period was five percent
and included the Mexican tetra, sailfin molly,
redbreast sunfish and the Rio Grande cichlid.
Native species collected include the mosquitofish,
red shiner, blacktail shiner, bullhead minnow,
channel catfish, Guadalupe bass, spotted sunfish,
central stoneroller and the grey redhorse.
The Habitat Quality Index score for Segment
1913 ranged from 19 (intermediate) at County
Rd. 484 in 2009 and 2010 to 23 (high) in 2004
and 2006. The average Habitat Quality Index
score for Segment 1913 was 21 (high) during this
97
and boulders. The average number of instream
cover types is seven and includes woody debris,
tree roots, overhanging vegetation, gravel,
undercut banks, boulders and cobble. The average
percent instream cover is 31 percent and the
average percent stream bank erosion is 21 percent.
assessment period. Land development adjacent to
Medina River at County Road 484 is considered
low. The stream channel is well-defined with
moderately and poorly defined stream bends.
Stream banks are gently sloping and covered
with hardwood riparian forest. The average
width of the natural riparian habitat is 15 meters
grasses. The average percent tree canopy is 88
percent and includes cypress, ash, pecan, elm,
hackberry, black willow, cottonwood, and oak.
The aquatic habitat is dominated by runs but also
includes riffles and glides. Gravel is the dominant
substrate type at this location but includes cobble
LMR 1-3).
There were no trends detected in the lower reach
at Station 12813, Medina River at Cassin Crossing.
Drought conditions, municipal discharges,
improperly maintained septic systems,
stormwater runoff from agricultural lands,
livestock and wildlife waste may be contributing
to the bacterial impairment and nutrient concerns
in the Lower Medina River. Until a TMDL is
scheduled, SARA and the TCEQ will continue
to monitor and assess water quality in the Lower
Medina River Watershed.
Trending Analyses
Trend analysis for the upper reaches of the
segment, at Station 14200, Medina River at
County Road 484 identified increasing trends
in sulfate and dissolve oxygen deficit and a
decreased trend in total phosphorus (Figures
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the Lower Medina River Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Lower Medina River Watershed
Segment 1903 - Medina River Below Medina Diversion Lake
Chloride
Segment_AU
1903_01
1903_02
Stations in the
Segment
12811
12812, 12813
perennial
perennial
Aquatic Life
Use
high
high
Flow Type
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Dissolved
Oxygen Grab Oxygen
Screening
Grab
Average
Minimum
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Average
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Minimum
pH Range
Temperature
700 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 oC
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
FS
FS
NA
NC
NA
NC
FS
FS
FS
FS
E. coli geomean
126
CFU/100ml
FS
NS
120 mg/L 120 mg/L
Biological
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Fish
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
IBI Score 42
NC
CS
CS
CS
CS
CS
CS
CS
NC
NC
NA
NA
NC
(42.00)
1903_03
12814, 12816
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
CS
NC
NC
NC
1903_04
12817, 12818,
12819, 12821,
13699, 14200
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NC
NC
FS
FS
FS
NC
CS
NC
NC
NC
1903_05
12823, 12824
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
pH Range
Temperature
E. coli
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Trends
Seg/AU
1903_02
1903_04
Description
Station 12813 - Medina River at Cassin Crossing
Chloride
Station 14200 - Medina River at County Road 484
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
No trends detected
↑
↑
↓
NC = No Concern
98
NA = Not Assessed
Macro
Habitat
Benthic
HBI Score
Score 29
20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
FS
(44.90)
NC
(21.30)
NA
NC
(43.00)
NA
NA
99
Kerr
Kendall
Comal
Bandera
Leon Creek Watershed
14252
^
BRIDGEWOOD WWTP
12851
!
.
^
12780
17365
^
^
!
.
^
SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM PORTABLE WTP
Stream Segment 1907
Stream Segment 1906
NORTHSIDE ISD TAFT HS WWTF
Assessment Units
!
.
Bexar
1906_01
12846
^
14209
1906_02
^^
^
1906_03
Medina
1906_04
12841
1906_06
12840
1906A_01
12842
^
^
^
^
!
.
12835
UNKNOWN
1907_01
!
.
12845
18199
1906_05
^
Guadalupe
17364
12838
Monitoring Stations
12836
0
Population Centers
0
Atascosa
100
^^
4.25
5
!
.
^
LEON CREEK WATER RECYCLING CENTER
14198
8.5
10
17 Miles
20 Kilometers
¯
Wilson
uppER LEON CREEK
Segment 1907, Upper Leon Creek, extends from
a point 110 yards upstream of SH-16 (Bandera
Road) northwest of San Antonio in Bexar County
to a point 5.6 miles upstream of Scenic Loop Road
north of Helotes in Bexar County. The upstream
portion of this creek is in the Edwards Plateau
Ecoregion. This area is commonly referred to as
the Texas Hill Country. The soils are generally
shallow and underlain by limestone. The
limestone rock has been eroded to create the steep
hills in this region. The hills are dominated by
Ashe juniper, Texas red oak and stunted live oak
trees, and sparse grasses. Rainfall on the Edwards
Plateau drains rapidly into creeks, causing flash
floods within the region and downstream. The
rapid flow often causes scouring of aquatic habitat
within the region. Ranching is common and this
area is becoming more populated with small
hobby ranches. The downstream portion of this
segment is in the Texas Blackland Prairie. This
ecoregion is dominated by deep, dark-colored
rich clay soils, also known as vertisol soils,
which are gently sloping to level. Vertisol soils
expand and shrink with moisture, causing cracks
in the soil when it is dry. The deep, rich soils
make the blackland prairie ideal for row crops,
but in the San Antonio River Basin, this area
is dominated by urbanization. Originally a tall
grassland prairie, most of the original prairie has
been replaced by urbanization and agriculture.
Mesquite, blackjack and post oak trees are
common.
the TCEQ and USGS, the combined estimated
land use land cover for the Upper and Lower
Leon Creek watersheds is: Agricultural 5.1%,
Barren 0.6%, Forest 33.5%, Range 17.3%, Urban
Development 42.0%, Water 0.1% and Wetlands
1.5%.
permitted municipal and industrial wastewater
facilities in the Upper Leon Creek Watershed:
•
Bridgewood WWTP
•
San Antonio Water System Portable WTP
Upper Leon Creek Watershed Water
Quality Summary
concerns for any portion of the Upper Leon Creek
Segment 1907 – Upper Leon Creek
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area
of Watershed
101
Special Projects
watershed physically, chemically and biologically
healthy.
Leon Creek Holistic Watershed Master Plan:
SARA, together with stakeholders, the City of San
Antonio, Bexar County and other partners are
developing a comprehensive watershed master
plan for the Leon Creek Watershed in Bexar
County. Given the watershed's existing density
and projected growth of development, the initial
phases of the project focused on evaluating
flooding conditions and proposing feasible
mitigation solutions. Subsequent phases will
incorporate other strategies such as improving
water quality, identifying appropriate low impact
development techniques, identifying stream
restoration and mitigation banking opportunities,
and investigating sustainable solutions to keep the
To analyze for trends, there must be at least 20
samples collected throughout a 10-year period.
None of the stations in Upper Leon Creek had
sufficient data for trend analysis. The Upper
Leon Creek is included in the Edwards Aquifer
recharge zone; as a result, there is typically
little to no flow in the segment. Although the
information in the 2012 IR identifies flow in this
segment as perennial, information from SARA
and TCEQ field staff have indicated that flow
in this segment is minimal even during normal
precipitation years. Field observations have
indicated that a flow classification of intermittent
with pools would be more appropriate.
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the Upper Leon Creek Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Segment 1907 - Upper Leon Creek
Chloride
Segment_AU
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
1907_01
12851, 14252,
17364, 17365
perennial
high
Sulfate
55 mg/L 240 mg/L
FS
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Dissolved
Oxygen Grab Oxygen
Grab
Screening
Average
Minimum
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Average
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Minimum
pH Range
Temperature
550 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
35 oC
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
E. coli
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Nitrogen*
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
E. coli geomean
126
CFU/100ml
Trends
Seg/AU
Description
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
pH Range
Temperature
Insufficient Data
NC = No Concern
102
NA = Not Assessed
LOWER LEON CREEK
Lower Leon Creek Segment 1906 extends
from the confluence with the Medina River in
Bexar County to a point 100 meters (110 yards)
upstream of State Highway 16 northwest of San
Antonio in Bexar County. The approximate
drainage area of the Lower Leon Creek is 228
square miles and it has a total continuous length
of 32 miles. Segment 1906A, Helotes Creek, is
an unclassified water body in the Leon Creek
Watershed. For the 2012 IR, there was inadequate
data to assess 1906A for any use criteria.
Flow in the upper two-thirds of this segment
pass through heavily urbanized portions of west
and southwest San Antonio in Bexar County,
including the main portion of Kelly USA,
formerly Kelly Air Force Base. The lower onethird continues to flow in a general southwest
direction through rural farm and ranch land. The
portion of this segment between State Highway
16 to Highway 151 lies within the Edwards
Recharge Zone and is dry except during times
of heavy precipitation. The Balcones Escarpment
bisects Bexar County from the west to northeast;
bottom substrates along portions of Leon Creek
that cross the Edwards Recharge formation
consist of boulders, cobble, gravel and flat
limestone bedrock scarred by cracks and fissures.
Where alluvial substrates have accumulated,
sycamores, willows and oak trees have established
themselves. Below Highway 151, a noticeable
change in habitat features occurs. Creek channels
become narrow and deep and the surrounding
geology is dominated by alluvial soils. Riparian
vegetation becomes dense and dominated by
stands of native hardwood trees, grasses, forbs,
and shrubs. Complete canopies overshadow the
creek in many areas within the lower reaches
of this segment. Except during years of low
precipitation, perennial seeps upstream of
Old Highway 90 West maintain the base flow
throughout the remainder of the Lower Leon
Creek. Hilly terrain and low-permeability clay
soils make this segment susceptible to stormwater
runoff.
According to geographic coordinates on the
municipal and industrial wastewater facilities
are located in the Lower San Antonio River
Watershed:
•
Northside ISD Taft HS WWTF
•
Unknown (1)
•
Leon Creek Water Recycling Center
designation. The upper 29 miles of this segment
are designated for use for public water supply; the
lower three miles are not designated for public
103
rafting.
Lower Leon Creek Watershed Water
Quality Summary
According to the 2012 IR, PCBs in edible fish
tissue and DO impairments have been identified
in the Lower Leon Creek Watershed; cadmium
and silver in sediment, and chlorophyll-a nutrient
concerns have also been identified. The Water
Quality Summary table provides a big-picture
taken to assess the issues. The impairments in the
Water Quality Summary table (page 106) are in
red text, concerns are in black text.
Special Studies
Lower Leon Creek Depressed DO Verification
Project: The TCEQ contracted with SARA to
verify depressed DO and develop information
necessary to support TCEQ’s DO Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) efforts on Lower Leon Creek,
Segment 1906. The final report describes the 24hour DO data from December 1, 2001 through
August 31, 2010. The report can be viewed at
SARA’s website located at http://www.sara-tx.org/
public_resources/library.php#enviro_monitoring.
Leon Creek Holistic Watershed Master Plan:
SARA, together with stakeholders, the City of
San Antonio, Bexar County and other partners,
104
is developing a comprehensive watershed master
plan for the Leon Creek Watershed in Bexar
County. Given the watershed's existing density
and projected growth of development, the initial
phases of the project focused on evaluating
flooding conditions and proposing feasible
mitigation solutions. Subsequent phases will
incorporate other strategies such as improving
water quality, identifying appropriate low impact
development techniques, identifying stream
restoration and mitigation banking opportunities,
and investigating sustainable solutions to keep the
watershed physically, chemically and biologically
healthy.
The USGS conducted the Characterization of
Sediment Quality in the San Antonio Area,
South Central Texas study. The study sampled
bed sediment and large volume suspended solids
in Segments 1902, 1906, 1910, 1911 and 1912.
Analyses included major and trace elements
(including Mercury) and organic compounds
including: DDT, Chlordane, Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). The final USGS report
is located at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3090/
FS11-3090.pdf. This project is being sponsored by
SARA and the San Antonio Metropolitan Health
District.
SARA.
USGS Leon Creek Sediment Analysis Study: In
October 2012, SARA and USGS initiated the
Leon Creek Sediment Analysis Study to better
characterize the source for PCBs in the Leon
Creek Watershed upstream from the former
Kelley AFB to Interstate Highway 410. Streambed
sediment and suspended sediment samples will be
collected to investigate the relation between storm
flow and base flow sediment concentrations.
Existing and new sample sites will be studied to
add to the understanding of PCB concentrations
in the study area. This project is being sponsored
by SARA.
Fish Consumption Impairment and
Toxicity in Sediment Concern
In 2002, the Texas Department of State Health
Services (TDSHS) issued fish consumption
advisory ADV-26 advising people not to consume
any species of fish from the Lower Leon Creek
as a result of concentrations of polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) in the fish tissue that posed an
unacceptable risk to consumers. Subsequent
TDSHS fish tissue collections and analysis at
stations along Lower Leon Creek resulted in a
new fish consumption advisory being issued
on June 29, 2010. Advisory ADV-42 expanded
the geographic area beginning at the Old U.S.
Highway 90 Bridge and extends downstream
to the Loop 410 Bridge. The 2012 IR identifies
assessment units 1906_03 through 1906_06 as
impaired for fish consumption.
Concerns for streambed sediment metal screening
levels have also been identified in 1906_05 (silver
and cadmium) and1906_06 (cadmium). It is
Segment 1907 – Upper Leon Creek
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area
of Watershed
Elevated
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) in
Fish Tissue
Illegal disposal of transformers, capacitors, hydraulic
Upper and
Middle (From fluids, lubricants, preservatives and sealants
the confluent containing PCBs
with Indian
Creek through
the remainder
of the
segment)
The USGS Characterization of Sediment Quality in the San Antonio Area, SouthCentral Texas study was completed in 2011. The final USGS report is located at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3090/FS11-3090.pdf
Depressed DO
Middle
Both TCEQ and SARA are monitoring and assessing the data in this segment.
•
•
runoff
Low flows
In October 2012, the SARA and USGS initiated a study to characterize
contaminants of concern, including trace elements and polychlorinated biphenyls,
specifically in the Lower Leon Creek between the former Kelly Air Force Base and
Interstate Highway 410.
Fish Community
Lower
Unless the flow to this portion of the creek is
Fish data collected between May 2006 and July 2010 indicates fish are meeting the
maintained by artificial means, it will never support a high aquatic life use designation.
healthy fish population due to its intermittent nature.
Elevated Cadmium
and Silver in
Sediment
Upper
•
Chlorophyll -a
•
•
•
•
Industrial wastewater discharge
Stormwater runoff over industrial area
In October 2012, SARA and USGS initiated a study to characterize contaminants of
concern, including trace elements and polychlorinated biphenyls, specifically in the
Lower Leon Creek between the former Kelly Air Force Base and Interstate Highway
410.
runoff
No flow resulting in pooling
possible that the metals in sediment and PCBs
may also be influencing the impairment for
depressed DO and fish community concerns in
the Lower Leon Creek.
According to the EPA, PCBs belong to a broad
family of man-made organic chemicals known
as chlorinated hydrocarbons. PCBs were
domestically manufactured from 1929 until
their manufacture was banned in 1979. PCBs
vary in consistency from thin, light-colored
liquids to yellow or black waxy solids. Due to
their non-flammability, chemical stability, high
boiling point, and electrical insulating properties,
PCBs were used in hundreds of industrial and
commercial applications including electrical, heat
transfer, and hydraulic equipment; as plasticizers
in paints, plastics, and rubber products; in
pigments, dyes, and carbonless copy paper; and
many other industrial applications. Prior to
the 1979 ban, PCBs entered the environment
during their manufacture and use in the United
States. Today PCBs can still be released into the
environment from poorly maintained hazardous
waste sites that contain PCBs; illegal or improper
dumping of PCB wastes; leaks or releases from
electrical transformers containing PCBs; and
105
disposal of PCB-containing consumer products
into municipal or other landfills not designed
to handle hazardous waste. PCBs may also be
released into the environment by the burning
of some wastes in municipal and industrial
incinerators.
sediments transported during storm events.
Streambed sediment samples will be collected to
investigate the relation between storm flow and
base flow sediment concentrations (i.e., what is
transported from upstream and what is deposited
in the streambed). By sampling at both new and
established sites, the study will be able to add to
the current understanding of PCB concentrations
in the study area. Samples will be analyzed for
major and trace elements, pesticides and PCBs.
The project should conclude in mid-summer 2015.
Once in the environment, PCBs do not readily
break down and therefore may remain for long
periods. PCBs can accumulate in the leaves and
above-ground parts of plants and food crops.
They are also taken up into the bodies of small
organisms and fish. As a result, people who
ingest fish may be exposed to PCBs that have
bioaccumulated in the fish they are ingesting.
DO Impairment
In response to the 2002 TDSHS fish consumption
advisory ADV-26, the USGS with support
from SARA, initiated and completed the
Characterization of Sediment Quality in the San
Antonio Area, South Central Texas Study, 2007–
09. Analyses included major and trace elements
and organic compounds including PCBs and
metals. The final USGS report is located at http://
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3090/FS11-3090.pdf. The
study identified the presence of trace elements,
pesticides and PCBs in Lower Leon Creek and
below at the former Kelly Air Force Base (AFB).
In order to further investigate the findings of the
original study completed in 2009, the USGS with
support from SARA, initiated the 2012 Sources of
Contaminants to Upper Leon Creek, San Antonio
Study. This study is designed to characterize
contaminants of concern between the former
Kelly Air Force Base and Interstate Highway
410. The study approach will include streambed
sediment and stormwater sediment sampling.
Specific attention will be given to suspended
106
Lower Leon Creek, assessment unit 1906_04,
from Highway 353 to two miles upstream, was
first identified in the 1999 Texas Water Quality
Inventory and 303(d) List as having grab DO
minimum concentrations lower than the standard
established to assure optimum conditions for
aquatic life. However, because some of the older
DO minimum listings may have been made by
comparing grab DO minimum (3 mg/L) data to
the average 24-hour criterion (5 mg/L), a stepwise procedure for evaluating the older DO carry
forward listings was made in 2008. Until sufficient
24-hour DO data is available, existing grab DO
listing and concerns will remain. Although
the 2012 IR qualifies the grab DO minimum
nonsporting (NS) data as being carried forward
from previous assessments, it should be noted
that current grab DO minimum data indicates
that the 1906_04 is meeting the high aquatic life
use designation.
As a result of the DO grab impairment and
24-hour DO minimum concern, tentative 2014
24-hour DO sampling efforts will be moved to
1906_04; however, drought and ambient low flow
conditions might be a limiting factor.
The 2012 IR identified a fish community concern
in assessment unit 1906_01, lower three miles of
the Lower Leon Creek. Station 14198, Leon Creek
upstream of Leon Sewage Treatment Plant is in
assessment unit 1906_01 and was sampled six
times during the assessment period, once in 2004
and once each year from 2006 to 2010.
For 1906_01, the fish IBI scores ranged from
31 (low) in 2009 to 47 (high) in 2008. Average
total number of individual fish collected per site
was 512 and the average number of fish species
collected at each site was 14. Tolerant individuals
made up 55 percent of all individuals collected
and the average number of intolerant species
collected per sampling event was three. Thirteen
percent of all species collected were considered
non-native and included the sailfin molly, Rio
Grande cichlid, Mexican tetra, blue tilapia,
redbreast sunfish, and the common carp. Native
species collected include the red shiner, blacktail
shiner, bullhead minnow, central stoneroller,
channel catfish, flathead catfish, warmouth,
longear sunfish and the logperch.
The Habitat Quality Index score for 1906_01
ranged from 23 (high) in 2009 to 26.5
(exceptional) in 2008. The Lower Leon Creek is
characterized by well- to poorly defined stream
bends. Stream banks of the Lower Leon Creek
vary from low-lying, gently sloping banks to high,
steep banks. Portions of the stream are bordered
with large sandstone boulders and gravel. Some
high, steep banks of unconsolidated soils are also
present. Many of the low-lying banks are covered
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the Lower Leon Creek Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Segment 1906 - Lower Leon Creek
Chloride
Segment_AU
Stations in the
Segment
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Dissolved
Oxygen Grab Oxygen
Screening
Grab
Average
Minimum
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Average
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Minimum
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
--
--
NA
NA
NA
---CS -Cadmium
& Silver
Sediment
CS -Silver
Sediment
-NS
NS
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
35 C
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
high
NC
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
high
high
high
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NA
FS
NA
NS
FS
NA
FS
FS
FS
CN
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NA
NC
NA
NA
NC
NA
NA
NC
NA
NA
NC
NA
NA
NC
NA
CS
(43.00)
NA
NA
NA
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
CS
NA
NA
NA
pH Range
Temperature
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
↓
↓
14198
perennial
perennial
perennial
perennial
1906_05
12841, 18199;
12842
1906_06
12845, 14209,
12846
IBI Score 41
Trends
1906_01
NA
5 mg/L
12835, 12836
12838
12840
Seg/AU
DSHS
Advisories,
Closures, Risk
Assessments
FS
1906_02
1906_03
1906_04
Fish
Toxicity in
Sediment
700 mg/L
o
Chlorophyll-a
Description
Station 14198 Leon Creek Upstream from Leon
Creek WWTP
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
NC = No Concern
NA = Not Assessed
E. coli
↓
*Fish Consumption and Toxicity in Sediment: Due to the number of organic constituents and sampling locations, together with the varying amount of data (insufficient, limited, adequate data), only the assessment unitssegments with adequate data and specific impairments were identified in the table.
with native grasses, forbs and wildflowers. The
average width of the natural riparian habitat that
borders the Lower Leon Creek is 20 meters and
includes trees shrubs and grasses. The average
percent tree canopy is 53 percent and includes
black willow, pecan, ash, sycamore, oak and
cottonwood trees. Instream habitat types include
riffles, runs, glides and back water areas. The
dominant substrate type throughout the Lower
Leon Creek is gravel. The average number of
instream cover types is nine and includes gravel,
cobble, boulders, tree roots, undercut banks,
overhanging vegetation and woody debris. The
average instream cover is 32 percent. The average
percent stream bank erosion is 26 percent.
To meet the high aquatic life use designation,
the mean IBI fish score for samples collected
must be 41.0 or higher. Although the mean fish
IBI score for 1906_01 was 43.0, which meets the
high aquatic life use criteria, statistical analyses
of the data indicates the number of fish was
there, but the overall species richness or diversity
was not. As a result, the 2012 IR identified a
fish community concern in the assessment unit
1906_01. SARA will maintain fish and habitat
collections in assessment unit 1906_01.
107
*Fish
Consumption
Macro
Benthic
Score
29
FS
120 mg/L 120 mg/L
E. coli geomean
126
CFU/100ml
Ammonia
Nitrogen
FS
Flow Type
1906_01
Temperature
*Aquatic Life
Habitat
HBI Score
20
NC
(25.30)
NA
NA
NA
Aquatic Life
Use
pH Range
Biological
NS
NS
Trend Analyses
Trend analysis was conducted on Station 14198,
Leon Creek upstream from the Leon Creek
WWTP. Results identify decrease trends in
ammonia, nitrate and total phosphorous (Figures
LLC 1-3). The concern for chlorophyll-a identified
in the 2012 IR for assessment unit 1906_06 is
mostly likely due to the no- or low-ambient flows
in the upper reaches of the Lower Leon Creek
exacerbated by the drought over the assessment
period.
108
Hays
Kendall
Stream Segment 1910
Comal
^
17574
Assessment Units
1910_01
1910_02
1910_03
^
1910_04
16583
1910_05
^
1910_06
^
Guadalupe
20358
^ ^
^^
^
^^
1910A_01
^
po
Bexar
^
12872
1910A_02
^ 12871
12700
^
12870
1910B_01
^ 15644 ^
1910C_01
^ ^ 15646
12693
14929
^
1910D_01
^
12692
^^
1910E_01
^ 12699
12868
Monitoring
Stations
^
^
12690
15647
!
. Wastewater Facilities & Recycling Centers
^
^
12864
1910_07
Medina
po
Flow Augmentation Sites
^
^
12701
12877
12702
^
12876
12875
^
^
^ ^
12698
^
^
po
12874
at James Park
20356
20359
20327
^
15642
12689
Population Centers
12862
0
0
^ 12861
^
!
.
4
5
^
SALADO CREEK CHEMICAL STORAGE FACILITY
8
10
16 Miles
20 Kilometers
Atascosa
109
¯
Wilson
SALADO CREEK WATERShED –
SEGMENT 1910
Salado Creek Segment 1910 extends upstream
from its confluence with the San Antonio River
in Bexar County to Rocking Horse Lane west of
Camp Bullis in Bexar County. The approximate
drainage area is 221 square miles and is
predominately urban. The upper portion of Salado
Creek is much wider and shallower than that
of the lower portion, which is narrow and deep.
Near the headwaters, the general topography of
this segment is represented by steep hill country
terrain to gently rolling hills of alluvial soils at
its confluence with the San Antonio River. From
its headwaters to approximately one-quarter
mile upstream of north Loop 410, Salado Creek
traverses the limestone formations of the Edwards
Aquifer Recharge Zone and flows intermittently.
This portion of Salado Creek flows only after
major rainfall events, then quickly drains and
remains dry until the next major event. Salado
Creek becomes perennial from intermittent seeps
and springs 0.62 miles downstream of Loop 410.
The remaining portions of Salado Creek take on
the alluvial characteristics of the Gulf Coastal
Plains and become more deeply entrenched as
it flows to its confluence with the San Antonio
River. The extreme lower reach of Salado Creek
flows through rural farm and ranch land and
reflects those ecological characteristics of the San
Antonio River.
110
Unclassified segments of the Salado Creek
Watershed assessed in the 2012 IR include:
Salado Creek Watershed Water Quality
Summary
•
According to the 2012 IR, bacteria, depressed
oxygen, and fish and macrobenthic communities’
impairments have been identified in the Salado
Creek Watershed. Nutrient concerns have
also been documented. The Water Quality
Quality Summary table (page 114) are in red text,
concerns are in black text.
Segment 1910A Walzem Creek
Segment 1910B Rosillo Creek
Segment 1910C Salado Creek Tributary
Segment 1910D Menger Creek
Segment 1910E Beitel Creek
•
•
•
•
use land cover for the Upper San Antonio River
geographic coordinates for the Salado Creek
Chemical Storage Facility as a permitted
municipal facility in the Salado Creek Watershed.
The Salado Creek has varying levels of aquatic
life use designations. The upper reaches of
the segment have a limited aquatic life use
designation and intermittent flows; the lower
reaches have high aquatic life use designation
and are perennial. Salado Creek is designated
for use as a public water supply and aquifer
protection, since it contributes to recharge of the
Edwards Aquifer. Like all segments in the San
rafting.
Special Projects
One Total Maximum Daily Load for DO in
Salado Creek: Salado Creek was included
in the 1998, 1999 and the draft 2000 303(d)
Lists for the State of Texas based upon the
assessment of water quality data. The water
quality problems identified in Salado Creek were
low DO concentrations and elevated bacterial
levels. This TMDL addressed only the low DO
concentrations which were observed in Salado
Creek. Project staff determined that there was
additional capacity in Salado Creek to assimilate
oxygen-demanding materials; therefore the water
quality standard for support of the aquatic life
use was being met. The Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, presently known as
the TCEQ, approved the TMDL in October 2001.
The EPA approved it on August 8, 2003, at which
time it became part of the state's Water Quality
Management Plan.
Three Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria
Segment 1910 – Salado Creek
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area of
Watershed
Depressed DO
Sporadic
Intermittent low flows, poor bank stability and
riparian buffer vegetation, channel sinuosity and
shallow depth. Elevated nutrient loading from
augmented re-use water at James Park.
SARA completed a DO TMDL in 2003 in which no depressed DO issues were
detected. In November 2007, the TCEQ published a Salado Use-Attainability
Analyses (UAA). The UAA indicated the high aquatic life use could not be
supported from the mouth of Beitel Creek to the headwaters.
E. coli
Lower and Middle •
Direct and indirect (stormwater runoff) sources
of fecal matter from domestic and wild animals
•
•
E. coli in water is an indication of recent fecal matter contamination of the
water. Fecal matter can carry other disease-causing organisms. Contact
recreation should be avoided when there are elevated E. coli in the water to
avoid infection.
Fish and
Macrobenthic
Community
(impairments/
concerns removed
from the 2012 IR)
Middle
This part of the segment has low flow and DO issues
in the past which may have led to the impaired
macrobenthic community.
Flow augmentation is provided at James Park above Segment 1910_03;
however, inherent ambient low-flow conditions will be a continuous issue in
this segment. Drought conditions over the assessment period also affected the
fish and macrobenthic communities. Stream restoration maybe a good BMP
to improve fish and macrobenthic communities in the segment. Scouring of
habitat during violent storm events has also been noted.
Nitrate Nitrogen
Middle
•
Chlorophyll-a
Upper
screening criteria. Phosphorus, ammonia, nitrate, and chlorophyll-a data is
utilized to indicate areas of possible concern. Continue monitoring in support
of the TCEQ efforts to establish freshwater stream nutrient criteria.
runoff
•
Segment 1910A – Walzem Creek • 1910B – Rosillo Creek
Segment 1910C - Salado Creek Tributary • Segment 1910D - Menger Creek
Segment 1910E - Beitel Creek
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area of
Watershed
Depressed DO
Menger Creek
Intermittent low flows, poor bank stability and
riparian buffer vegetation, channel sinuosity and
shallow depth
SARA completed a DO TMDL in 2003.
•
In the majority of cases, there is sufficient data (>20 samples) to assess E. coli
geomean in these tributaries, additional sampling to increase the sample set to
calculate the geomean is warranted.
Beitel Creek
E. coli
Walzem Creek,
Salado Creek
Tributary, Menger
Creek,
Beitel Creek
•
•
Direct and indirect (stormwater runoff) sources
of fecal matter from domestic and wild animals
111
in the San Antonio Area: The Upper San Antonio
River and Salado Creek were first identified as
impaired due to bacteria in the 2000 Texas Water
Quality Inventory and 303(d) List (TCEQ 2000).
Walzem Creek was added to the list in 2002. The
TCEQ adopted these TMDLs on July 25, 2007,
the EPA approved them on September 25, 2007, at
which time they became part of the state's Water
Quality Management Plan.
TMDL Implementation Plan in the Upper San
Antonio River, Salado Creek and Walzem Creek:
To achieve the pollutant-loading reductions
required by the TMDL, the TCEQ and SARA
are developing an Implementation Plan (IP) for
the impaired segments. The IP will borrow much
of the information from the Upper San Antonio
River Watershed Protection, but will be expanded
to include the entire Upper San Antonio River
and Salado and Walzem Creeks.
Salado Creek, Segment 1910, Use Attainability
Analyses (UAA): In November 2007, the TCEQ
submitted a UAA for Salado Creek to the EPA;
the EPA approved the UAA on June 29, 2011.
Information in the UAA document indicated that
perennial flow-type classification and associated
DO criteria for portions of the segment would
have to be adjusted as a result of USGS gage
station flow information gathered between 1998
and 2003.
Salado Creek Watershed Master Plan: SARA
and its consultant North America, Inc. (Atkins),
together with stakeholders, the City of San
Antonio, Bexar County, and other partners are
developing a Watershed Master Plan for Salado
Creek. The Salado Creek Watershed, located
in north central Bexar County, Texas, has
112
experienced recurring flood problems dating back
into the 1800s and 1900s and more recently, in the
1998 and 2002 flood events. In addition to being
a major contributor to these persistent flooding
problems, past and ongoing urbanization has
also resulted in the occurrence of water-quality
degradation in the watershed with the potential
for conditions to become progressively worse. To
address these and other issues, SARA authorized
Atkins to develop a multi-phased Salado
Creek Watershed Master Plan (SCWMP) that
addresses flooding and water quality issues while
integrating elements of environmental protection,
stream stability and recreational planning.
Bacteria Impairment
Salado Creek and the Upper San Antonio River
were identified in the 2000 Texas Water Quality
Inventory and 303(d) List as being impaired
due to elevated levels of bacteria. Walzem Creek
was added to the list in 2002. In response to the
listings, the TCEQ initiated three TMDLs in the
San Antonio area, which include the Upper San
Antonio River, Salado Creek and Walzem Creek.
Although the final TMDL Report identified point
and nonpoint sources of bacteria, the final report
indicated the largest contributor to the bacteria
impairment in the Salado and Walzem Creek
Watersheds was from nonpoint sources that
originated in runoff from the highly develop areas
in the watersheds. Under base flow, dry-weather
conditions, direct nonpoint sources were the most
significant loading in the watersheds.
The TCEQ adopted the TMDLs on July 25, 2007;
the EPA approved the TMDLs on September
25, 2007. Adoption of the TMDL by the TCEQ
represents an update to the state’s Water Quality
Management Plan and serves as the basis for
future permitting decisions in the watershed.
Once the TMDL was approved, the EPA required
that a TMDL Implementation Plan (TMDLIP) be developed to address the water-quality
impairments as identified in the TMDL.
To assist the TCEQ in the development of a
TMDL-IP and to build on the Upper San Antonio
River WPP, SARA contracted with James
Miertschin and Associates, Inc. to conduct an
assessment of recommended BMPs to reduce
the bacteria loading within Salado Creek,
Walzem Creek and the Upper San Antonio River
Watersheds. The final BMP Summary Report
identifies a range of BMPs and their effectiveness
in addressing the bacteria impairments. Based
on the BMP effectiveness, selected BMPs were
recommended for implementation or for further
evaluation. The final BMP Summary Report
can be viewed at the Bexar Regional Watershed
Management website located at http://www.
bexarfloodfacts.org/watershed_protection_plan/
index.php.
The TMDL-IP will serve as a guide towards
abatement of nonpoint sources of bacteria.
The IP will complement the TCEQ TMDL
by establishing the framework needed for
implementation through public outreach,
awareness, and input efforts, as well as
collaboration with partners and stakeholders. The
IP will include information from the Upper San
Antonio River WPP and final BMP Summary
Reports. The TCEQ TMDL-IP will identify BMPs,
who will implement the BMPs, timelines for
implementation, and provide tools for measuring
improvement. The TCEQ has contracted with
the Texas AgriLife Research to facilitate the
development of a stakeholder-driven TMDL
Implementation Plan in the Salado Creek and
Walzem Creek Watersheds.
DO Impairment
As a result of the varying flow-type classifications
within the Salado Creek Watershed, the
TCEQ conducted a Use Attainability Analysis
(UAA) to reevaluate and determine if the flow
classifications, aquatic life uses and associated
water quality standards for the segment were
appropriate. In November 2007, the TCEQ
submitted their Salado Creek UAA findings to
the EPA; the EPA approved the UAA in June
2011. Information in the documents indicate that
the perennial flow-type classification, aquatic
life use designations and associated DO criteria
for portions of Salado Creek would have to be
adjusted as a result of USGS gage station flow
information gathered between 1998 and 2003.
The upper reaches and portions of the middle
Salado Creek could not support a high aquatic
life use due to ephemeral or intermittent low-flow
conditions or water levels and physical conditions
related to primary features of the creek. Including
a lack of proper bank stability, channel sinuosity,
riparian buffer vegetation, flow, depth, riffles
unrelated to water quality. Specifically, the UAA
documents indicated the upper 20.6 miles, from
Rocking Horse Lane west of Camp Bullis to
Nacogdoches Road had intermittent flow with a
minimal aquatic life use designation (24-hour DO
average/minimum criteria of 2.0/1.5 mg/L). Flow
in the middle 2.2 mile of the middle reach, from
Nacogdoches Road to the mouth of Beitel Creek,
was intermittent with perennial pools with an
intermediate aquatic life use designation (24-hour
DO average/minimum criteria of 4.0/3.0 mg/L).
The lower 21.2 miles of Salado Creek, from the
mouth of Beitel Creek to the confluent with the
San Antonio River, are considered to be perennial
and are capable of supporting the high aquatic life
use designation (24-hour DO average/minimum
criteria of 5.0/3.0 mg/L).
After assessing the data over the 2012 assessment
period and incorporating the information from
the Salado Creek UAA, the 2012 IR identifies
a depressed DO grab minimum impairment
in assessment unit 1910_04 and a depressed
DO grab average concern in 1910_05. There
was sufficient 24-hour DO data to indicate
that 1910_02 and 1910_03 were meeting the
24-hour DO criteria. As a result, the overall
level of support for these assessment units was
changed from nonsupporting to fully supporting
the aquatic life use based on DO. The 2012 IR
indicates that a TMDL for depressed DO has been
completed and approved by the EPA. As a result,
the impairment in 1910_04 does not appear on
the 2012 Texas Water Quality 303(d) List. To
continue to address the flow-type reclassifications
as approved by the EPA, the TCEQ has indicated
that assessment units 1910_05 through 1910_07
113
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the Salado Creek Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Segment 1910 - Salado Creek
Chloride
Segment_AU
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
1910_01
12861, 12862
perennial
high
FS
1910_02
12864, 12868,
12870, 14929,
15645, 15646,
15647
perennial
high
1910_03
12871, 12872,
12874, 15642,
15644, 20327
perennial
1910_04
12875; 12876
1910_05
12877
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Oxygen
Dissolved
24 Hour
24 Hour
Grab
Oxygen
Dissolved Dissolved
Screening
Grab
Oxygen
Oxygen
Average
Minimum Average
Minimum pH Range
Temperature
E. coli
geomean
126
CFU/100ml
Biological
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
Fish
IBI Score
41
Habitat
HBI Score
20
Macro
Benthic
Score
29
600 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 oC
FS
FS
NC
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
FS
(41.30)
NC
(21.90)
NA
FS
FS
FS
SM
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
TR
NC
(23.50)
NA
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
NS
NC
CS
NC
NC
NC
TR
NA
TR
perennial
high
FS
FS
FS
NC
NS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NA
NC
NA
NC
(44.00)
NC
(23.00)
NA
intermittent
w/pools
limited
FS
FS
FS
4.00 mg/L
CS
3.00 mg/L
FS
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
NC
NC
NC
NC
CS
NA
NA
NA
FS
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
FS
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
140 mg/L 200 mg/L
1910_06*
No Stations
intermittent
limited
FS
1910_07*
17574
intermittent
limited
FS
will be combined into a single new segment for
the 2014 IR.
Depressed DO concentrations in the Salado Creek
Watershed are likely associated with ambient
low-flow conditions exacerbated by the drought
over the assessment period. To supplement the
existing routine water-quality sampling efforts
in assessment unit 1910_04, SARA will include
two 24-hour DO collection events at Station
12875, Salado Creek at Eisenhauer Road for the
upcoming 2014 coordinated monitoring schedule.
As a result of the November 2007 Use
Attainability Analysis (UAA) on the Salado
Creek, the fish, habitat and macrobenthic
community impairments and concerns for the
upper portion of Salado Creek, assessment units
1910_05 through 1910_07 were removed from the
114
2012 Texas Water Quality 303(d) List. The UAA
indicated that the upper portion of the Salado
Creek could not support a high aquatic life use
designation due to ephemeral or intermittent
low-flow conditions. The TCEQ has indicated that
assessment units 1910_05 through 1910_07 will be
combined into a new segment for the 2014 IR. In
addition, the fish and macrobenthic community
impairment and concerns in assessment units
1910_02 and 1910_03 were also removed from the
List. The TCEQ qualified the biological data as
“Temporally Not Representative” (TR). TR means
that the data was not temporally representative
of long-term conditions; therefore not assessed in
the 2012 IR.
Station 12874, Salado Creek at Rittiman Road,
is located in assessment unit 1910_03 and was
sampled once each year from 2004 to 2010. The
fish IBI scores ranged from 33 (low) in 2009 to 41
(high) 2010. The average fish IBI score was 39.415
(intermediate) during 2012 IR assessment period.
Native species collected included the spotted gar,
red shiner, bullhead minnow, central stoneroller,
yellow bullhead catfish, blackstripe topminnow,
mosquitofish, largemouth bass, green sunfish,
warmouth, bluegill sunfish, longear sunfish and
the spotted sunfish. Non-native collected included
common carp, Mexican tetra, Rio Grande cichlid,
redbreast sunfish and the sailfin molly. The
habitat was not assessed.
Segment 1910 Salado Creek is characterized by
well- to poorly defined stream bends. Stream
banks are gently sloping within the upper reaches
of Salado Creek then become high steep banks
within the lower reaches near the confluence
with the San Antonio River. Average width of the
natural riparian habitat within Segment 1910 is
16 meters. Trees in the segment include pecan,
hackberry, cottonwood, black willow, oak, and
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the Salado Creek Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Segment 1910A - Walzem Creek
Segment 1910B - Rosillo Creek
Segment 1910C - Salado Creek Tributary
Segment 1910D - Menger Creek
Segment 1910E - Beitel Creek
Chloride
Segment_AU
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
Walzem
Creek 1910A
12698, 20356,
20359
perennial
high
Segment_AU
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
Rosillo Creek
1910B
12689, 12690,
12699, 12700
intermittent
w/pools
limited
Segment_AU
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
Salado Creek
Tributary
1910C
12692
intermittent
minimal
Segment_AU
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
Menger Creek
1910D
12693
perennial
high
Segment_AU
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
Beitel Creek
1910E
12701, 12702,
16583, 20358
intermittent
w/pools
limited
Sulfate
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
NA
NA
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
NA
NA
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
NA
NA
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
NA
NA
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
NA
NA
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved
Oxygen
Dissolved
24 Hour
24 Hour
Grab
Oxygen
Dissolved Dissolved
Screening
Grab
Oxygen
Oxygen
Average
Minimum Average
Minimum pH Range
Temperature
E. coli
geomean
126
CFU/100ml
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
750 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 oC
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
750 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 oC
126
CFU/100ml
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
750 mg/L
2 mg/L
1.5 mg/L
2 mg/L
1.5 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 oC
126
CFU/100ml
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
NA
NC
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
CN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
750 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 oC
126
CFU/100ml
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
NA
CS
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
750 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
3 mg/L
2 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
32.2 C
126
CFU/100ml
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
NA
CS
FS
NA
NA
NA
NA
CN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
pH Range
Temperature
E. coli
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
o
Trends
Seg/AU
Description
1910_01
Station 12861 Salado Creek at Southton Road
1910_02
Station 12870 Salado Creek at Gembler Road
1910_03
Station 12874 Salado Creek at Rittiman Road
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
Solids
No trends detected
↑
SM = This assessment method is superceded by another method
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
NC = No Concern
NA = Not Assessed
TR = Temporally not Representative of long-term conditions, the data is not assessed
115
juniper Ashe trees. Instream habitat types include
riffles, runs, glides and pools. Gravel is the
dominant substrate types throughout Segment
1910. Instream habitat includes woody debris, tree
roots, overhanging vegetation, undercut banks,
boulders, litter and gravel.
Flow augmentation is provided at James Park
above assessment unit 1910_03; however, inherent
ambient low-flow conditions will be a continuous
issue in this segment. Drought conditions over
the assessment period have also affected the
fish and macrobenthic communities. When
stormwater events do happen, field observations
have noted the effects of heavy and violent storm
events which have resulted in the scouring and
removal of instream and riparian habitat. The
addition of stormwater BMPs to minimize the
violent flow and effects of stormwater events
would greatly benefit the segment. The segment
would also benefit from stream restoration
similar to efforts being employed in the Upper
San Antonio River Mission Reach area. The
incorporation of aquatic features such as
riffles, runs, pools and embayments would help
oxygenate the water, reduce sediment in the water,
and restore the structural diversity of the river to
support a variety of ecosystem functions and help
address the aquatic life impairments and concerns
identified in the Salado Creek Watershed.
Trend Analyses
Station 12874, Salado Creek at Rittiman Road is
located upstream of the SAWS Outfall 4 in James
Park.
Trending for Station 12874 shows increase trends
in sulfate and DO deficit (Figures SC 1-2).
116
Station12870, Salado Creek at Gembler Road is
below SAWS Outfall 4 in James Park. Trending
for Station 12870 identifies increase trends in
chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids, DO deficit
and nitrate (Figures 3-4).
Although increasing trends at Station 12870 may
be influenced by the reuse water introduced at
James Park, it does not explain the increasing
trends above James Park at Station 12874. A
graphic illustration of instantaneous flow over
time indicates a statistically significant negative
trend in flow. As with other watersheds in the
San Antonio River Basin, it appears that drought
conditions over the assessment period are
affecting the water quality in the Salado Creek
Watershed. As base flow decreases, dissolved
solids and nutrient concentrations have a
tendency to increase (Figures 5-6).
117
BECKER UTILITY WWTP
!
.
TALLEY ROAD UTILITY CORP.
!
.
!
.
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
!
.
!
.
12735
Bexar
Medina
MEDIO CREEK WATER RECYC CTR
^
Assessment Units
1912_01
12730
1912A_01
^
^
Monitoring Stations
!
.
12728
Population Centers
^
13659
Stream Segment 1912
12917
^
0
0
118
1.75
3
3.5
6
12916
^
7 Miles
¯
12 Kilometers
MEDiO CREEK WATERShED –
SEGMENT 1912
Medio Creek, Segment 1912, extends upstream
from its confluence with the Medina River in
southwest Bexar to a point 1.0 Kilometer (0.6
miles) upstream of Interstate Highway 35 in San
Antonio in Bexar County. Segment 1912A, the
upper portion of Medio Creek, continues up to
approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the Bexar/
Medina County line. Upper Medio Creek is dry
or intermittent and becomes perennial below
the San Antonio Water System’s Medio Creek
Water Recycling Center located north of U.S.
Highway 90 West. Total approximate drainage
area is 53.6 square miles. Medio Creek is effluentdominated throughout its perennial reach and
no major tributaries contribute to the flow within
Medio Creek. Instream habitat types in Medio
Creek generally alternate between pools, glides
and riffles throughout its length and some large
impoundments are present within the perennial
portion of the creek.
Segment 1912A, the Upper Medio Creek is the
only unclassified segment of the Medio Creek
Watershed assessed in the 2012 IR.
use land cover for the Medio Creek Watershed
is: Urban Developed 31.5%, Forest 30.5%, Range
26.6%, Agricultural 9.4%, Wetlands 1.5%, and
Barren 0.2%.
permitted municipal or industrial wastewater
facilities in the Medio Creek Watershed:
•
Becker Utility WWTP
•
Talley Road Utility Corp.
•
Unknown (2)
•
Medio Creek Water Recycling Center
Segment 1912 has an intermediate aquatic life use
designation and is not designated for domestic
canoeing and rafting.
Medio Creek Watershed Water Quality
Summary
According to the 2012 IR, nutrient concerns have
been identified in the Medio Creek Watershed.
The Water Quality Summary table provides a big
picture view of the impairments and concerns
in the watershed, possible sources and solutions/
actions taken to assess the issues. There are
no impairments identified in the Medio Creek
Watershed, the concerns are identified in the table
on page 122.
Special Projects
The USGS (with sponsorship from SARA and
San Antonio Metropolitan Health District)
conducted the Characterization of Sediment
Quality in the San Antonio Area, South Central
Texas study. The study sampled bed sediment
and large volume suspended solids in segments
1902, 1906, 1910, 1911 and 1912. Analyses
included major and trace elements (including
Mercury) and organic compounds including:
DDT, Chlordane, Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). The final USGS report is located at http://
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3090/FS11-3090.pdf. This
project is sponsored by SARA and San Antonio
Metropolitan Health District.
Malcolm Pirnie/ARCADIS-US together with
County, and other partners, is developing a
high-level, long-range master plan for the Medina
River Watershed, including portions of Medio
Creek. The Master Plan will address potential
water-quality and flooding issues in a “holistic”
or integrated manner, with planning emphasis
on sustainable, non-structural solutions such as
green infrastructure, low impact development
programs, stormwater best management
practices, protection of riparian corridors
through voluntary measures such as conservation
spaces. In addition to sustainable solutions,
USGS (with sponsorship from SARA) Occurrence
and Distribution of Pharmaceuticals, Hormones
and Wastewater Compounds in the San Antonio
River Basin, Texas, 2011-14: The objective
of the study is to assess the occurrence and
concentrations of hormone, pharmaceutical
and wastewater compounds throughout the San
Antonio River Watershed. Estimated project
119
closing date is January 2014. This project is being
sponsored by SARA.
The 2012 IR does not list any impairment for the
Medio Creek Watershed; nutrient concerns for
water quality based on screening levels have been
identified.
Biological assessments for Medio Creek,
assessment units 1912_01 and 1912A did not
identify any impairments or concerns for the
biological and habitat communities. Medio Creek
at Interstate Highway 35 was sampled once in
2006. Hidden Valley Campground was sampled
once in 2004 and once each year from 2006 to
2010. IBI scores ranged from 31 (limited) in 2004
to 43 (high) in 2007. For both assessment units,
the average number of individual fish collected
per site was 115. An average of 14 different species
was collected per event. No intolerant species
were collected and 57 percent were tolerant.
Nonnative species such as the Mexican tetra,
sailfin molly, Amazon molly, redbreast sunfish,
Mozambique tilapia, Rio Grande cichlid and the
common carp made up 15 percent of the species
collected. Native species collected include the
mosquitofish, gizzard shad, red shiner, sand
shiner, blacktail shiner, ghost shiner, bullhead
minnow, channel catfish, yellow bullhead catfish,
flathead catfish, largemouth bass, spotted bass,
warmouth, green sunfish, bluegill sunfish, longear
sunfish, central stoneroller, inland silverside and
grey redhorse.
The Habitat Quality Index scores ranged from
21.5 (high) in 2007 to 27 (exceptional) in 2008,
with the average IBI score being 23 (high). The
Medio Creek stream channel is well-defined with
well- to poorly defined stream bends. Stream
banks are gently sloping and covered with
hardwood riparian forest. The average width of
the natural riparian habitat for the sample sites
is 18 meters and includes native hardwood trees,
shrubs and grasses. The average percent tree
canopy is 84 percent and includes pecan, elm,
hackberry, black willow, cottonwood, and oak.
Instream habitat types include riffles, runs and
glides. Gravel is the dominant substrate type.
The average number of instream cover types
is nine and includes woody debris, tree roots,
overhanging vegetation, gravel and undercut
banks. The average percent instream cover is 31
percent and the average percent stream bank
erosion is estimated to be 24 percent.
Segment 1912 – Medio Creek
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area of
Watershed
Nitrate
Entire
•
There are no state numerical nutrient stream water-quality standards, only
Ortho-Phosphorus
runoff
•
•
Total Phosphorus
Segment 1912A – Upper Medio Creek
Water Quality
Focus
Affected Area of
Watershed
Nitrate
Entire
•
There are no state numerical nutrient stream water-quality standards, only
Ortho-Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
•
•
runoff
120
Trend Analyses
Station 12916 Medio Creek at Hidden Valley
indicates a decreasing trend in sulfate, and an
increasing trend for total phosphorus. There were
no statistically significant trends when comparing
sulfate and total phosphorous concentration
relative to flow. Possible sources for the nutrient
concerns include discharges from municipal
wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater runoff
from agricultural and urban land coupled with
assessment period.
Impairments, Concerns and Long-Term Trends for the Medio Creek Watershed, 2012 Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Segment 1912A - Upper Medio Creek
Segment 1912 - Medio Creek
Chloride
Segment/AU
1912_01
Stations in the
Segment
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
12917, 12916
perennial
intermediate
Sulfate
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
FS
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved Dissolved
Oxygen Grab Oxygen
Grab
Screening
Average
Minimum
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Average
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Minimum pH Range
Temperature
750 mg/L
4 mg/L
3 mg/L
4 mg/L
3 mg/L
6.5-9.0 SU
35 oC
FS
NC
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
E. coli
geomean
126
CFU/100ml
FS
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
NC
CS
CS
CS
NC
Segment 1912A - Upper Medio Creek
Chloride
Segment_AU
1912A_01
Stations in the
Segment
12735, 12730,
12728, 13659
Flow Type
Aquatic Life
Use
Intermittent
no pools
minimal
Sulfate
150 mg/L 150 mg/L
NA
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Dissolved Dissolved
Oxygen Grab Oxygen
Grab
Screening
Average
Minimum
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Minimum pH Range
Temperature
1.5 mg/L 6.5-9.0 SU
o
35 C
2 mg/L
1.5 mg/L
2 mg/L
NA
NA
NC
FS
FS
Sulfate
Total
Dissolved
FS
Description
1912_01
Chloride
NA
NA
pH Range Temperature
E. coli
geomean
126
CFU/100ml
Ammonia
Nitrogen
*Nitrate
Nitrogen
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
0.33 mg/L
1.95 mg/L
0.37 mg/L
0.69 mg/L
14.1µg/L
FS
NA
CS
CS
CS
NC
E. coli
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Nitrate +
Nitrite
Ortho
Phosphorus
Total
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
↑
↓
NC = No Concern
Habitat
HBI Score
IBI Score 35
14
NC
FS (40.40)
(23.00)
NA = Not Assessed
*Nitrate + nitrite is the primary method utilized for analyzing surface water in Segment 1912A
121
Macro
Benthic
Score
22
NA
Biological
Trends
Seg/AU
Fish
24 Hour
Dissolved
Oxygen
Average
750 mg/L
Biological
Limited Data
Fish
Habitat
HBI Score
IBI Score 35
14
NC
NC
(41.00)
(21.30)
Macro
Benthic
Score
22
NA
122
4.0 RECOMMENDATiONS AND
CONCLuSiONS
4.1 Summary findings and
Recommendations
using the 2012 Texas Integrated Report (IR) for
Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d).
The 2012 IR assessment period covers the most
recent seven to 10-year period from December
1, 2000 through November 30, 2010. The 2012
IR can be found on the TCEQ’s website located
assessment/305_303.html.
•
•
minimum of 10 years of data containing at
2012.
Information in the Basin Summary Report
serves to develop a greater understanding of
water-quality conditions, identify any trends
and changes, and aid in making water-quality
Antonio River Basin. Information in this report,
the 2012 Texas Integrated Report, together with
stakeholder comments will be used to set the
priorities and coordinated monitoring schedules
for subsequent years.
Overall Basin-Wide Findings
levels in the watershed.
consumption restrictions and impaired fish
communities.
Recommendations
upper San Antonio River
Watershed - Segment 1911
Finding Summary
The 2012 IR identifies E. coli, depressed DO and
fish community impairments in the Upper San
Antonio River Watershed; DO, nutrients and
habitat concerns have also been documented.
The Upper San Antonio River WPP update and
the Mission Reach Improvement Projects are
efforts that will help address the E. coli, DO and
fish community impairments and concerns in the
upper reaches of the watershed, above Interstate
410 South. Both efforts will serve to abate or
control nonpoint sources of pollution or restore
the natural assimilative capacities of the Upper
San Antonio River. As a result of the impairments
identified in the 2010 Integrated Report, SARA’s
intensive monitoring program involved surveys of
Alazan Creek, Apache Creek, Martinez Creek and
San Pedro Creek. SARA and the Bexar Regional
Watershed Management Partnership assessed
the data and focused resources to reduce bacteria
To help identify sources of E. coli loading of
the Upper San Antonio River and to monitor
the San Antonio Zoo’s Ultraviolet Disinfection
Facility efficiency, conduct pre- and post-bacterial
monitoring. Depending on budgetary constraints,
adjust or add additional routine and biological
monitoring sites as WPP BMPs are implemented
and the Mission Ecosystem Restoration and
Recreation Projects are completed. As the weather
conditions allow, continue intensive monitoring
efforts throughout the Upper San Antonio River
Watershed. These intensive surveys will continue
to focus on identifying potential sources of E.
coli contamination by collecting samples at each
seep, tributary and outfall identified during the
survey(s). Information obtained will continue to
focus and narrow down future monitoring efforts
to help identify bacterial areas with elevated
E. coli. Support the TCEQ and Texas AgriLife
Research TMDL-IP in the Upper San Antonio
River Watershed.
Watershed - Segment 1901
Finding Summary
The 2012 IR identifies E. coli and fish community
impairments in the Lower San Antonio River
Watershed, Segment 1901; nutrients and habitat
concerns have also been documented.
Intensive monitoring efforts in the Lower San
Antonio River Watershed, from Conquista
123
Crossing to US-77A, have been conducted
to help identify potential sources of E. coli
contaminations. Although an area with elevated
levels of E. coli was identified above the City
of Goliad was found, drought conditions have
hampered the monitoring actives into the
tributaries where the contamination sources are
suspected to be. The fish impairment and habitat
concern in the lower reaches of the watershed are
mostly likely associated with lack of microhabitat,
site-specific limitations and limited sampling
information.
Recommendations
intensive monitoring efforts in the Lower San
Antonio River Watershed. These intensive surveys
will continue to focus on identifying potential
sources of E. coli contamination by collecting
samples at each seep, tributary and outfall
identified during the survey(s). Information
obtained will continue to focus and narrow
down future monitoring efforts to help identify
areas with elevated levels of bacterial. SARA is
considering working with the TCEQ to develop
a bacterial TMDL-IP in the Lower San Antonio
River Watershed. SARA should continue to
collect additional water quality monitoring in
the watershed and implement bacteria source
tracking to determine sources of bacterial
contamination.
The fish impairment and habitat concern in the
lower reaches of the Lower San Antonio River
are due to a lack of habitat types and minimal
number of sample collections over the assessment
period. (There was one collection event in 2009
and one in 2010.) The sample site at Station
124
12791, San Antonio River at US 77A in Goliad, is
characterized as a long glide with no pool or riffle
microhabitats. The lack of microhabitats decreases
the biological diversity. To determine if there is a
more representative sample site for the assessment
unit, SARA will conduct field reconnaissance
upstream of Station 12791, and may adjust
future biological collections accordingly. The
fish community concern in the upper reaches
of the watershed is based on two sampling
events and is believed to be the result of limited
habitat types. (Bedrock and gravel are dominant
substrate types at Conquista Crossing.) As funds
become available, SARA may conduct additional
field reconnaissance in the upper reaches of
the watershed to determine if there is a more
representative sample site for the assessment unit.
upper Cibolo Creek Watershed –
Segment 1908
Finding Summary
The 2012 IR identifies chloride and E. coli
impairments in the Upper Cibolo Creek
Watershed, Segment 1908; nutrients and habitat
concerns have also been documented.
As a result of elevated bacteria levels, the City of
Boerne initiated the Upper Cibolo Creek WPP
in August 2009. Routine water-quality samples
were collected at 10 sites located throughout the
watershed. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool
(SWAT) was utilized to model the impact that
pollutants have on water quality and estimate
bacteria load contributions from specific sources
and causes of pollution within the watershed. The
SWAT model together with other tools provided
the stakeholders some idea of the potential
bacteria reduction that could be achieved
per management strategy. This allowed the
stakeholders to prioritize the BMPs based on their
effectiveness and associated costs.
Recommendations
The Upper Cibolo Creek Watershed is located
in the Texas Hill Country where limestone or
granite is covered with a thin layer of topsoil,
which makes the region prone to flash flooding.
When flash flooding occurs during heavy rainfall
events, the high velocity of water tends to scour
the streambed and remove aquatic habitat.
Although the chloride impairment may be
partially attributed to drought conditions and
municipal discharge, the water quality also may
be impacted by dissolution of minerals from
naturally occurring geologic deposits exposed
during rainfall events. It should be noted that the
new City of Boerne’s Wastewater Treatment and
Recycling Center has stricter effluent limits and
should help address the chloride impairment and
nutrient concerns in the Upper Cibolo Creek.
Results from the Upper Cibolo Creek WPP
suggest that the spatial extent and severity of the
bacteria impairment can be effectively targeted
and mitigated through an adaptive watershedbased approach to implementation. As indicated
in the Upper Cibolo Creek WPP documents,
BMPs should be implemented over time and water
monitoring should be collected at key sample
sites throughout the watershed to determine
the effectiveness of stakeholder recommended
management strategies. It is anticipated that the
TCEQ will maintain monitoring in the Upper
Cibolo Creek Watershed.
Mid Cibolo Creek Watershed –
Segment 1913
Finding Summary
The 2012 IR identifies a depressed DO
impairment and nutrient concerns in the Mid
Cibolo Creek Watershed.
After completion of the 2005 draft DO TMDL,
the TCEQ determined that a municipal point
source discharge was likely the primary source of
the impairment. As a result it was not necessary
to complete and submit a TMDL to the EPA.
Instead, improvement in the quality of the Mid
Cibolo Creek could be accomplished through
requirements in the municipal point source
discharge facility’s permit.
Recommendations
After the completion of the 2007 Cibolo Creek
Municipal Authority WWTP upgrades, tends
in the level of grab DO concentration reflect
an improvement in water quality; however, the
2012 IR identifies the segment as not meeting
the limited aquatic life use designation based
on 24-hour minimum DO. Out of the 16 values
assessed, the 2012 IR identifies seven of the 24hour DO minimum values below the two mg/L
minimum criteria.
Upper Cibolo Creek is immediately above Mid
Cibolo Creek and is included in the Edwards
Aquifer recharge and contributing zones. As
a result, there is typically no flow from the
headwaters into Mid Cibolo Creek under normal
conditions. Change in land use due to residential
development associated with the growth of San
Antonio and Randolph Air Force Base, ambient
low flows and effluent discharge, coupled with
assessment period, are possible reasons for the
24-hour minimum DO impairment and nutrient
concerns. It is anticipated that the TCEQ will
maintain monitoring in the Mid Cibolo Creek
Watershed.
Lower Cibolo Creek Watershed –
Segment 1902
Finding Summary
The 2012 IR identifies bacteria and fish
community impairments and depressed DO and
nutrient concerns in the Lower Cibolo Creek
Watershed.
As a result of the evidence collected during
the Lower Cibolo Creek RUAA, the TCEQ
recommended that the Lower Cibolo Creek
retain its primary contact recreation use and a
corresponding E. coli geometric mean of 126
CFU/100mL for the entire watershed. Intensive
monitoring efforts to find E. coli “hot spots” were
also conducted; however, drought conditions
severely hampered monitoring activities.
In addition to this segment being effluentdominated, this area is mostly rural and is
influenced by wildlife, ranching and agricultural
activities. SARA field biologists have documented
numerous cattle crossings, large rookeries of
black vultures, and feral hog wallows in the Lower
Cibolo Creek Watershed and are considered
possible sources of elevated levels of E. coli and
nutrients.
Recommendations
When compared to TCEQ Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI) fish scores, SARA fish IBI scores
are most often higher. TCEQ scoring criteria were
developed based on fish community attributes
known to exist within ecoregions of Texas which
encompasses regions beyond the SAR watershed.
Scoring criteria used by SARA to evaluate the
fish community within the SAR basin were
developed from historical fish community
attributes collected within the SAR watershed
which may account for the higher SARA IBI
scores. The average TCEQ fish IBI score for the
seven collection events at Station 14211 was
38.49 (intermediate). The average SARA fish IBI
score for the same seven collection events was
43.11 (high) and meets the high aquatic life use
designation.
intensive monitoring efforts in the Lower Cibolo
Creek Watershed. Information obtained will
continue to focus and narrow down future
monitoring efforts to help identify areas with
elevated levels of bacterial. Until a TMDL or WPP
for bacteria can be scheduled, SARA and the
TCEQ routine and biological monitoring efforts
will continue to investigate the impairments and
concerns in the Lower Cibolo Creek Watershed.
upper Medina River Watershed –
Segment 1905
Finding Summary
The 2012 IR identifies a fish community
impairment and habitat concern in the Upper
125
Medina River Watershed.
The dominant substrate type throughout
the Upper Medina River is gravel. A critical
component of habitat quality is substrate stability.
The listings for fish and habitat are believed to
be due to destruction of instream and riparian
habitat caused by natural scouring experience
during violent stormwater events.
Recommendations
SARA and BCRAGD will work together to
determine if there are better representative
sample sites for the assessment unit. Future
biological collections in Upper Medina River
Watershed may be adjusted accordingly. As with
all segments in the San Antonio River Basin, the
extended drought conditions are another factor
affecting the biological communities in the Upper
Media River Watershed. SARA and BCRAGD
will continue to investigate the impairments and
concerns in the Upper Medina River Watershed.
SARA should work with partners to implement
BMPs identified in the Watershed Master Plan
once it is completed.
Medina Lake – Segment 1904
Finding Summary
Although available data for Station 12825 Median
Lake at Medina Lake Dam identifies an increasing
sulfate trend, it is more than likely the result of
trending period. As with all watersheds in the
San Antonio River Basin, drought conditions are
the major factor influencing water quality. It is
anticipated the TCEQ will maintain monitoring
in the Upper Cibolo Creek Watershed.
Medina Diversion Lake –
Segment 1909
Finding Summary
Recommendations
Although available data for Station 12825,
Medina Lake at Medina Lake Dam indicates
an increasing total dissolved solids and DO
deficit trend, it is more than likely a result of the
drought conditions experienced over the trending
period. It is anticipated the TCEQ will maintain
monitoring in the Medina Diversion Lake
Watershed.
Lower Medina River– Segment 1903
Recommendations
Finding Summary
126
The 2012 IR identifies a bacterial impairment and
a nutrient concern in the Lower Medina River
Watershed.
Drought conditions, municipal discharges,
improperly maintained septic systems,
stormwater runoff from agricultural lands and
livestock and wildlife waste may be contributing
to the bacterial impairment and nutrient concerns
in the Lower Medina River.
Recommendations
To continue investigating areas of potential
sources of bacterial contamination and
supplement existing monitoring efforts,
systematic monitoring will be shifted to the Lower
Medina River Watershed. Until a TMDL or WPP
is initiated, SARA and the TCEQ will continue to
monitor and assess the data in the Lower Medina
River Watershed. SARA should work with
partners to implement BMPs identified in the
Watershed Master Plan once it is completed.
upper Leon Creek Watershed –
Segment 1907
Finding Summary
concerns for any portion of the Upper Leon Creek
assessments assessed in the 2012 IR.
Recommendations
To analyze for trends, there must be at least 20
samples collected throughout a 10-year period.
None of the stations in Upper Leon Creek had
sufficient data for trend analysis. The Upper
Leon Creek is included in the Edwards Aquifer
Recharge Zone; as a result, there is typically
little to no flow in the segment. Although the
information in the 2012 IR identifies flow in this
segment as perennial, information from SARA
and TCEQ field staff have indicated that flow
in this segment is minimal even during normal
precipitation years. Field observations have
indicated that a flow classification of intermittent
with pools would be more appropriate. It is
recommended that the TCEQ implement a
use attainability analysis to determine the
appropriated flow type classification and
associated water quality standards for this
watershed. It is anticipated the TCEQ will
maintain monitoring in the Upper Leon Creek
Watershed.
Lower Leon Creek Watershed –
Segment 1906
Finding Summary
According to the 2012 IR, PCBs in edible fish
tissue and DO impairments have been identified
in the Lower Leon Creek Watershed; fish
community, cadmium and silver in sediment,
and chlorophyll-a concerns have also been
documented.
In response to the Texas Department of State
Health Services fish consumption advisories,
the USGS with support from SARA, initiated
and completed the Characterization of Sediment
Quality in the San Antonio Area, South Central
Texas Study, 2007–09. The study identified the
presence of trace elements, pesticides and PCBs in
Lower Leon Creek at and below the former Kelly
Air Force Base (AFB).
Following through to the findings of the
Characterization Study, the USGS, with support
from SARA, initiated the 2012 Sources of
Contaminants to Upper Leon Creek, San Antonio
Study. This study is designed to characterize
contaminants of concern between the former
Kelly Air Force Base (AFB) and Interstate
Highway 410. Samples will be analyzed for major
and trace elements, pesticides and PCBs. The
project should conclude in mid-summer 2015.
Recommendations
The goals of the USGS/SARA studies are to
identify the source(s) of organic and metals
contamination so remediation efforts can
begin. However, due to the complexity of the
contamination and the size of study area, this
could prove to be a challenging goal. Until the
results of the sources of contaminants to Upper
Leon Creek are known, SARA and the TCEQ
will maintain routine and biological monitoring
efforts in the Lower Leon Creek Watershed.
Salado Creek Watershed –
Segment 1910
Finding Summary
The 2012 IR identifies bacteria and depressed
oxygen and nutrient concerns in the Lower Cibolo
Creek Watershed.
For the 2012 Integrated Report, flow-type
classifications of the upper reaches were changed
from perennial to intermittent. This change, in
turn, changed the aquatic life use designation
from high to limited/minimal, which also
changed the biological and DO criterion for
the upper reaches of the watershed. The TCEQ
qualified the biological data for the lower reaches
as “Temporally Not Representative” (TR).
TR means that the data was not temporally
representative of long-term conditions, therefore
not assessed in the 2012 IR. The overall net
change resulted in the removal of the fish and
macrobenthic community impairments from the
entire Salado Creek Watershed. The TCEQ has
indicated that the upper reaches of the watershed,
assessment units 1910_05 through 1910_07, will
be combined into a new segment for the 2014 IR.
Depressed DO concentrations in the Salado Creek
Watershed are likely associated with ambient lowflow conditions exacerbated by the drought over
the assessment period.
Recommendations
The addition of Stormwater Best Management
Practices to minimize the violent flow and
effects of stormwater events would greatly
benefit the segment. The segment would also
benefit from stream restoration similar to efforts
being employed in the Upper San Antonio
River Mission Reach area. The incorporation of
aquatic features such as riffles, runs, pools and
embayments would oxygenate the water, reduce
sediment in the water, and restore the structural
diversity of the river to support a variety of
ecosystem functions and help address the aquatic
life impairments and concerns identified in the
middle reaches of the Salado Creek Watershed.
Support the TCEQ and Texas AgriLife Research
127
TMDL-IP efforts in the Salado Creek Watershed.
SARA and the TCEQ should maintain routine
and biological monitoring in the Salado Creek
Watershed. To supplement existing routine
water quality sampling efforts in the middle
reaches, SARA is considering two 24-hour DO
diel collection events at Station 12875, Salado
Creek at Eisenhauer Road for the upcoming 2014
coordinated monitoring schedule .
Medio Creek Watershed – Segment
1912
Finding Summary
The 2012 IR does not list any impairment in the
Medio Creek Watershed; a concern for nutrients
has been identified.
indicates a decreasing trend in sulfate and an
increasing trend for total phosphorus. Possible
sources for the nutrient concerns include
discharges from municipal wastewater treatment
facilities, stormwater runoff from agricultural and
urban land coupled with the drought conditions
experienced over the assessment period.
Recommendations
SARA and the TCEQ will maintain routine
and biological monitoring in the Medio Creek
Watershed. SARA should work with partners
to implement BMPs identified in the Watershed
128
Trends in the San Antonio River
Basin
Summary of trends in the San Antonio River
Basin
Trending is an important component of water
quality monitoring and environmental decision
making. Trending is accomplished by statistically
analyzing water quality data and graphically
illustrating parameter concentrations as it relates
to surface water flow over time. Because transport
and concentration of point and non-point source
pollutants, and aquatic life communities are all
directly influenced by stream flow, instantaneous
flow measurements are collected during routine
monitoring sampling events.
Effluent from wastewater discharge is critical in
maintaining flow in many of the water bodies in
the San Antonio Basin. Although flow in effluentdominated segments such as the San Antonio
River, Lower Cibolo Creek, Lower Leon Creek and
Medio Creek are not affected as much by drought,
flows in the Upper Medina River, Medina Lake,
Medina Diversion Lake, Upper Leon Creek
and Upper Medio Creek have been impacted,
see graphs below. Ten year instantaneous flow
trends indicate that flow has generally decreased
throughout the San Antonio Basin. Instantaneous
flow values of 0.0 cubic feet per second (cfs) were
recorded for Salado Creek and Leon Creek; a 0.2
cfs was recorded for the Upper San Antonio River
and a 3.3 cfs for the Lower San Antonio River.
In spite of drought conditions, the flow in Medio
Creek has increased and is more than likely the
result of increased residential development and
associated effluent discharge in the watershed. See
Appendix D for all trend statistical analyses.
Over the trending period, June 1, 2002 to
May 31, 2012, the existing water quality issues
caused by human’s impact on the environment
have been magnified by the extended drought
conditions. In general, depending on the specific
pollutant, drought and low flow conditions
concentrate pollutants, high flow typically
dilute and decrease pollutant concentrations.
Although not a pollutant itself low DO levels are
experienced during low flow and are normally
the result of high level of chemical and biological
demanding pollutants. Low DO levels adversely
affect the ascetics and biological communities
of a waterbody. On the flip side, increased flow
from stormwater events increase DO levels and
dilute chemical concentrations, but may increase
pollutants such as E. coli, total dissolved solids
and nutrients. High flows, as a result of violent
stormwater events also scour stream beds and
removes vital aquatic and riparian habitat. To
have a lasting positive impact on water quality,
flow must be maintained over an extended period
of time.
4.2 Conclusions
Over the last five years there have been many
accomplishments in the San Antonio River Basin.
In support of the TCEQ’s water quality programs
the SARA, TCEQ and other CRP partners
have generated vast amounts of quality-assured
data. This data is utilized for environmental
decision making in support of efforts to protect,
maintain, and restore the water resources in the
San Antonio River Basin. Monitoring data was
also made available to the public via SARA’s
website located at http://gis.sara-tx.org/website/
wqmapviewer/. Several accomplishments include
Summary of Trends in the San Antonio River Basin
Watershed
Upper Cibolo Creek
Mid Cibolo Creek
Lower Cibolo Creek
Upper Medina River
↓
1911_08 Station 17066 San Antonio River below San Pedro Creek Confluence
↓
↑
↑
↑
1911_09 Station 12908 San Antonio River at Woodlawn
↓
↑
↑
↑
1901_02 Station 12791 San Antonio River Bridge on US 77-A
↓
↑
↑
↑
1901_02 Station 17859 San Antonio River at North Riverdale Road
↓
↑
1908_01 Station 16702-Cibolo Creek SE of Boerne end of City Park
↑
↑
Medio Creek
Temperature
↑
↓
1913_01 Station 12921-Cibolo Creek upstream from Weir Road
↑
↑
E. coli
Ammonia
Nitrogen
↑
↑
↑
**Nitrate
Nitrogen
↑
Total
Phosphorus
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↓
↑
↑
↑
↓
↓
↑
↑
↑
↑
1902_02 Station 14211 -Cibolo Creek at CR 389 near Cestohowa Texas
↑
↓
1902_05 Station 14197-Cibolo Creek at Sculls Crossing
↓
↑
1905_01 Station 12830 Medina River at Old English Crossing
↓
↑
1904_01 Station 12825-Medina Lake at Medina Lake Dam
Salado Creek
***pH Range
↑
↑
↑
1909_01 Station 18407 Medina Diversion Lake Near Dam
Lower Leon Creek
*Dissolved
Oxygen
Deficit
↓
1901_04 Station 12794 San Antonio River at SH 72 near Runge
Medina Lake
Upper Leon Creek
Sulfate
↑
Total
Dissolved
Solids
↑
Chloride
↑
Seg/AU
Abbreviated Description
1911_01 Station 12879 San Antonio River at FM 791 Southwest of Falls City
Lower Medina River
Instantaneous
Flow
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↓
↑
↓
↑
1903_02 Station 12813 Medina River at Cassin Crossing (no trends)
1903_04 Station 14200 Medina River at County Road 484
1907
↓
↑
↑
↓
Upper Leon Creek - insufficient data for any single station
1906_01 Station 14198 Leon Creek Upstream from Leon Creek WWTP
↓
1910_01 Station 12861 Salado Creek at Southton Road
↓
1910_02 Station 12870 Salado Creek at Gembler Road
↓
1910_03 Station 12874 Salado Creek at Rittiman Road
↓
1912_01 Station 12916 Medio Creek at Hidden Valley Campground
↓
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↓
↓
↑
↑
↓
↑
*The amount of dissolved oxygen (DO) varies greatly depending on the temperature of the water. As the water temperature increases, the potential amount of DO decreases greatly. To determine depletion of oxygen due to factors other than temperature, the DO deficit is
calculated and used to identify trends. As DO levels decrease due to chemical and biological demand (pollutants), DO deficit values will increase.
**Nitrate + nitrite is the primary method utilized for analyzing nitrate nitrogen in surface water in Segments 1908, 1913, 1904, 1909, and 1907
***pH criteria is expressed as a range between 6.5-9.0 Standard Units. Identified pH trends are within the pH criteria of 6.5-9.0 Standard Units and are not color coded.
129
approved Bacteria TMDLs in the Upper and
Lower San Antonio River and a DO TMDL on
the Salado Creek. In addition to the TMDLs, the
2006 Upper San Antonio River WPP is being
updated to identify and propose water quality
Best Management Practices that will serve to
abate or control nonpoint source pollution of E.
coli bacteria, suspended sediments and excess
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) in the
Upper San Antonio River Watershed. Study areas
in the WPP include Alazan Creek, Apache Creek,
130
Martinez Creek, Olmos Creek, San Pedro Creek,
Sixmile Creek, Zarzamora Creek and the San
Antonio River. Although there have been many
successes, there is always room for improvement.
TMDLs, TMDL-Implementation Plans, and
WPPs are still needed in many of the watersheds
throughout the San Antonio River Basin. As
funding and resource become available, these
programs and efforts should be initiated.
Looking to the future and keeping abreast of
the challenges in safeguarding water quality,
the USGS (with sponsorship from SARA and
other CRP partners) is looking into emerging
contaminants, hydraulic fracturing and the
occurrence of contaminants in sediment in
the San Antonio River Basin. Personal care,
pharmaceutical products and persistent
organic pollutants not only challenge existing
methodologies and technologies, but also
challenge existing regulatory policies. Until the
health effects of these compounds are known,
education and awareness may be the essential
component to limit the potential impact to
the environment. As such, SARA’s outreach
efforts to increase the public’s knowledge and
understanding have reached thousands of citizens
throughout the basin. SARA and CRP partners
will continue such efforts into the future.
SARA, together with city and county officials,
community leaders and stakeholders, as well as
other governmental agencies, is developing highlevel, long-range master plans for all watersheds
in the San Antonio River Basin. Master plans will
be developed for the Lower San Antonio River
Watershed, Medina River Watershed, Upper San
Antonio River Watershed, Salado Watershed, and
Leon Watershed. These master plans will address
current and potential water-quality and flooding
issues in a “holistic” or integrated manner,
with planning emphasis on sustainable, nonstructural solutions such as green infrastructure,
best management practices, and protection
and restoration of instream and riparian
habitat through measures such as conservation
spaces.
Although the drought conditions and
impairments/concerns are direct factors
influencing water quality, existing and future
funding to maintain or expand the Clean Rivers
Program monitoring efforts in the San Antonio
River Basin may ultimately be the largest limiting
factor. As such, Clean Rivers Program partners
should continue to spatially and temporally
monitor and provide quality-assured data to the
TCEQ for assessments. Collaborative efforts such
as the City of Boerne’s WPP in the Upper Cibolo
Creek Watershed and BCRAGD monitoring
efforts in the Upper Medina River have added
a great amount of quality-assured data to the
TCEQ’s database at minimal cost to the CRP.
The CRP partners should continue to seek
opportunities to leverage funds and resources
to maximize efforts to implement water-quality
improvement projects in the San Antonio River
Basin.
131
Appendix A - Abbreviations
SARA – San Antonio River Authority
7Q2 – seven day, two-year low–flow
SAWS – San Antonio Water Systems
AqHabitat – Aquatic Habitat
SH – State Highway
cfs – cubic feet per second - a measurement
commonly used to describe stream flow or
discharge
SU – standard units – standard units for pH
Benthics – Benthic Macroinvertebrates
TCEQ – Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality
SWQM – Surface Water Quality Monitoring
CFU – Colony Forming Units – standard units
for bacteria
TDS – Total Dissolved Solids
CR – County Road
TSS – Total Suspended Solids
DO – DO
μg/L – micrograms per liter – concentration of a
pollutant or parameter
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
US – United States Highway
EAC – Environmental Advisory Committee
USGS – United States Geological Survey
FM – Farm to Market Road
WRC – Water Recycling Center
IBI – Index of Biotic Integrity
WWTP – Wastewater treatment plant, also
known as wastewater recycling plants (WWRP)
and wastewater treatment facility (WWTF)
mg/L – milligram per liter– concentration of a
pollutant or parameter
Appendix B - Glossary of Terms
mgd – million gallon per day – a measurement
commonly used to describe stream flow or
discharge
7Q2 (seven day, two-year low–flow) – the lowest
stream flow for seven consecutive days with a
recurrence interval of two years, as statistically
determined from historical data. See appendix
B of Texas Surface Water Quality Standards for
individual values.
NELAP – National Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Program
QAPP – Quality Assurance Project Plan
132
Acequias – manmade aqua ducts or water
ditches that carry water away from a stream for
agricultural use
Ambient flow – stream flow that is not influenced
by storm runoff or drought conditions
Aquatic Habitat Assessment – A habitat
assessment of the aquatic ecosystem done
according to TCEQ’s Surface Water Quality
Monitoring Procedures, Volume II which is
available at the following website: http://www.
tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/monitoring/swqm_
procedures.html
Aquifer – a geologic formation of pores material
(sand, gravel, pores limestone) that contains water
Assessment Unit - Classified and unclassified
segments are further broken down into sub-areas
called assessment units. For the purpose of the
assessment, use support is reported at the AU
sub-area levels.
Balcones Fault Zone – highly faulted area that
connects the relatively flat lands of the southeast
central Texas to the higher elevation areas of the
Texas Hill Country in the northwest
Benthic macroinvertebrates – Bottom-dwelling
aquatic organisms without a backbone and can be
seen without the use of a microscope. Examples
include crayfish, mayfly larva, water fleas, etc.
Basin – all of the land area that drains water to
a common point, usually a stream or lake. In
this document, the basin is often broken up into
smaller units called watersheds.
Clarity – clearness of the water; often measure
using turbidity or Secchi depth
Impervious cover – ground cover such as roads,
cement, bed rock, that water can’t filter through
Classified segment - A classified segment is a
water body or portion of a water body that is
individually defined in the TSWQS.
Limestone – sedimentary rock made up of
calcium carbonate
Confluence – where two or more streams merge
into one stream
Conventional parameters – analysis commonly
analyzed in a laboratory. Conventional
parameters include: nutrients, chloride and
sulfate.
Ephemeral - An ephemeral water body is a
wetland, spring, stream, river, pond or lake
that only exists for a short period following
precipitation or snowmelt.
Field parameters – analysis analyzed in the field.
Field parameters include: temperature, DO, pH,
and specific conductance.
Intermittent stream – a stream where there is no
flow for at least one week during most years
Geometric mean – the geometric mean is a
special type of average obtained by taking the nth
root of the product of the (positive) numbers. For
example: for the numbers (2, 8), the geometric
mean is =4; for the numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7000),
the geometric mean is = 9.1
Karst – a type of terrain usually composed of
limestone rock on and below the surface that has
been eroded and dissolved by water. Sinkholes
and caverns are common and the subsurface
drainage system is very porous.
Median – If the numbers are lined up from
highest to lowest, the middle number is the
median. If there is an even number of values, then
the mean of the two middle numbers is used. For
example: for the numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7000) the
median is 4.
Mean – this is the arithmetic average. For
example: for the numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7000) the
mean is (1+ 2+3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 70001)/7 =1,003.
Perennial stream – a stream where there is flow
year-round except during the worst droughts
p-value – the p-value indicates the probability
that the relationship is random. In this report, the
p-value must be at or below 0.1 for the trend to be
considered significant.
Water Quality Standards, used for assigning
stream standards and assessing the standards;
segments maybe classified or unclassified.
t-stat – the t-stat is the coefficient divided by the
standard error. In this report, the t-stat must be
at or greater than the absolute value of 2 for the
trend to be considered significant.
Tributary – a smaller stream that flows into a
larger stream and contributes it flow to the larger
stream, also known as unclassified segment
Toxins – in this report, refers to metals and
organic substances such as: polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons PAH), chlorinated pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), benzenes, other
pesticides, phthalates, volatile organic compounds
and semi-volatile organic compounds in water,
sediment or tissue.
Recharge zone – a zone of land that allows water
to infiltrate into the soil and replenishes the
groundwater supply of an aquifer
Unclassified segment – tributaries that are often
intermittent water bodies, typically not assigned
specific water quality standards. Generally
assessed on the flow and the criteria for the
classified segment into which they flow, but in
some cases may be assigned specific water quality
standards.
Re-use water – treated wastewater that is piped
and sold as non-potable water (not drinking
water) or discharged into a stream to augment
flow
Watershed – all of the land area that drains water
into a common point, usually a stream or lake. In
this document, watersheds are sub-units of the
larger basin.
Riparian zone – a vegetative zone of land adjacent
to a stream
Wastewater Recycling Center – a facility that
receives raw sewage, treats the sewage and releases
it to a water body or sells the water. (Synonym:
Wastewater Recycling Center, Wastewater
Treatment Facilities)
Segment – an artificial unit of a waterbody,
identified and classified in the Texas Surface
133
Appendix C - References
EPA. Envirofacts Data Warehouse. http://www.
epa.gov/enviro/facts/pcs-icis/search.html, (accessed
February 2013).
Molly A. Maupin and Nancy L. Barber. http://
pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1279/, Estimated
Withdrawals from Principal Aquifers in the
United States, 2000
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (2009). Supplemental generic
environmental impact statement on the oil, gas
and solution mining regulatory program (draft).
Well permit issuance for horizontal drilling and
high-volume hydraulic fracturing to develop
the Marcellus Shale and other low-permeability
gas reservoirs. Albany, NY: New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Railroad Commission. Feb 2013. Eagle Ford
Information. http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/eagleford/
index.php
Ryder, P. D.,1996, Ground Water Atlas of the
United States - Oklahoma, Texas: U.S. Geological
Survey Open File Report HA 730-E, http://capp.
water.usgs.gov/gwa/ch_e/index.html
SARA. San Antonio River Authority Monitoring
Data. http://gis.sara-tx.org/website/wqmapviewer/.
SARA. SARA’s General and Recreation Website.
San Antonio River Authority Home Page. http://
www.sara-tx.org/
SAWS. San Antonio Water Systems - History &
Chronology. http://www.saws.org/who_we_are/
chrono/index.shtml. (Accessed February 203).
Procedures http://www.tceq.texas.gov/
waterquality/monitoring/swqm_procedures.html
TCEQ. August 2010. Draft 2010 Guidance for
Assessing and Reporting Surface Water Quality
in Texas. Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, Austin. http://www.tceq.texas.gov/
waterquality/assessment/305_303.html.
TCEQ. 2010. Texas Surface Water Quality
Standards. Chapter 307, in Title of the Texas
Administrative Code.
TCEQ. 2010 & 2012. Texas Water Quality
Inventory and 303(d) List. http://www.tceq.texas.
gov/waterquality/assessment/305_303.html
TCEQ. 2008. Draft One Total Maximum Daily
Load for Bacteria in the Lower San Antonio River.
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/tmdl/34lowersanantoniobac.html
TCEQ. 2001. One Total Maximum Daily Load for
DO in Salado Creek
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/tmdl/11salado.html
TCEQ. 2007. Three Total Maximum Daily Loads
for Bacteria in the San Antonio Area
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/tmdl/34uppersanantoniobac.html#tmdls
TCEQ. Continuous Water Quality Monitoring
Stations and Coordinated Monitoring Schedules
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/cleanrivers/data/crp-resources.html
TCEQ. Surface Water Quality Monitoring
134
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/
standards/2010standards.html
TCEQ. Clean Rivers Program Guidance. http://
www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/clean-rivers/
guidance/index.html
TDSHS. 2013. Texas Department of State Health
Services Fish Advisories, Bans, and Rescinded
Orders
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/seafood/Survey.shtm
URS Corporation. (2009). Water-related issues
associated with gas production in the Marcellus
Shale: Additives use, flowback quality and
quantities, regulations, on-site treatment, green
technologies, alternate water sources, water
well-testing. Prepared for New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority, Contract
PO No. 10666. Fort Washington, PA: URS
Corporation.
U.S. Census Bureau. March 2013. State & County
QuickFacts
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48029.
html
U.S. Drought Monitoring. Feb 2013. http://
droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
USGS. USGS Water Data for Texas. http://
waterdata.usgs.gov/tx/nwis/rt
USGS. 2011. Occurrence, Distribution, and
Concentrations of Selected Contaminants in
Streambed and Suspended-Sediment Samples
Study http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3090/FS11-3090.
pdf.
Veil, J. A., Puder, M. G., Elcock, D., Redweik,
R. J. (2004). A white paper describing produced
water from production of crude oil, natural
gas, and coal bed methane. Prepared for the
U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy
Technology Laboratory, contract W-31-109ENG-38. Argonne, IL: Argonne National
Laboratory.
Zoback, M., Kitasei, S. & Copithorne, B. (2010).
Addressing the environmental risks from shale
gas development. Briefing paper 1. Washington,
DC: Worldwatch Institute.
GIS Source Layer and Watershed Characteristics
Summary Acknowledgements
Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, U.S.
Geological Survey, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),
Esri (Thailand). World Street Map. http://goto.
arcgisonline.com/maps/World_Street_Map
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Water and Climate Center, NRCS National
Cartography and Geospatial Center (NCGC),
PRISM Model, and the Oregon Climate Service
at Oregon State University. Annual Texas
Precipitation. 1998.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ). Assessment Units (AU). 2010. http://
www.tceq.texas.gov/gis/hydro.html.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
and U.S. Geological Survey. Watershed
Characterization. 2011.U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resouces Conservation
Service. SSURGO. 2005. Fort Worth, Texas.
Appendix D
Trend Analysis Statistics Summary
Red text indicates a statistically significant trend
over time. (next page)
Texas Natural Resources Information System,
Texas Water Development Board (TWDB).
StratMap. Texas Counties. 2001.
Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD). Ecoregions.
2010. Austin, Texas.
Texas Water Development Board. 1997. Major
Aquifers. Austin, Texas.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Population Centers.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resouces Conservation Service. SSURGO. 2005.
Fort Worth, Texas.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Western
Ecology Division. Level III and IV Ecoregions of
the Conterminous U.S. 2009. Corvallis, Oregon.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, USDA
Forest Service, and other Federal, State and local
partners. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD):
http://nhd.usgs.gov. Reston, Virginia.
135
Segment 1901 - Lower San Antonio River
SAN ANTONIO RIVER BRIDGE ON US 77-A AND 183 SOUTHEAST OF GOLIAD
Station ID: 12791
AU ID: 1901_02
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/L
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-750
-0.33
1.95
0.69
180
140
126
n
412
179
180
179
178
118
111
109
112
113
112
395
Min
3.3
7.6
9.2
-2.16
156
4
0.10
0.83
0.09
10
12
18
P25
255.5
8.0
17.9
-0.03
543
48
0.10
4.63
0.52
83
86
85
Median
468
8.1
23.8
0.40
696
87
0.10
6.21
0.73
121
111
150
P75
730.5
8.2
28.1
0.82
763
146
0.10
7.85
0.97
156
128
355
Max
18900
9.1
32.2
3.15
1034
2410
0.49
12.00
1.67
256
201
29000
Mean
873.1
8.10
22.7
0.43
652
192
0.11
6.13
0.77
119
107
668
Range
18896.7
1.5
23.0
5.31
878
2406
0.39
11.17
1.58
246
189
28982
t-score
-2.891
7.359
-1.783
-0.719
2.993
-1.836
1.429
2.309
0.820
4.238
2.366
-0.648
p-value
0.004
0.000
0.076
0.473
0.003
0.069
0.156
0.023
0.414
0.000
0.020
0.517
%n >
TSWQS
-0.6
0.0
-29.2
-0.9
91.7
55.4
10.6
15.2
57.5
Signif
Over
Time
Y↓
Y↑
N
N
Y↑
N
N
Y↑
N
Y↑
Y↑
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-Y↓
N
Y↑
Y↓
Y↑
N
Y↓
N
Y↓
Y↓
Y↑
p-value
0.103
0.017
0.291
0.000
0.718
0.896
0.009
0.016
0.001
0.008
0.195
0.997
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
0.0
-16.5
-0.0
89.6
41.7
2.1
4.2
45.3
Signif
Over
Time
N
Y↑
N
Y↓
N
N
Y↑
Y↑
Y↑
Y↑
N
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-Y↓
N
Y↑
Y↓
Y↑
N
Y↓
N
Y↓
Y↓
Y↑
SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT SH 72 NEAR RUNGE
Station ID: 12794
AU ID: 1901_04
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-750
-0.33
1.95
0.69
180
140
126
n
110
109
109
108
109
57
48
48
48
48
48
106
Min
149.0
7.7
12.0
-1.97
175
15
0.10
1.27
0.25
15
21
13
136
P25
483.5
7.9
17.2
0.01
544
38
0.10
3.62
0.47
75
87
71
Median
600
8
22.7
0.37
657
59
0.10
6.19
0.64
96
101
110
P75
957.5
8.1
27.9
0.82
714
162
0.10
7.70
0.89
120
114
389
Max
4220
8.5
31.5
1.87
917
1150
0.12
12.30
1.43
191
178
17000
Mean
884.5
8.02
22.5
0.36
616
154
0.10
6.01
0.69
96
97
721
Range
4071
0.8
19.5
3.84
742
1135
0.02
11.03
1.18
176
157
16987
t-score
-1.642
2.423
-1.060
-3.694
0.363
-0.132
2.734
2.502
3.706
2.786
1.316
-0.004
SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT NORTH RIVERDALE RD 15 KM WEST OF GOLIAD TEXAS
Station ID: 17859
AU ID: 1901_02
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-750
-0.33
1.95
0.69
180
140
126
n
121
121
121
120
121
70
63
62
63
63
63
118
Min
84.0
7.5
11.6
-5.23
157
27
0.10
1.48
0.26
30
33
3
P25
421
7.9
18.3
-0.29
556
42
0.10
4.97
0.48
85
88
54
Median
550
8
22.7
0.26
683
66
0.10
6.29
0.67
115
104
131
P75
964
8.2
28.6
0.65
731
169
0.10
8.53
0.93
136
121
440
Max
5790
8.6
31.7
2.95
923
1270
0.15
12.20
1.76
206
173
71000
Mean
896.8
8.03
22.8
0.12
633
190
0.10
6.59
0.75
110
101
1203
Range
5706
1.1
20.1
8.18
766
1243
0.05
10.72
1.51
176
140
70997
t-score
-2.674
4.436
-2.137
1.389
1.712
-1.602
0.718
2.486
0.880
2.881
1.884
-0.459
p-value
0.009
0.000
0.035
0.168
0.090
0.114
0.475
0.016
0.382
0.005
0.064
0.647
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
0.0
-21.5
-0.0
91.9
49.2
3.2
9.5
50.0
Signif
Over
Time
Y↓
Y↑
Y↓
N
N
N
N
Y↑
N
Y↑
N
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-Y↓
N
Y↑
Y↓
Y↑
N
Y↓
N
Y↓
Y↓
Y↑
p-value
0.010
0.010
0.339
0.032
0.222
0.277
0.152
0.005
0.046
0.000
0.245
0.915
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
0.0
-0.0
-0.0
63.0
44.4
0.0
0.0
27.5
Signif
Over
Time
Y↓
Y↑
N
Y↑
N
N
N
Y↓
Y↑
Y↑
N
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-N
Y↓
Y↓
Y↓
N
N
Y↑
Y↓
Y↓
Y↑
Y↑
CIBOLO CREEK AT SCULLS CROSSING
Station ID: 14197
AU ID: 1902_05
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-900
-0.33
1.95
0.69
170
275
126
n
55
54
54
54
53
51
54
54
54
54
54
51
Min
5.0
7.6
8.8
-2.53
351
4
0.10
0.05
0.19
38
51
18
P25
15
8.0
16.5
-0.27
533
8
0.10
1.34
0.45
66
59
44
Median
22
8.1
22.9
0.57
570
11
0.10
2.45
0.64
84
63
79
P75
37.5
8.2
28.3
1.11
595
18
0.10
3.45
0.94
94
67
128
Max
77
9
30.9
2.63
636
45
0.11
5.53
2.10
126
85
330
Mean
29.3
8.08
21.9
0.42
551
15
0.10
2.51
0.72
80
65
96
Range
72
1.4
22.1
5.16
285
41
0.01
5.48
1.91
88
35
312
t-score
-2.682
2.668
-0.964
2.201
1.235
-1.098
-1.454
-2.934
2.040
4.391
-1.175
-0.107
137
CIBOLO CREEK AT CR389 NEAR CESTOHOWA TEXAS
Station ID: 14211
AU ID: 1902_02
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-900
-0.33
1.95
0.69
170
275
126
n
172
76
76
76
76
72
73
74
73
75
74
167
Min
1.0
7.7
9.7
-6.28
343
4
0.10
0.05
0.04
32
63
8
P25
25
8.0
18.8
-0.83
663
6
0.10
0.51
0.14
92
152
78
Median
48
8.1
22.5
0.12
744
10
0.10
0.99
0.20
112
178
120
P75
68.25
8.2
28.6
0.88
790
23
0.10
1.68
0.26
131
190
190
Max
3310
8.5
30.0
2.44
858
197
0.17
4.12
0.58
162
233
24000
Mean
93.3
8.11
22.3
-0.05
710
20
0.10
1.14
0.21
109
168
628
Range
3309
0.8
20.3
8.72
515
193
0.07
4.07
0.54
130
171
23992
t-score
0.770
1.890
-0.893
1.889
-0.250
-0.175
0.978
-5.661
0.647
1.761
0.630
0.872
p-value
0.442
0.063
0.374
0.063
0.803
0.862
0.331
0.000
0.520
0.082
0.530
0.384
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
0.0
-0.0
-0.0
14.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.3
Signif
Over
Time
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y↓
N
N
N
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-Y↓
N
N
Y↓
Y↑
N
N
Y↑
Y↓
Y↓
Y↑
p-value
0.521
0.747
0.564
0.307
0.500
0.445
0.310
0.965
0.627
0.847
0.756
0.796
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
0.0
-0.0
-35.0
95.0
70.0
0.0
0.0
57.5
Signif
Over
Time
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-N
N
N
Y↓
Y↑
N
Y↓
Y↓
Y↓
Y↓
N
MEDINA RIVER AT CASSIN CROSSING
Station ID: 12813
AU ID: 1903_02
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-700
-0.33
1.95
0.69
120
120
126
n
40
40
40
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Min
33.0
6.9
13.4
-1.23
313
11
0.10
0.70
0.12
14
39
45
138
P25
63.25
7.9
17.9
0.28
544
17
0.11
5.07
0.63
71
79
98
Median
95
8
23.2
0.60
575
24
0.24
6.45
1.11
84
89
130
P75
131
8.1
27.8
0.88
631
44
0.59
8.00
1.49
100
92
210
Max
3950
8.8
30.0
1.95
670
126
2.42
10.50
2.12
119
104
700
Mean
241.6
7.97
22.8
0.55
569
34
0.48
6.26
1.02
82
84
194
Range
3917
1.9
16.6
3.19
357
115
2.32
9.80
2.00
105
65
655
t-score
-0.648
0.324
-0.582
1.036
-0.681
0.772
1.029
0.044
-0.490
-0.194
-0.313
-0.260
MEDINA RIVER AT CR 484
Station ID: 14200
AU ID: 1903_04
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-700
-0.33
1.95
0.69
120
120
126
n
57
57
57
57
57
53
54
54
53
55
54
51
Min
1.6
7.6
11.8
-0.26
203
4
0.10
0.34
0.02
8
33
32
P25
39
7.8
16.3
0.49
311
7
0.10
1.08
0.02
13
42
70
Median
47
7.9
21.7
0.88
328
10
0.10
1.87
0.06
14
45
110
P75
102
8
26.3
1.46
351
15
0.10
2.82
0.06
16
48
160
Max
883
9.1
28.2
2.80
453
48
0.10
4.47
0.14
50
66
1200
Mean
125.7
7.95
21.0
0.99
331
13
0.10
2.00
0.05
15
46
155
Range
881.4
1.5
16.4
3.06
250
44
0.00
4.13
0.12
42
33
1168
t-score
-4.350
1.357
-1.226
4.666
0.142
0.284
--1.037
-4.238
1.011
5.389
0.533
p-value
0.000
0.180
0.225
0.000
0.887
0.778
-0.304
0.000
0.316
0.000
0.597
%n >
TSWQS
-1.8
0.0
-0.0
-0.0
48.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.2
Signif
Over
Time
Y↓
N
N
Y↑
N
N
N
N
Y↓
N
Y↑
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-N
N
Y↓
Y↓
Y↑
N
N
N
N
Y↓
N
p-value
0.000
----0.117
0.114
0.692
-0.145
0.001
--
%n >
TSWQS
------0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Signif
Over
Time
Y↓
----N
N
N
N
N
Y↑
--
Signif
Over
Flow
-------------
Segment 1904 - Medina Lake
MEDINA LAKE AT MEDINA LAKE DAM WEST OF SAN ANTONIO
Station ID: 12825
AU ID: 1904_01
Parameter
Mean Elevaon, pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrite+Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
31.1
-350
-0.11
0.37
0.2
80
75
126
n
32
0
0
0
0
32
29
25
30
32
32
15
Min
1016.5
----4
0.10
0.04
0.06
9
29
1
P25
1041
----4
0.10
0.04
0.06
11
43
2
Median
1052
----4
0.10
0.07
0.06
12
51
10
P75
1062
----4
0.10
0.16
0.06
13
57
10
Max
1064.6
----8
0.11
0.50
0.06
17
61
24
Mean
1050
----4
0.10
0.13
0.06
12
49
9
Range
48.1
----4
0.01
0.46
0.00
8
32
23
t-score
-4.399
----1.613
-1.630
0.401
-1.493
3.673
--
Insufficient data for trending E.coli and against fl ow. TSS val ues <4 mg/L were changed to 4. Phos phorus val ues <0.06 mg/L were cha nged to 0.06. Ni tr i te+Ni tr a te da ta fr om pa r a meter c ode 0 0 5 9 3 .
Elevaon Data from USGS staon 081795000 Medina Lk nr San Antoni o, TX
139
Segment 1905 - Medina River Above Medina Lake
MEDINA RIVER AT OLD ENGLISH CROSSING ABOVE BANDERA FALLS
Station ID: 12830
AU ID: 1905_01
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Dissolved Oxygen Deficit
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
31.1
-400
-0.33
1.95
0.69
50
150
126
n
58
57
58
58
58
53
57
57
56
57
57
53
Min
1.4
7.4
11.7
-4.64
295
2
0.10
0.13
0.02
10
32
4
P25
17
7.8
15.5
-0.75
350
4
0.10
0.25
0.02
12
65
20
Median
46.5
7.9
20.8
0.32
362
4
0.10
0.34
0.06
13
86
36
P75
133
7.9
25.8
0.79
380
4
0.10
0.46
0.06
15
100
72
Max
759
9
30.4
2.62
486
15
0.10
1.79
0.08
27
188
650
Mean
104.5
7.88
20.9
0.00
367
4
0.10
0.41
0.04
15
86
74
Range
757.6
1.6
18.7
7.25
190
13
0.00
1.66
0.06
17
156
646
t-score
-4.068
1.177
-0.430
3.324
6.897
-1.235
--0.002
-10.552
5.450
5.886
0.679
p-value
0.000
0.244
0.669
0.002
0.000
0.222
-0.999
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.500
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
0.0
-12.1
-0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
11.3
Signif
Over
Time
Y↓
N
N
Y↑
Y↑
N
N
N
Y↓
Y↑
Y↑
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-N
N
N
Y↓
Y↑
N
Y↑
Y↑
Y↓
Y↓
Y↑
p-value
0.006
0.096
0.436
0.099
0.054
0.855
0.001
0.000
0.007
0.731
0.558
0.180
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
0.0
-24.1
-8.8
16.9
0.0
11.0
52.5
10.5
Signif
Over
Time
Y↓
N
N
N
N
N
Y↓
Y↓
Y↓
N
N
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-N
Y↓
N
Y↓
Y↑
Y↑
N
Y↑
Y↓
Y↓
Y↑
Segment 1906 - Lower Leon Creek
LEON CREEK UPSTREAM FROM LEON CREEK WWTP
Station ID: 14198
AU ID: 1906_01
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
35
-700
-0.33
1.95
0.69
120
120
126
n
83
82
83
80
83
70
80
71
78
82
80
76
Min
0.0
7.6
9.3
-4.38
200
4
0.10
0.05
0.01
25
33
2
140
P25
4.65
7.8
17.0
-0.79
488
8
0.10
0.36
0.04
55
96
12
Median
9.3
7.9
24.0
-0.22
594
11
0.10
0.95
0.06
77
126
21
P75
19.645
8
29.3
0.33
686
17
0.10
1.80
0.06
95
155
51
Max
122
8.61
33.8
4.22
851
66
1.00
3.21
0.22
183
238
46000
Mean
16.0
7.90
22.6
-0.16
587
15
0.17
1.11
0.06
79
127
712
Range
122
1.01
24.5
8.59
651
62
0.90
3.16
0.21
158
205
45998
t-score
-2.806
1.685
-0.783
1.672
-1.957
-0.183
-3.467
-9.667
-2.762
0.344
-0.588
-1.354
Segment 1907 - Upper Leon Creek
LEON CREEK IN RAYMOND RUSSELL PARK AT LOW WATER BRIDGE
Station ID: 12851
AU ID: 1907-01
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
35
-550
-0.33
1.95
0.69
55
240
126
n
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
10
12
12
12
10
Min
0.0
7.32
13.6
-6.31
335
1
0.10
0.13
0.05
14
21
2
P25
0.005
7.5
18.9
-1.24
434
1
0.10
0.61
0.05
26
38
18
Median
2.3
7.55
23.5
-0.28
440
4
0.10
0.95
0.06
29
41
36
P75
4.95
7.7
24.9
1.00
483
4
0.10
1.05
0.06
46
50
73
Max
16.2
8
27.0
1.43
534
7
0.10
2.34
0.06
51
61
1550
Mean
4.3
7.59
21.8
-0.84
449
3
0.10
1.03
0.06
33
43
221
Range
16.2
0.68
13.4
7.74
199
6
0.00
2.21
0.01
37
40
1548
t-score
-------------
p-value
-------------
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
0.0
-0.0
-0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
Signif
Over
Time
-------------
Signif
Over
Flow
-------------
p-value
0.457
0.052
0.097
0.933
0.000
0.240
0.000
0.543
0.000
0.000
0.323
0.587
%n >
TSWQS
-1.7
0.0
-4.9
-14.5
5.7
47.2
42.9
2.4
36.1
Signif
Over
Time
N
N
N
N
Y↑
N
Y↓
N
Y↑
Y↑
N
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-N
N
N
Y↓
N
N
N
Y↓
Y↓
N
N
Insufficient data for trend analysis.
Segment 1908 - Upper Cibolo Creek
CIBOLO CREEK SE OF BOERNE AT DOWNSTREAM END OF CITY PARK IN THE NATURE PRESERVE 1608M DOWNSTREAM OF SH46
Station ID: 16702
AU ID: 1908_01
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-600
-0.33
1.95
0.69
50
100
126
n
62
60
62
60
61
30
55
35
53
56
42
36
Min
0.0
5.8
8.6
-4.25
174
1
0.10
0.05
0.01
13
9
10
P25
1.65
7.6
17.0
0.67
349
3
0.10
0.32
0.17
26
28
27
Median
5.4
7.71
23.4
1.73
425
4
0.10
0.49
0.57
44
34
84
P75
16
7.8
25.8
3.33
530
4
0.11
0.80
1.65
78
54
206
Max
378
8.1
28.3
4.30
657
28
1.00
6.52
3.42
126
221
2419
Mean
18.0
7.68
21.3
1.76
430
5
0.24
0.87
1.04
53
43
261
Range
377.99
2.3
19.7
8.55
482
27
0.90
6.47
3.41
113
211
2409
t-score
-0.749
1.982
-1.683
0.084
5.759
1.199
-5.008
0.615
3.972
4.707
1.001
-0.549
Nitrite+Nitrate data from parameter codes 00593 & 00631.
141
Segment 1909 - Medina Diversion Lake
MEDINA DIVERSION LAKE NEAR WEST BANK 40 M UPSTREAM OF DAM AND APPROXIMATELY 1 MI UPSTREAM OF MEDINA RIVER CROSSING AT MEDINA CR 2615
Station ID: 18407
AU ID: 1909_01
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-400
-0.33
0.37
0.69
50
75
126
n
0
20
20
20
20
17
17
16
17
15
17
16
Min
P25
Median
P75
Max
Mean
Range
t-score
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
p-value
--
7.6
12.6
-1.60
264
4
0.10
0.07
0.06
8
32
1
7.9
15.0
-0.19
277
4
0.10
0.14
0.06
10
39
3
8
21.0
0.66
282
4
0.10
0.24
0.06
11
43
10
8.1
23.0
1.08
296
4
0.10
0.41
0.06
12
47
10
8.3
28.5
1.91
356
11
0.10
1.16
0.06
12
58
250
7.97
20.1
0.42
291
4
0.10
0.33
0.06
11
44
23
0.7
15.9
3.51
92
7
0.00
1.09
0.00
4
26
249
-0.648
-0.419
3.211
2.935
1.198
-0.909
-1.659
1.951
0.854
0.525
0.680
0.005
0.008
0.248
-0.378
-0.119
0.069
0.407
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
0.0
-0.0
-0.0
31.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
Signif
Over
Time
Signif
Over
Flow
--
--
N
N
Y↑
Y↑
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
------------
Signif
Over
Time
Y↓
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-N
N
N
Y↓
Y↑
N
N
N
Y↓
N
Y↑
Insufficient data for trending over flow. TSS values <4 mg/L were changed to 4, Phos phorus res ul ts <0.06 were cha nged to 0.06. Ni tri te+Ni tra te trends for pa r a meter c ode 0 0 5 9 3 .
SALADO CREEK AT SOUTHTON ROAD IN SAN ANTONIO
Station ID: 12861
AU ID: 1910_01
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-600
-0.33
1.95
0.69
140
200
126
n
63
62
63
61
63
61
61
61
60
61
61
61
Min
0.0
7.2
9.5
-6.42
222
4
0.10
0.05
0.02
20
35
6
142
P25
5.3
7.8
16.8
-0.36
439
5
0.10
0.38
0.06
51
74
24
Median
9.8
7.9
23.3
0.52
558
7
0.10
0.68
0.06
70
94
52
P75
22.5
8
27.5
0.98
648
12
0.10
1.14
0.09
87
117
130
Max
66
8.3
30.5
3.07
1554
49
0.10
17.70
0.70
210
707
2300
Mean
16.0
7.89
21.9
0.10
554
11
0.10
1.12
0.08
71
108
166
Range
65.971
1.1
21.0
9.49
1331
45
0.00
17.65
0.68
190
672
2294
t-score
-3.764
0.352
-0.329
1.973
0.658
-0.589
-0.052
-1.113
1.249
0.763
0.769
p-value
0.000
0.726
0.743
0.053
0.513
0.558
-0.959
0.270
0.216
0.449
0.445
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
0.0
-39.7
-0.0
3.3
1.7
3.3
3.3
26.2
SALADO CREEK AT GEMBLER RD
Station ID: 12870
AU ID: 1910_02
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-600
-0.33
1.95
0.69
140
200
126
n
64
63
64
63
64
60
63
64
62
63
63
61
Min
0.5
7.2
8.1
-2.72
172
4
0.10
0.05
0.05
9
20
7
P25
2.475
7.6
17.4
-0.06
428
4
0.10
0.62
0.09
37
42
37
Median
5.55
7.7
22.0
1.82
481
4
0.10
1.41
0.14
51
51
67
P75
12.25
7.8
26.2
2.72
507
9
0.10
2.23
0.23
68
62
180
Max
58
8.2
30.4
6.42
631
56
0.85
5.06
0.76
127
132
105000
Mean
9.8
7.71
21.7
1.46
453
8
0.12
1.56
0.19
53
52
2324
Range
57.5
1
22.3
9.14
459
52
0.75
5.01
0.71
118
112
104993
t-score
-3.050
0.335
-0.763
3.731
2.199
-1.613
-0.891
2.463
1.656
4.587
4.119
-1.226
p-value
0.003
0.739
0.449
0.000
0.032
0.112
0.376
0.017
0.103
0.000
0.000
0.225
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
0.0
-4.7
-1.6
32.8
1.6
0.0
0.0
31.1
Signif
Over
Time
Y↓
N
N
Y↑
Y↑
N
N
Y↑
N
Y↑
Y↑
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-Y↓
N
N
Y↓
Y↑
N
N
N
Y↓
Y↓
N
p-value
0.000
0.115
0.060
0.000
0.718
0.020
0.770
0.778
0.688
0.613
0.011
0.981
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
1.3
-2.6
-1.7
33.9
12.1
0.0
0.0
61.3
Signif
Over
Time
Y↓
N
N
Y↑
N
Y↑
N
N
N
N
Y↑
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-N
N
N
Y↓
N
N
N
N
Y↓
Y↓
Y↑
SALADO CREEK AT RITTIMAN ROAD IN SAN ANTONIO
Station ID: 12874
AU ID: 1910_03
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-600
-0.33
1.95
0.69
140
200
126
n
78
77
78
75
78
55
58
59
58
58
58
75
Min
0.0
7.5
8.5
-12.42
144
4
0.10
0.05
0.02
8
12
19
P25
0.3
7.7
17.2
-1.76
361
4
0.10
0.79
0.04
24
35
90
Median
1.7
7.8
23.2
0.41
409
4
0.10
1.27
0.06
29
43
210
P75
4.6
7.9
26.7
2.52
462
7
0.10
2.80
0.10
51
52
380
Max
36
8.2
33.5
8.91
683
32
1.47
18.00
2.57
126
98
24000
Mean
4.5
7.78
22.0
0.26
410
7
0.13
2.73
0.26
39
46
1190
Range
36
0.7
25.0
21.33
538
28
1.37
17.95
2.55
118
85
23981
t-score
-4.865
-1.594
-1.910
5.686
0.363
2.389
-0.293
-0.283
-0.404
0.508
2.621
0.024
143
SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT FM 791 SW OF FALLS CITY
Station ID: 12879
AU ID: 1911_01
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-750
-0.33
1.95
0.69
150
150
126
n
412
183
184
183
184
113
101
100
101
101
101
410
Min
24.0
7.5
11.3
-4.52
127
7
0.10
0.66
0.08
8
17
1
P25
198
7.9
18.0
0.31
546
18
0.10
6.11
0.54
72
76
43
Median
330
8
23.1
0.63
620
24
0.10
8.85
0.87
104
91
71
P75
519.25
8.1
28.5
1.04
703
46
0.10
10.93
1.29
130
109
131
Max
6770
8.5
32.7
3.17
891
1060
1.05
17.60
2.01
187
162
29000
Mean
493.2
7.98
23.3
0.63
605
84
0.12
8.68
0.93
102
91
391
Range
6746
1
21.4
7.69
763
1053
0.95
16.94
1.93
179
145
28999
t-score
-3.036
4.579
0.039
-1.757
4.042
-0.224
1.653
2.699
1.847
3.905
2.101
-0.709
p-value
0.003
0.000
0.969
0.081
0.000
0.823
0.102
0.008
0.068
0.000
0.038
0.479
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
2.2
-10.3
-1.0
97.0
60.4
8.9
1.0
26.8
Signif
Over
Time
Y↓
Y↑
N
N
Y↑
N
N
Y↑
N
Y↑
Y↑
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-Y↓
N
Y↑
Y↓
Y↑
N
Y↓
Y↓
Y↓
Y↓
Y↑
p-value
0.000
0.072
0.200
0.000
0.000
0.152
0.253
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.830
%n >
TSWQS
-0.9
0.0
-0.0
-4.2
50.7
28.6
0.0
0.0
96.5
Signif
Over
Time
Y↓
N
N
Y↑
Y↑
N
N
Y↑
Y↑
Y↑
Y↑
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-N
N
Y↓
Y↓
N
N
Y↓
Y↓
Y↓
Y↓
N
SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT WOODLAWN AVE IN SAN ANTONIO
Station ID: 12908
AU ID: 1911_09
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-750
-0.33
1.95
0.69
150
150
126
n
117
117
117
115
117
69
71
71
70
71
71
114
Min
0.2
7.2
12.3
-2.75
220
4
0.10
1.10
0.03
13
16
37
144
P25
8.7
7.5
21.4
0.79
332
4
0.10
1.77
0.06
19
19
288
Median
25
7.6
23.8
1.88
383
4
0.10
2.02
0.15
25
21
457
P75
68
7.7
25.3
3.23
591
5
0.11
10.20
0.78
92
43
875
Max
286
9.6
29.4
5.69
670
21
1.06
17.40
2.31
142
64
92000
Mean
48.5
7.62
23.4
2.05
448
5
0.14
5.57
0.52
50
30
1716
Range
285.8
2.4
17.1
8.44
450
17
0.96
16.30
2.28
129
48
91963
t-score
-5.790
1.816
-1.289
5.988
5.808
-1.447
1.153
5.960
4.010
6.340
7.127
0.216
SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT 2ND CROSSING OF MISSION ROAD 3.2 KM DOWNSTREAM OF SAN ANTONIO RIVER/SAN PEDRO CREEK CONFLUENCE IN SAN ANTONIO TX
Station ID: 17066
AU ID: 1911_08
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-750
-0.33
1.95
0.69
150
150
126
n
99
99
99
98
99
74
77
77
76
77
77
92
Min
6.1
7.6
10.1
-8.41
198
4
0.10
1.03
0.04
10
15
8
P25
19
8.0
19.8
-1.87
334
4
0.10
1.80
0.06
23
25
120
Median
57
8.1
22.8
-0.75
356
5
0.10
2.06
0.14
29
31
250
P75
118
8.3
26.2
-0.28
459
11
0.10
3.61
0.42
56
45
565
Max
270
8.9
32.7
0.59
650
118
0.14
11.40
1.47
115
57
24000
Mean
79.4
8.12
22.4
-1.21
393
12
0.10
3.23
0.28
42
35
794
Range
263.9
1.3
22.6
9.00
452
114
0.04
10.37
1.43
105
42
23992
t-score
-6.559
3.100
-2.619
-0.225
5.450
0.175
-0.251
4.638
3.974
4.667
6.185
1.331
p-value
0.000
0.003
0.010
0.823
0.000
0.861
0.803
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.187
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
1.0
-0.0
-0.0
59.7
7.9
0.0
0.0
72.8
Signif
Over
Time
Y↓
Y↑
Y↓
N
Y↑
N
N
Y↑
Y↑
Y↑
Y↑
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-Y↓
N
Y↑
Y↓
N
N
Y↓
Y↓
Y↓
Y↓
N
p-value
0.300
0.182
0.576
0.202
0.467
0.469
0.152
0.050
0.000
0.117
0.000
0.826
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
0.0
-0.0
-0.0
55.7
88.6
1.4
1.4
37.9
Signif
Over
Time
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y↑
N
Y↓
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-N
Y↓
Y↓
Y↓
N
N
N
N
Y↓
N
N
Segment 1912 - Medio Creek
MEDIO CREEK AT HIDDEN VALLEY CAMPGROUND
Station ID: 12916
AU ID: 1912_01
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Nitrate, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
35
-750
-0.33
1.95
0.69
150
150
126
n
71
71
71
70
71
68
70
70
70
71
70
66
Min
4.0
7.6
8.9
-0.88
344
4
0.10
0.11
0.34
38
39
10
P25
6.4
8.0
14.9
0.89
546
17
0.10
0.73
0.90
96
60
49
Median
8.1
8.2
23.6
1.75
623
24
0.10
2.55
1.26
114
70
92
P75
10.5
8.3
28.5
2.46
648
30
0.10
7.32
1.64
129
83
200
Max
49
8.8
30.6
4.42
741
57
0.24
17.30
3.20
159
155
5200
Mean
9.5
8.18
21.8
1.65
594
25
0.10
4.31
1.29
110
75
305
Range
45
1.2
21.7
5.30
397
53
0.14
17.20
2.86
121
116
5190
t-score
1.044
-1.347
-0.562
-1.287
-0.732
0.729
-1.450
1.997
4.864
1.586
-4.961
-0.221
145
Segment 1913 - Mid Cibolo Creek
CIBOLO CREEK 137 METERS UPSTREAM FROM WEIR RD ON NORTH BANK 3 MI UPSTREAM FROM IH 10
Station ID: 12921
AU ID: 1913_01
Parameter
Flow, cfs
pH, S.U.
Temperature, °C
Ammonia, mg/L
Chloride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
E. coli, MPN/100 mL
TSWQS
-6.5 to 9
32.2
-750
-0.33
1.95
0.69
150
150
126
n
51
47
47
47
43
38
46
42
42
47
46
43
Min
0.4
7
11.8
-1.91
268
2
0.10
0.00
0.10
18
24
10
Nitrite+Nitrate data from parameter codes 00593 & 00631.
146
P25
6.2
7.4
19.9
1.10
489
9
0.10
3.69
0.70
56
43
38
Median
8.7
7.6
24.7
2.34
538
15
0.22
6.58
0.93
71
47
70
P75
15.095
7.8
27.6
3.37
592
22
1.00
7.84
1.78
103
51
160
Max
294
8.3
31.3
6.44
640
49
9.64
12.30
2.76
139
83
2300
Mean
16.9
7.60
23.3
2.51
517
18
0.95
5.84
1.19
78
45
174
Range
293.6
1.3
19.5
8.35
372
47
9.54
12.30
2.66
121
59
2290
t-score
-0.916
4.524
-0.746
-2.001
3.325
-1.908
-0.231
3.000
3.748
4.532
1.298
0.841
p-value
0.364
0.000
0.460
0.051
0.002
0.064
0.818
0.005
0.001
0.000
0.201
0.405
%n >
TSWQS
-0.0
0.0
-0.0
-39.1
85.7
76.2
0.0
0.0
27.9
Signif
Over
Time
N
Y↑
N
Y↓
Y↑
N
N
Y↑
Y↑
Y↑
N
N
Signif
Over
Flow
-Y↓
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
100 E. Guenther St.
P. O. Box 839980
San Antonio, TX 78283-9980
Phone
(210) 227-1373
Toll Free (866) 345-7272
www.sara-tx.org

2013 Basin Summary Report - San Antonio River Authority

Transcription

Similar documents

verde creek ranch kerr county, tx - 287 ac +

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

Membership Application - Greater San Antonio Builders Association

Khiet Luong Pennsylvania Environmental Council 1315 W alnut

328 Acres in San Antonio, Texas

Khiet Luong Pennsylvania Environmental Council 1315 W alnut

Lower Pen. - Great Mall 9-1-11.indd

U.S.A. - Raisin-South Nation Source Protection

¡VIVA SA RUN!

Welcome To 7460 Bathrust St #614, Thornhill, L4J7K9 Batya Mishan